Smallc Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 Your answer was in the rest of his post which you snipped out. It was exactly what any Trudeau apologist would say, yes. Quote
BC_chick Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 It was exactly what any Trudeau apologist would say, yes. And this is why I don't like posting on this forum. Instead of addressing his point (which I can see clearly even though I'm no Trudeau supporter), your rebuttal is to bring up his personal views. That does not discredit the point he made. You have no argument and you are breaking forum rules by making it personal. Every time I start posting around here this happens and I forget how lame this place can be. Someone did the same thing to me on another thread yesterday. It's pathetic. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Keepitsimple Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 Authoritarian one-man decisions are for tyrants like Harper. Democracy requires consultation. . No - it doesn't. Sometimes it's nice - but no, it doesn't. And if you don't like the mandate that the people give the government - you always have an opportunity to "throw the bums out" the next time around. You can say this about Harper - just about everything he has done - that was within his control - are things that we knew he was going to do. No hidden agenda - everything on the table. You might not like some of it - or any of it - but there have been very few, if any surprises. Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 No - it doesn't. Sometimes it's nice - but no, it doesn't. And if you don't like the mandate that the people give the government - you always have an opportunity to "throw the bums out" the next time around. You can say this about Harper - just about everything he has done - that was within his control - are things that we knew he was going to do. No hidden agenda - everything on the table. You might not like some of it - or any of it - but there have been very few, if any surprises. Perhaps a little consultation could have saved wasting a lot of SCC time and money. Quote
Smallc Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 And this is why I don't like posting on this forum. Instead of addressing his point (which I can see clearly even though I'm no Trudeau supporter), your rebuttal is to bring up his personal views. Perhaps you should read his post again - he addressed nothing and opened by accusing the poster of being a Harper apologist. There is no different. That does not discredit the point he made. You have no argument and you are breaking forum rules by making it personal. What point was he making, exactly? Every time I start posting around here this happens and I forget how lame this place can be. Someone did the same thing to me on another thread yesterday. It's pathetic. If you open with sarcasm and insults, you'll get them back. Quote
Argus Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Your answer was in the rest of his post which you snipped out. No, it actually wasn't. If a man doesn't consult his caucus about matters which are extremely important to them, what makes you think a man will consult with them about other matters of public policy? And what makes you think a guy who doesn't care what his caucus thinks, who doesn't even bother to inform them about changes before going to the media, is going to care what other people think? I remember his father. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn what anyone thought about what he wanted to do. For that matter, neither did Mulroney much, and Chretien certainly didn't. He was a vindictive tyrant. Why do you people on the Left keep up with this idea that Harper is uniquely dictatorial? Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with national politics knew just how nasty Chretien was to anyone who dared to cross him, and it I didn't hear any complaints coming from you guys back then. And then there was Martin, a guy who was well-known for red faced screaming fits in the faces of any underling who displeased him, to the point they'd walk, shaking, from the room, having to wipe the spittle from their faces. Sweet! Harper can be fairly criticized on a whole host of issues. I don't get why you guys insist on demonizing him as unique and dangerous compared to his predecessors. Edited July 31, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
BC_chick Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 Perhaps you should read his post again - he addressed nothing and opened by accusing the poster of being a Harper apologist. There is no different. What point was he making, exactly? If you open with sarcasm and insults, you'll get them back. I didn't open with sarcasm and insults. I was told that my views on trophy-hunting are irrelevant because of my signature. Well, guess what? This is a political forum. Every single person has personal views (duh) and throwing out a personal's views instead of addressing their point is against forum rules yet it happens all the time. It gets personal very quickly. As for Waldo's point - he was making a distinction between internal party policy vs. policies that affect the population. I don't even like Harper but for argument's sake, I could think of several rebuttals to that point - yet you chose to make things personal. Lame. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Smallc Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 I didn't open with sarcasm and insults. He did. I pointed out what he was doing. Quote
BC_chick Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 He did. I pointed out what he was doing. So you addressed me to call Waldo an apologist? All I did was point out to Argus that question he was asking Waldo was answered in the parts he snipped from Waldo's post. Where is the logic? Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
