Enjoy the hockey game, Mr Harper or

[msj]

I'm too new to this site to know what you did when the Liberals were in power. If you complained equally about their porkies, then fine. But if your newfound outrage just showed up since Harper is in the big chair, that makes you a lefty. That's all CPCFTW is saying.

Well, it is a nonsense way to argue a point.

The point is this - if it is wrong for Mr. X to obtain an undue personal benefit from taxpayers then it should also be wrong for Mr. Y.

Whether or not I complained about either Mr. X and/or Mr. Y has no bearing and no relevance to the fact that obtaining an undue personal benefit from taxpayers is wrong.

Now, had you guys stuck to whether or not it was/is an undue personal benefit then that's a fine line of reasoning for which we can agree to disagree.

But to go on about this "hater/sore loser/left" kind of ad hominem nonsense is just, well, nonsense.

[CPCFTW]

Fair enough.

I do think it is a legitimate point to point out that I'm not an MP and I don't like seeing "pigs" eating my taxpayer dollars with their pensions nor with personal benefits accruing to them by flying to a hockey game.

I also would like someone to explain to me how, exactly, making this point in any way makes me a "hater/sore loser/lefty?"

Even though the PM is already holding himself to a higher standard than any similar position in the public or private sector that required such security, your position is that he should be held to an even higher higher standard. Sounds reasonable.

The only reason I called you a lefty is because I think the argument is so unreasonable that I can only begin to comprehend it if you were a lefty who is just trying to fling as much mud at Harper as possible and hoping that some of it sticks. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

As an aside, I don't understand the indignation that many "progressives" ( ) or "liberals" or "socialists" have with being called a lefty. I certainly wouldn't take offense if you called me a righty since my views are generally right of centre. I get it, your positions cant all be categorized as "left". But since the majority of them are, some might call you a lefty.

[CPCFTW]

Well, it is a nonsense way to argue a point.

The point is this - if it is wrong for Mr. X to obtain an undue personal benefit from taxpayers then it should also be wrong for Mr. Y.

Whether or not I complained about either Mr. X and/or Mr. Y has no bearing and no relevance to the fact that obtaining an undue personal benefit from taxpayers is wrong.

Now, had you guys stuck to whether or not it was/is an undue personal benefit then that's a fine line of reasoning for which we can agree to disagree.

But to go on about this "hater/sore loser/left" kind of ad hominem nonsense is just, well, nonsense.

Why not start a new thread then if you're changing the topic to crying about being called a lefty, hater, or sore loser?

[RNG]

Well, it is a nonsense way to argue a point.

The point is this - if it is wrong for Mr. X to obtain an undue personal benefit from taxpayers then it should also be wrong for Mr. Y.

Whether or not I complained about either Mr. X and/or Mr. Y has no bearing and no relevance to the fact that obtaining an undue personal benefit from taxpayers is wrong.

Now, had you guys stuck to whether or not it was/is an undue personal benefit then that's a fine line of reasoning for which we can agree to disagree.

But to go on about this "hater/sore loser/left" kind of ad hominem nonsense is just, well, nonsense.

Two aspects here, totally separate. Are you wrong to hold Harper accountable? IMO no.

Are you a hypocrite and a lefty if you heap shit on Harper for this and not the Libs/NDP? IMO, yes.

[msj]

Even though the PM is already holding himself to a higher standard than any similar position in the public or private sector that required such security, your position is that he should be held to an even higher higher standard. Sounds reasonable.

The only reason I called you a lefty is because I think the argument is so unreasonable that I can only begin to comprehend it if you were a lefty who is just trying to fling as much mud at Harper as possible and hoping that some of it sticks. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

Yet more unsubstantiated ad hominem nonsense.

The argument makes sense.

Yes, you may argue that it just isn't "material" to complain about this.

But if it isn't material then why does he get credit for chipping in a few bucks?

Not particularly consistent on your part.

As an aside, I don't understand the indignation that many "progressives" ( ) or "liberals" or "socialists" have with being called a lefty. I certainly wouldn't take offense if you called me a righty since my views are generally right of centre. I get it, your positions cant all be categorized as "left". But since the majority of them are, some might call you a lefty.

It's about keeping the discussion focused on things relevant to the discussion.

Whether I'm a "hater/sore loser/lefty" and you're a "righty" has no relevance to the facts that have been presented.

Argue the points and not the person is the expression that comes to mind.

[WWWTT]

Harper is being historic in reimbursing us for personal travel and kudos for that.

However, why is he reimbursing us only $530 per flight ticket when a last minute flight costs $2,600.

Very nice.

Oh, and Mr. Harper - you're welcome.

I wonder if he will still try to write it off at tax time?

WWWTT

[msj]

Are you a hypocrite and a lefty if you heap shit on Harper for this and not the Libs/NDP? IMO, yes.

This really makes no sense.

I don't think this forum was even established when Chretien was in power so I fail to see how I could have complained about his abuses on here at that time.

Shall I get a time machine?

Once again - this has no relevance to the issue.

Clearly if I think it is wrong for Harper to do this then I think it is wrong for any other politician to do it too.

