Accountability Now

I will gladly discuss Mulroney or Chretien with you when you actually prove you have a clue about surpluses and deficits. Thus far you have been provided the info but either willingly choose to ignore it or are that daft to not understand it. No use in exploring a more inticate conversation with someone as elementary as yourself. So...back to the beginning... is all debt Conservative?

Captain Obvious? Is that you??? I’ll give you a hint...I’m talking about another country

You mean Mr Chretien, who had a 40 billion dollar combined deficit during his years in office? Of course he did get some help in his latter years during a surging world economy. Try your Google skills by entering The Dot Com bubble. If you are really daring, check to see who else had surpluses those years.

No....no you didn't. Because any sane person trying to make an argument against the Conservatives would not have posted an article supporting them! You read the title and thought you had your Ah HA! moment but it blew up in your face. Of course now you move on to your next tactic of deflection. I have shown you. Many times. The fact that you can't read the interactive chart is not my fault. I can give you a little hint, if there is a minus sign (you know....a horizontal dash) next to the number then that means deficit (not debt which confuses you as well). If there is no sign next to the number then that means surplus. This happens in three years under Harpers terms. Would it help if they put in a plus sign? You know the sign that looks like the first aid symbol? Would that help? I can draw you a picture and put those in if you can't see from the graphic that i have pointed to MULTIPLE TIMES!

You really are a dreamer. He did it to keep the conniving weasels from taking over. Luckily the people of Canada agreed with him and gave him a majority so that type of extortion wouldn’t happen.

Thought you might like this one too. Very similar but adds a few points. 100 years Justin? Yeesh....

Don't tell me you are playing the same game as Eric? Its not going so well for him. I'll help you out though. Have a read and maybe focus on the last line to see why that deficit happened.

Man...do I love when a poster that I am debating (well more like I'm toying with) actually posts something that contradicts his whole argument. I am guessing that you googled conservative and deficits, then found this article and read the title only thinking you found your savior! Am i right? Am I right??? Lol Perhaps you actually want to read what the article says....you know like the parts where it says: Or maybe this: But this is the part you really should have focused on: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ANYTHING HOLY....READ WHAT YOU POST AND TRY YOUR BEST TO COMPREHEND IT AS IT JUST OBLITERATED YOUR ARGUMENT!

Do you mean the policy of GST which Jean Chretien strongly campaigned to get rid of once he got in. What? We still have GST? Why that dastardly devil! Of course your comment is true but unfortunately works against you as the only one saddled with poor policies was Mulrooney who had to deal with Trudeau Senoir's missteps. There was little to no debt before he came into office and then introduced a slew of deficit ridden policy that took us in that direction. bleeding? He was handed a balanced budget when he took office. You really don't understand numbers do you? And by fixing it you mean consecutive deficits for the foreseeable future? That is fixing it??

Are you that daft? Do you know how to add or do I have to hold your hand on that? If you add up every year that Chrétien had surpluses, it would come up to about 60 billion! How on earth do you think he paid off 140 billion of debt with 60 billion?? Oh wait...it gets better. It would be great if Cretien only had surpluses however his first three years he ran massive deficits that added up to 100 billion. So as I stated earlier, his net contribution to the debt was 40 billion. You’re really struggling here. Might want to retreat and figure what other Harper bashing therapy works for you

Nope. Never once ignored that or tried to hide it. I even supplied the link showing the various deficits by each leader....did you miss that too? Please try to keep up to the conversation will ya? Your pal Eric made the claim that all only conservatives have added to the debt which was just preposterous and was the point being argued.

Nailed it!

Let me guess....some right wing leaning guy fired you from your entry level job about 30 years ago and you've never forgotten. So now you go on to fight the good fight of revenge but instead of using fact and other objective things like numbers, you choose to use illiterate ramblings and incoherent jabs to try and get your frustrations out. No matter how much you babble on, it will not erase the fact that Trudeau Sr added ~140 billion to the debt in his time. Even your beloved Cretien added ~40 billion to the debt by the time he was done. The only leader in recent history to NOT add to the debt was Paul Martin who was only in for two years. THEY ALL ADD TO THE DEBT INCLUDING YOUR BELOVED LIBERALS!!!

LMFAO! You used your Google skills to actually have some one explain this to you. Do you get it now? Debt does not equal Deficit but rather deficits add to the debt. So your moronic comment that only Conservatives have added to the debt is easily disproven by looking at the vast number of years that Liberals ran deficit years. Although I am getting the sense that you already know this and are really just here to troll...

You proved my point! You don't know the difference between DEBT (which is the chart you posted) and DEFICITS (which is the interactive chart that I posted). The two links are NOT the same. Do you need me to help you out further or do you want to use your Google skills to look up the definitions for each of those?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between debt and deficit. Maybe have a read through this interactive chart to see who has added to the debt. http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

100% agreed. People are arguing that the game shouldn't end in a shoot out but if that game kept going then the US would have won. They were all over the Canadians who in turn were making numerous mistakes in attempt to hold on. The only thing I questioned was why the coach put out their rookie defenseman for the powerplay at the end of the OT period considering she hadn't seen the ice since the second period! She looked terrible (which anyone would if you just sat for 25 plus minutes) and basically negated a good portion of the power play. Other than that I felt they lost to a better team.

Timing couldn’t be any worse. Like @?Impact said, this was a flaw in his security detail but makes him look terrible as it happened minutes after he announced his support to a united India. Yikes

Didn’t stop one of his Ministers or his wife from posing for a picture with the guy

And here we go again... Convicted attempted murderer invited to formal dinner with Trudeau in India http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/jaspal-atwal-invite-dinner-sophie-1.4545881

By family do you mean his wife? I can’t find any pictures with his kids but then again maybe he was just a tad bit more subtle with the photo ops compared to JT? A couple points here: 1) The claim in your article is that these expenses disappeared in 2016. You know Harper wasn’t PM at that point right?? He really haunts your dreams doesn’t he? 2) If you read your own link you would have read it was the RCMP allegedly purged the documents nor Harper. But if you really wanted to be sure of your point you could have read the related link on your article that actually showed they weren’t destroyed but rather the RCMP had a number of glitches that made it tough to find. Again, nothing to do with Harper but don’t let that stop you from exacerbating your HDS.

There is no denying that he misspoke and that the truth is 750 million is going to India and 250 million is coming to Canada. Maybe not a lie but still misspoke which doesn't bode well as a display of confidence. Maybe he should have worked full days instead of making it a family vacation and he would know the details of the deal?

@?Impact @Gingerteeth Charter 13 for our Charter of Rights and Freedmom leads to the answer: The Crown could still prosecute them but would not be able to use any of the testimony from this proceeding which makes it pointless.

The only reasonable reason they haven't been charged is because they were given immunity from the Crown in exchange for their testimony pertaining to Stanley. Testimony that proved very helpful in showing that Stanley was not guilty as they deemed Stanley had reasonable conducted himself when a bunch of hooligans, attempting to steal came on to his property. Without that testimony they might not have got that side of the story and we may still be left to believe that Boushie and his clan were just innocent bystanders looking for help (as it was first thought)