BC_chick Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 No, it actually wasn't. If a man doesn't consult his caucus about matters which are extremely important to them, what makes you think a man will consult with them about other matters of public policy? And what makes you think a guy who doesn't care what his caucus thinks, who doesn't even bother to inform them about changes before going to the media, is going to care what other people think? I remember his father. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn what anyone thought about what he wanted to do. For that matter, neither did Mulroney much, and Chretien certainly didn't. He was a vindictive tyrant. Why do you people on the Left keep up with this idea that Harper is uniquely dictatorial? Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with national politics knew just how nasty Chretien was to anyone who dared to cross him, and it I didn't hear any complaints coming from you guys back then. And then there was Martin, a guy who was well-known for red faced screaming fits in the faces of any underling who displeased him, to the point they'd walk, shaking, from the room, having to wipe the spittle from their faces. Sweet! Harper can be fairly criticized on a whole host of issues. I don't get why you guys insist on demonizing him as unique and dangerous compared to his predecessors. So in your view, Justin Trudeau could very well be a Harper, he just hasn't had an opportunity because he has never been prime-minster. Yet instead of pointing out the discrepancy in Waldo's argument, you quote one line and make the rest of your post about Waldo personally. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Argus Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) So in your view, Justin Trudeau could very well be a Harper, he just hasn't had an opportunity because he has never been prime-minster. In my view, the Left has a phobia in which whatever Harper does is seen through a lens which seems to amplify his behaviour out of all proportion to what it deserves. Is Harper a nice guy who genuinely cares about the opinions of others? Nope! Neither was Martin. Neither was Chretien. Neither was Mulroney. Neither was Trudeau. The only difference is that you guys on the Left seem to regard this as unique to Harper. I've seen nothing about Trudeau Jr or Mister Angry Mulcair which indicates they will be the least bit different either. Yet instead of pointing out the discrepancy in Waldo's argument, you quote one line and make the rest of your post about Waldo personally. Waldo is extremely and consistently unpleasant. I try to keep my interaction with him to a minimum. Edited July 31, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 So you addressed me to call Waldo an apologist? All I did was point out to Argus that question he was asking Waldo was answered in the parts he snipped from Waldo's post. There was no answer there, and nothing to engage him on. Quote
August1991 Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 The facts are, if voters want change bad enough, then there will change in the PMO, and since right now polls show 66% want change, and since the polls are show the NDP are in the lead, then to get change, people will vote for the NDP to make at change, even if they are Tory and Liberal supporters because Harper needs to go. Voters under 45 better get out and vote or their retirement years may be very hard life because of the changes to CPP, OAS and the future of health care. I have visited other forums and read comments on different local newspapers, and not many support the Tories now.Topaz, your error is to assume that since some people want change, these people will vote for the NDP. They won't. Many otherwise federal Liberal voters, when given/forced to the stark choice between Harper and Mulcair, will choose Harper. I suspect that this calculus applies in particular in many critical Ontario ridings. Quote
August1991 Posted July 31, 2015 Report Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) In my view, the Left has a phobia in which whatever Harper does is seen through a lens which seems to amplify his behaviour out of all proportion to what it deserves. Is Harper a nice guy who genuinely cares about the opinions of others? Nope! Neither was Martin. Neither was Chretien. Neither was Mulroney. Neither was Trudeau. The only difference is that you guys on the Left seem to regard this as unique to Harper. I've seen nothing about Trudeau Jr or Mister Angry Mulcair which indicates they will be the least bit different either. I agree that this leftist meme of "Harper the Tyrant" is tiresome. And I agree that Trudeau Snr was the guy who generally thought himself to be the smartest man in the room. But Mulroney was consensual if harshly partisan. You don't get to this level of power without being extremely ambitious, competitive and convinced of your own rightness. If Trudeau Jnr has a fault, IMHO, it's that he's even more flakey than his predecessor. ====== BTW, IMHO, however negative the ads, the Conservatives will never reach the level of the Left in denigrating/castigating/humiliating the likes of Margaret Thatcher/Sarah Palin/George Bush Jnr/Stephen Harper/Stockwell Day. According to the Left, Thatcher and Harper are Hitler. Palin and Bush Jnr are ignorant fools. Day believed in the Flintstones. If this is how modern politics are played, then Harper has every right to portray Mulcair as Stalin and Trudeau Jnr as a younger brother Kartashian. Edited August 2, 2015 by August1991 Quote
waldo Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 So... I take it that's a 'no'. You don't care what Trudeau does, because whatever it is, it's good? read it again! Where you're, 'attempting to equate perceived tyranny in changes made to the internal workings of a party... versus changes (without consultation and in isolation) made by Harper that affect the lives of Canadians at large!" Quote
waldo Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 What point was he making, exactly? that only a Harper apologist (that would be you, as well), would attempt to, "equate perceived tyranny in changes made to the internal workings of a party... versus changes (without consultation and in isolation) made by Harper that affect the lives of Canadians at large!". . Quote