Whether I choose to publicly complain about it in a forum has more to do with how much time I have, whether I feel like arguing about something, if it has already been brought up by others etc....

So, I think the point you make above is BS: absence of a complaint does not imply in any way that I would not complain about a similar situation by another party.

Edited June 9, 2011 by msj

[RNG]

This really makes no sense.

I don't think this forum was even established when Chretien was in power so I fail to see how I could have complained about his abuses on here at that time.

Shall I get a time machine?

Once again - this has no relevance to the issue.

Clearly if I think it is wrong for Harper to do this then I think it is wrong for any other politician to do it too.

Whether I choose to publicly complain about it in a forum has more to do with how much time I have, whether I feel like arguing about something, if it has already been brought up by others etc....

So, I think the point you make above is BS: absence of a complaint does not imply in any way that I would not complain about a similar situation by another party.

I admitted that I haven't been here long enough to know your position then. And all I did was post two "if, then" positions, both of which are correct. I don't know what you keep going on about.

[Wild Bill]

This really makes no sense.

I quite agree. I think we all are forgetting the basic facts.

First off, the PM is NOT ALLOWED to take a commercial flight himself. He travels in the PM's plane or he doesn't get to fly at all.

Now, "Canada One" will always be far more expensive than a commercial flight, particularly with all the security staff involved.

Therefore, in the interest of fairness and to avoid appearing elitist with regard to the ordinary citizen, all Prime Ministers should not be allowed to go anywhere!

They should stay in Ottawa! Buy them a cheap TV and let them veg! Hell, no more limos, either! Limos are far fancier than the average citizen's sedan.

They should be forced to live like hermits! It might help to keep them from getting too used to keeping their position!

Unless they're Liberals or NDP, of course! Some pigs are more equal than others!

[msj]

I quite agree. I think we all are forgetting the basic facts.

First off, the PM is NOT ALLOWED to take a commercial flight himself. He travels in the PM's plane or he doesn't get to fly at all.

Now, "Canada One" will always be far more expensive than a commercial flight, particularly with all the security staff involved.

Therefore, in the interest of fairness and to avoid appearing elitist with regard to the ordinary citizen, all Prime Ministers should not be allowed to go anywhere!

They should stay in Ottawa! Buy them a cheap TV and let them veg! Hell, no more limos, either! Limos are far fancier than the average citizen's sedan.

They should be forced to live like hermits! It might help to keep them from getting too used to keeping their position!

Unless they're Liberals or NDP, of course! Some pigs are more equal than others!

Do we really have to go through this again?

We have already dealt with these issues so read the previous five and a half pages and come back and post something new.

Edited June 9, 2011 by msj

[msj]

I admitted that I haven't been here long enough to know your position then. And all I did was post two "if, then" positions, both of which are correct. I don't know what you keep going on about.

My position is as stated much earlier in this thread.

Whether or not I complain about Liberals/NDP when they do the same stuff would, at worst, make me a hypocrite and is hardly relevant to the point of this thread.

In fact, I could probably charge you with hypocrisy since if this was Layton doing something similar to this you would probably be complaining about it (and, rightfully so, imo).

Being a hypocrite, or not, doesn't change the fact that taxpayers should not be paying for undue personal benefits for any politician.

IMV, Harper has not gone far enough to ensure that he has not received an undue personal benefit.

Just because Chretien did sweet bugger all is also no excuse.

So, really, I think the point is this: Saipan, RNG, CPCFTW and Wild Bill (any others?) are spending too much time arguing about something that is irrelevant (whether or not I'm a "lefty) and not enough time on the merits of the argument (whether Harper is receiving an undue personal benefit).

I suspect that we agree to disagree on the personal benefit thing.

If you think it is not material enough to complain about then I think the logic could be extended to let Chretien off the hook too.

I mean, who cares if he took the plane down to Florida for some golf. He was on vacation and what does it matter if he didn't reimburse us taxpayers for the equivalent commercial flight. [This is sarcasm]

Yeah, well it does matter.

To Harper it matters enough that he has done something about it (for which I have given my kudos already).

I'm saying he hasn't gone far enough.

[RNG]

My position is as stated much earlier in this thread.

Whether or not I complain about Liberals/NDP when they do the same stuff would, at worst, make me a hypocrite and is hardly relevant to the point of this thread.

In fact, I could probably charge you with hypocrisy since if this was Layton doing something similar to this you would probably be complaining about it (and, rightfully so, imo).

Being a hypocrite, or not, doesn't change the fact that taxpayers should not be paying for undue personal benefits for any politician.

IMV, Harper has not gone far enough to ensure that he has not received an undue personal benefit.

Just because Chretien did sweet bugger all is also no excuse.

So, really, I think the point is this: Saipan, RNG, CPCFTW and Wild Bill (any others?) are spending too much time arguing about something that is irrelevant (whether or not I'm a "lefty) and not enough time on the merits of the argument (whether Harper is receiving an undue personal benefit).

I suspect that we agree to disagree on the personal benefit thing.

