Jump to content

Up the Revolution!


Recommended Posts

No the supreme court forced the Liberals hand with out them the Liberals would have ignored the issue forever.

When the PM got the reference back, he knew he had to act. Say what you want about Liberals, but Paul Martin was an honest and honourable person.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW, since the Chief Justice decided to learn French once on the Court, could it because because she thinks bilingualism is a good knowledge for SCC judges to have?¨ She must think it is something useful to have once a Supreme. :D

It would be useful, but not nearly as useful as legal acumen and shrewd judgement. And what you keep ignoring is the fact that outside specific regions almost nobody is bilingual. That means pretty much all SC judges would have to come from Montreal or western Quebec, NB or eastern Ontario.

Edited by Scotty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the PM got the reference back, he knew he had to act. Say what you want about Liberals, but Paul Martin was an honest and honourable person.

We can agree though the Court forced Martin to address an issue he never otherwise would have though? That is all I am saying. I am agreeing with you Martin never had a gay agenda he had a "I gotta deal with this issue now might as well deal with it in the right way" agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can agree though the Court forced Martin to address an issue he never otherwise would have though? That is all I am saying. I am agreeing with you Martin never had a gay agenda he had a "I gotta deal with this issue now might as well deal with it in the right way" agenda.

I agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Martin didn't have a pro gay agenda. He was personally not in favour of allowing gay marriage. It was a matter of principle.

LOL. Paul Martin had no principals! He seized on the gay agenda not, I agree, because he was any great proponent, but because it was a great issue to use to make himself and his party seem, well 'liberal' and to portray the Alliance as nasty, hatemongering and intolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the PM got the reference back, he knew he had to act. Say what you want about Liberals, but Paul Martin was an honest and honourable person.

Paul Martin was a lying, conniving, dishonest weasel who would have sacrificed his own mother to Satan to be prime minister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. Paul Martin had no principals! He seized on the gay agenda not, I agree, because he was any great proponent, but because it was a great issue to use to make himself and his party seem, well 'liberal' and to portray the Alliance as nasty, hatemongering and intolerant.

No way the Gay marriage vote tore his party in half. It was the wedge issue in the Liberal caucus the party still hasn't healed from that rift it caused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way the Gay marriage vote tore his party in half.

Yeah? How many MPs resigned over it? How many people quit the party over it? As far as my memory goes there was some grumbling, but nobody rocked the boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Right, because you have so much proof. Harper is far more dishonest than Martin.

You were probably still in diapers back then. You clearly don't remember how everyone kept telling the government that it needed to close down the offshore tax loopholes that allowed companies to operate in Canada but pay no taxes. Finally, he acted, years after the fact, closing down all the offshore sites but one -- uhm, the one his company was using. That's right, none of his ships were registered in Canada, not even the one that got caught smuggling heroin - into a port which had no police because Martin ordered the Ports Police disbanded.

Hmmmm, big time ship owner, disbands ports police, organized crime takes over the ports, and one of his ships gets caught smuggling dope. Just a coincidence, I'm sure...

I remember when it turned out that some puny little private airport in Quebec got more money from the feds for upgrades and renovations than all the airports in Alberta combined. Turns out it was the airport his father in law used to get to his summer home.

And let's not forget how he ignored the advice and urging of Foreign Affairs, the RCMP, CSIS, and the Americans to support a terrorist supporting Sri Lankan group - and refused to outlaw them because they donated money to his campaign and supported the Liberal party.

Yeah, nice guy Paul Martin, known as mr dithers for his indecisiveness, but also known to scream into the faces of subordinates - bully.

And, of course, the man who controlled almost half the party, with hundreds of loyalists in key positions, especially in Quebec, didn't have a clue about the sponsorship scandal. Right. Sure.

Edited by Scotty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no proof then. Understood.

Proof that he was a liar, or conniving, or that he was a weasel? Or proof that he was all three at the same time. I think we could easily find proof that he was a liar and that he was conniving. I'm not sure about the weasel part. I'd need blood samples for that.

Here's a pretty despicable lie Martin told just off the top of my head:

http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=5203

Do you remember that one?

As for conniving, his budget magic with EI reform and slashing transfers to the province to make himself look like a finance guru was pretty interesting.

Do we need to go on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like he said the wrong thing, and then handled it pretty well. He was very honourable. One only has to look at his response to sponsorship to see. As for the budget, he did balance it, and nothing that he did was illegal. He shrunk government. That's what conservatives always talk about it, but they don't seem to like when Liberals do it. The reality is, pretty much every economist agrees that what he did was right. Some people let their hatred for anything Liberal blind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like he said the wrong thing, and then handled it pretty well. He was very honourable.

