PIK Posted December 14, 2011 Report Posted December 14, 2011 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/13/jonathan-kay-why-is-chretien-squandering-his-legacy-on-cheap-propaganda-for-a-failing-party/ To all liberals out there chretien and company think you are as stupid as a 2x4 , bring out the hidden adgenda again. Talk about a desperate party. IMO he killed the liberal party and I think he did it on purpose, to cement his legacy as the best lib PM we have had. I laugh. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
olp1fan Posted December 14, 2011 Report Posted December 14, 2011 No one buys it so no damage done Harpers smart enough to know not to go down the road of attacking abortion, gay marriage, and legalizing capital punishment Chretiens always full of hot air Quote
Moonbox Posted December 14, 2011 Report Posted December 14, 2011 Just a big old flappy bag of hot air. His comments will be given the merit they deserve (nobody will pay attention). Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
guyser Posted December 14, 2011 Report Posted December 14, 2011 No one buys it so no damage done IIRC he has raised $1.4 M from this. They may not be buying, bu they certainly are ponying up for it. Quote
Bryan Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 Chretien is senile, let him rant. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 What a bitter pill for him to swallow. He destroyed the Liberal Party and now he has to resort to begging for money so his party doesn't go extinct. How the mighty have fallen. Quote
jbg Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 No one buys it so no damage done Harpers smart enough to know not to go down the road of attacking abortion, gay marriage, and legalizing capital punishment Chretiens always full of hot air Just a big old flappy bag of hot air. His comments will be given the merit they deserve (nobody will pay attention). As to what you're both saying, here's the proof. Oops none needed since a proof is a proof. What is a proof? It's a proof. And when you have a good proof it's because it's proven. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU Also, notice the e-mails the Liberal Party have been mailing out lately. All from has beens or washed-up never-was' such as Mssr. Chretien and John Napier Turner. What's next, tails from the crypt such as Pierre Elliot Trudeau? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 People always mock Chretien for that "proof is a proof" moment, but the reporter asked a stupid question: "What is a proof?" So tell me, how do you answer that question... "What is a proof?" He's mocking the dumb question he was asked. Quote
jbg Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 People always mock Chretien for that "proof is a proof" moment, but the reporter asked a stupid question: "What is a proof?" So tell me, how do you answer that question... "What is a proof?" He's mocking the dumb question he was asked. No, he was asked what it would take to prove to him that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
na85 Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 Gee, an anti-Liberal editorial from the National Post? Excuse me while I write down this historic occasion. Quote
dre Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 No, he was asked what it would take to prove to him that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Turned out he was bang on. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 No, he was asked what it would take to prove to him that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was a stupid question because the reporter was trying to get him to speculate about some future event. What would it take for Chretien to believe that there are WMDs in Iraq? Proof, he said. Then the reporter asked him, "what is proof?" How is he supposed to answer that? Proof is a proof. The US needed to prove that there were WMD there. However they do that is up to them. They didn't do that before the war and they didn't do it after the war. There was no proof, ever. Quote
Battletoads Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 No, he was asked what it would take to prove to him that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8YwJC_nBgw Wonder what would it would take for Harper do his own thinking. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Evening Star Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 Agree with cc here. I actually like this JC moment. People always mock Chretien for that "proof is a proof" moment, but the reporter asked a stupid question: "What is a proof?" So tell me, how do you answer that question... "What is a proof?" He's mocking the dumb question he was asked. Quote
Evening Star Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) to cement his legacy as the best lib PM we have had. I didn't think anyone believed this? First time I'm hearing the claim anyway. I'm guessing that even Chretien himself would pick Pearson or Trudeau (possibly King). Edited December 15, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
cybercoma Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 Pearson, hands down, is the greatest Prime Minister of all time by any standard. Quote
jbg Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 Pearson, hands down, is the greatest Prime Minister of all time by any standard. Except he kick-started the divisive bi-bi policies, shredded the flag, and launched a ruinous immigration policy. I do respect him for standing up to that twit, LBJ. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 Except he kick-started the divisive bi-bi policies, shredded the flag, and launched a ruinous immigration policy. I do respect him for standing up to that twit, LBJ. He didn't create the divisiveness. The bi-bi policies were a response to those growing divisions. Quote
jbg Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 He didn't create the divisiveness. The bi-bi policies were a response to those growing divisions. Appeasement is never the solution. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 Appeasement is never the solution. Unless it comes to appeasing the US, right? Quote
Evening Star Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) Ha, on domestic policy, I'd easily pick LBJ as the greatest postwar US president and maybe even a competitor with FDR. Edited December 15, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
jbg Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 He didn't create the divisiveness. The bi-bi policies were a response to those growing divisions. Appeasement is never the solution. Unless it comes to appeasing the US, right? Well, can I ask you a question? Has Official Bi-lingualism and/or bi-culturalism ameliorated or halted separatist sentiment? Is it not true that the 1976 election occurred after Pearson's mandate and after a good chunk of Trudeau's mandate? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 I will answer your question with a question, since you're asking me to predict a hypothetical. Had bi-bi not been the response to the overthrow of the Catholic Church in Quebec and the growing intense nationalism that was snowballing during the Quiet Revolution, do you think that the separatist sentiment would have been better or worse? Quote
Guest Peeves Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 I didn't think anyone believed this? First time I'm hearing the claim anyway. I'm guessing that even Chretien himself would pick Pearson or Trudeau (possibly King). One must of course differentiate between the best P.M. and the 'best' politician. Seldom one and the same. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted December 15, 2011 Report Posted December 15, 2011 Pearson, hands down, is the greatest Prime Minister of all time by any standard. I can't fault your choice, he was certainly able. His (only) 4 year term left ahim wanting as a clear choice perhaps. Lester Pearson was one of Canada's preeminent statesmen. A former President of the U.N. General Assembly, he had won a Nobel Peace Prize for his supervision of a peacekeeping mission in the Suez Canal. Entering politics seemed like a clear step down for someone like Pearson, but he was too ambitious to stay at the UN. He beat Diefenbaker in the 1963 election but only got a minority government.Pearson's most visible legacy was the introduction of a distinct Canadian flag. As a UN diplomat, Pearson had been repeatedly frustrated by people judging him based on his country's ties to Britain; ties that were embarrassingly highlighted by the prominent Union Jack on Canada's flag. Pearson lobbied to change it, and after the longest political debate in Canadian history, the Maple Leaf flag (or "Pearson Pennant") was adopted. In the realm of foreign policy, Pearson was famously pragmatic. Canada acquired nuclear weapons during his term as part of a joint partnership with the US, but he also broke sharply with the Americans over the Vietnam War, which he steadfastly kept Canadian troops out of. Today in Canada people still speak nostalgically about the golden era of "Personian diplomacy," a time when Canada was actually a relevant player in important international matters. Pearson is often considered to be one of Canada's greatest Prime Ministers, which is ironic considering he was never very popular while in office. He only served for four years before resigning. Quote
Recommended Posts
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.