If you think it is not material enough to complain about then I think the logic could be extended to let Chretien off the hook too.

I mean, who cares if he took the plane down to Florida for some golf. He was on vacation and what does it matter if he didn't reimburse us taxpayers for the equivalent commercial flight. [This is sarcasm]

Yeah, well it does matter.

To Harper it matters enough that he has done something about it (for which I have given my kudos already).

I'm saying he hasn't gone far enough.

I guess we will agree to disagree. I support CPCFTW's position that Harper does deserve a life.

[msj]

I guess we will agree to disagree. I support CPCFTW's position that Harper does deserve a life.

Oh, I agree.

I just don't want to subsidize him more than is necessary.

[RNG]

Oh, I agree.

I just don't want to subsidize him more than is necessary.

Your definition of necessary? Or mine, or CPCFTW's? Who the hell made you the head of the world police?

[Sandy MacNab]

Oh, I agree.

I just don't want to subsidize him more than is necessary.

Well, as has been so clearly established by others, he wasn't! It's also been clearly established through your sanctimonious rants that you are a "hater, sore loser, lefty" of the "liberal" persuasion. Suck it up Buttercup and move on.

[msj]

Your definition of necessary? Or mine, or CPCFTW's? Who the hell made you the head of the world police?

This is a forum where people start a thread and offer their opinion.

Other people respond and offer their opinion.

Then people either agree or disagree.

Nowhere have I stated that I am the head of the world police and you have presented yet another non sequitur.

[msj]

Well, as has been so clearly established by others, he wasn't! It's also been clearly established through your sanctimonious rants that you are a "hater, sore loser, lefty" of the "liberal" persuasion. Suck it up Buttercup and move on.

Hmmm, I have presented evidence that he has paid $530 for commercial flight tickets for which a last minute ticket would normally cost $2,600. [see an earlier post and the link within that post]

Now, where is your evidence?

Or are you all about calling names rather than arguing the points?

[Wild Bill]

Hmmm, I have presented evidence that he has paid $530 for commercial flight tickets for which a last minute ticket would normally cost $2,600. [see an earlier post and the link within that post]

Now, where is your evidence?

Or are you all about calling names rather than arguing the points?

$530 is quite typical. All you have to do is drive across the border and take an American airline from an American city.

This would prove that Harper is just an "ordinary Joe" like the rest of us, since this practice is exceedingly common among Canadians today.

Flying out of cities like Toronto has become so expensive as to be ridiculous by comparison. Any body who doesn't believe this is invited to see with their own eyes all the Canadian licence plates at the Buffalo Park'n'Fly. Eppur Si Muove...

[RNG]

$530 is quite typical. All you have to do is drive across the border and take an American airline from an American city.

This would prove that Harper is just an "ordinary Joe" like the rest of us, since this practice is exceedingly common among Canadians today.

Flying out of cities like Toronto has become so expensive as to be ridiculous by comparison. Any body who doesn't believe this is invited to see with their own eyes all the Canadian licence plates at the Buffalo Park'n'Fly. Eppur Si Muove...

Blaine Washington is like the official holiday/business parking lot for greater Vancouver. Losers.

[Smallc]

$530 is quite typical. All you have to do is drive across the border and take an American airline from an American city.

Oh come now, the difference isn't that big. The difference can be big, but not that big.

The reality is, Canada does have high taxes on flying. The other reality is that America has made flying cheap at the cost of everyone who works in the airline industry. Just ask the man who landed in the Hudson. There's also the reality that, given Americas deficit (at every level of government), and falling dollar they're going to need to do something about things, and prices aren't going to be able to stay low forever.

Edit: I looked at tickets to London from Winnipeg, Minot, and Grand Forks. Winnipeg was the cheapest...and two hours closer to me.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Smallc

[RNG]

Just ask the man who landed in the Hudson.

I'm calling you on this one. Let's see a link.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm calling you on this one. Let's see a link.

Here Ya' go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6467421/Hudson-River-pilot-Chesley-Sullenberger-claims-cost-cutting-airlines-risk-lives.html

[Smallc]

I'm calling you on this one. Let's see a link.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ea_1302398915

[RNG]

Here Ya' go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6467421/Hudson-River-pilot-Chesley-Sullenberger-claims-cost-cutting-airlines-risk-lives.html

I spent a career flying into northern Alberta, B.C. and the Yukon. Sometimes on planes with single digit serial numbers. And yes, those pilots were mostly young and probably would have paid for their jobs because they loved flying that much. I also have two friends who have been big company pilots, one with Quantas and one with Air Canada. And they make big bucks. I don't believe this whiner's bitches has any relevance to major airlines.

Edited June 10, 2011 by RNG

[Smallc]

I spent a career flying into northern Alberta, B.C. and the Yukon. Sometimes on planes with single digit serial numbers. And yes, those pilots were mostly young and probably would have paid for their jobs because they loved flying that much. I also have two friends who have been big company pilots, one with Quantas and one with Air Canada.

And none of that says anything about the state of aviation in the US (parts of it are the safest in the world, and parts of it aren't).