So lying through your teeth is okay, as long as you apologize when you get caught. What's more, the apology then makes you an honourable man!

One only has to look at his response to sponsorship to see.

You mean his closing down the House of Commons committee hearings because they started to get embarrassing? Uhm, ok.

As for the budget, he did balance it, and nothing that he did was illegal.

If he'd done the same sorts of accounting games as the accountant of a private company he'd have been arrested.

[ Some people let their hatred for anything Liberal blind them.

And some desperate liberals let themselves be blinded by ignoring what they don't want to face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't voted Liberal ever. That still doesn't change the fact that PMPM was one of the most honest that we ever had. The accounting that he used was quite legitimate, and though he gave in to human frailties sometimes (we all lie at some point - deal with it) he lies far less than most. Certainly less than Chretien and Martin. Don Newman always said that the finance ministers, including Flaherty and Martin, were the most honest politicians that he ever met.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't voted Liberal ever.

I said you were a liberal, not a Liberal.

That still doesn't change the fact that PMPM was one of the most honest that we ever had

.

You could say the same about Mulroney and Chretien if you just willed yourself into ignoring all the stuff they did which wasn't honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said you were a liberal, not a Liberal.

On some issues, I am, and on sume issues, I'm not. Paul Martin was the same way.

You could say the same about Mulroney and Chretien if you just willed yourself into ignoring all the stuff they did which wasn't honest.

You most certainly couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smallc, you don't have to apolgize for being liberal minded.

This is Canada, after all. It's okay to like freedom and other liberal things like free trade.

I largely agree with you and find it funny how Conservatives are too chicken-sh!t to make cuts that PM did make to wrestle the budget into surplus (so then we could get good tax cuts rather than the appalling boutique tax crap cuts Harper doles out).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(so then we could get good tax cuts rather than the appalling boutique tax crap cuts Harper doles out).

No kidding. What a complete waste of money. Cut the brackets, raised the exemption limit, do anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it is looking like tax increases (NDP) or boutique tax cuts. Which poison to you want to drink?

In the long term I will pick tax increases.

Why?

Because eventually it can lead to the dismantling of some of those stupid boutique tax cuts and bring in a simpler system with lower tax rates.

Oh, and we also have a deficit problem so maybe the people should be reminded that if you want your government to increase spending year in and year out (like drunken CPC sailors) then you better be prepared to pay for it too.

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take cut tax cut over long term to 1% on small business which drives the Canadian economy and Jobs. VOTE NDP!

That's a good point.

The corporate tax cut is for big corporations.

I have a small corporation and that tax cut doesn't touch me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That still doesn't change the fact that PMPM was one of the most honest that we ever had.

Oh man...you're so naive. I'm sorry. There's a laundry list of lies Paul Martin was pinned on. He promised to eliminate the GST, which he never did.

He used a picture of Harper whispering to Duceppe at a Holocaust memorial to support fears of a coalition.

The fact that the Liberals campaigned on health care throughout the 90's and early 2000's and then slashed health spending like no other government in Canadian history go to show you that he VERY MUCH the every day politician. I voted for him the first election when he got his minority because I liked that he at least went after the deficit. I saw him for the liar and politician he was, however, and I'm kind of chuckling about your comments. I'm not sure you were even voting when he was first elected though. You were probably still in highschool?

The accounting that he used was quite legitimate, and though he gave in to human frailties sometimes (we all lie at some point - deal with it) he lies far less than most. Certainly less than Chretien and Martin. Don Newman always said that the finance ministers, including Flaherty and Martin, were the most honest politicians that he ever met.

The most honest politician you ever met is a pretty dubious honor. You have to be pragmatic with politicians. Understand that they will lie, and why they have to lie, and you'll be a lot better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point.

The corporate tax cut is for big corporations.

I have a small corporation and that tax cut doesn't touch me.

Not only that the NDP wants to use the extra 1% to big corporations they will roll back to give a TAX CUT to small business. They are using the Manitoba/NS model for their tax structure. In Manitoba under an NDP government they cut the small business tax every year until it was gone, as long as they could afford it they cut it. In NS over only two years of NDP government they have beat the business tax 4% and want it to go lower as long as they can afford it.

This is in the NDP platform. It is what they believe will create and keep jobs in Canada and has been shown by two NDP governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...