waldo Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 In my view, the Left has a phobia in which whatever Harper does is seen through a lens which seems to amplify his behaviour out of all proportion to what it deserves. Is Harper a nice guy who genuinely cares about the opinions of others? Nope! Neither was Martin. Neither was Chretien. Neither was Mulroney. Neither was Trudeau. The only difference is that you guys on the Left seem to regard this as unique to Harper. I've seen nothing about Trudeau Jr or Mister Angry Mulcair which indicates they will be the least bit different either. standard Harper apologist routine! Never accept any criticism of the guy in charge for the last decade! Always revert to pointing out presumed transgressions of other past Prime Ministers... go back as much as 50+ years to attempt to avoid any Harper accountability... ON ANYTHING! Quote
Topaz Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 Some reporters think that there is possibility, the NDP and the Tories are working together keep the liberals in third place because both of them want the senate gone. I'm not sure on this one, but anything possible in Ottawa, perhaps thats why the Tories haven't be attacking the NDP. Quote
Argus Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 read it again! Where you're, 'attempting to equate perceived tyranny in changes made to the internal workings of a party... versus changes (without consultation and in isolation) made by Harper that affect the lives of Canadians at large!" That is a fine distinction of no relevance. If Trudeau isn't going to consult with party members before making major changes there's no reason to suggest he would consult with the public either, or care what they had to say beyond what might affect poll numbers. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 I think Trudeau is playing the coalition thing fairly well. He is trying to keep his party brand pure by steering clear of a formal coalition, while also saying that he will work with other parties to ensure good legislation is passed. Since by the look of the polls, the best Harper can hope for is a slim minority, and if that does happen, there will be an unofficial agreement to keep Harper in line after the election. And that's a win for us all. Quote
poochy Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 keep Harper in line False Narrative, but keep reaching for the stars! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 False Narrative, but keep reaching for the stars! It's called a non-confidence vote. Have you heard of it? Quote
jacee Posted August 2, 2015 Report Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) I take it, then, that when Trudeau changed the rules and banned anyone with pro-life views from running for the Liberal Party, and severed the Liberal party's relationship with its own senators without consulting or even notifying his own caucus, you feel he was acting like a tyrant? Didn't his daddy describe MPs as "nobodies"? Why consult with nobodies, right?You think I care what 'Harper light' does? :/ Edited August 2, 2015 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted August 2, 2015 Report Posted August 2, 2015 No - it doesn't. Sometimes it's nice - but no, it doesn't. And if you don't like the mandate that the people give the government - you always have an opportunity to "throw the bums out" the next time around. You can say this about Harper - just about everything he has done - that was within his control - are things that we knew he was going to do. No hidden agenda - everything on the table. You might not like some of it - or any of it - but there have been very few, if any surprises. Democracy is 24/7, 365. Only subservient fools and idiots think democracy is only a ballot box. They don't tell us what democracy is. We pay them, we tell them!! . Quote
WIP Posted August 2, 2015 Report Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) I think Trudeau is playing the coalition thing fairly well. He is trying to keep his party brand pure by steering clear of a formal coalition, while also saying that he will work with other parties to ensure good legislation is passed. Since by the look of the polls, the best Harper can hope for is a slim minority, and if that does happen, there will be an unofficial agreement to keep Harper in line after the election. And that's a win for us all. The Liberal Party is floundering, and it's not all Justin Trudeau's fault! There are systemic problems that have led to declining memberships and funding, and Justin has to make the best of what he's got. The latest tracking polls indicate little has changed: the Cons are stuck at 31% (Harper has no hope in hell of keeping a majority government), while the Libs and NDP moved up slightly. The total seat projections show Harper holding on to a lead over the NDP by 10 seats (likely goodbye Harper Gov as well). Unless the Saudi's announce that their oil wells have run dry, and tarsands crud can be sold for $100 to $150 a barrel again, his plan of running as the "sound economic manager" will crash and burn as layoffs really take their toll out on the oilpatch. Some of the pundits who were doing the most talking yesterday were predicting that the Liberals are going to have a hard time holding on to what they've got, and it may boil down to a two party race between the NDP and the Conservatives. Though, without a complete collapse of the Liberals, they would still have some sort of role in government, as it's unlikely that either Conservatives or NDP will form a majority government. Off the topic of NDP/Liberal coalitions for a moment, I want to say that in the interests of democracy, there should be as many party leaders included in upcoming candidate debates as possible. So why should the Green Party or the Bloc be shut out? There should have a consistent standard for which parties are worthy to appear/and which are not. This will have a major determining factor for smaller parties like the Green Party or the Bloc have any potential to improve their numbers. First-past-the-post voting systems automatically skew in favour of old line existing parties, so why should the debate organizers be allowed to winnow the process down to three main parties? Eventually, they'll have us down to their desired goal of two big business-friendly parties....just like they have in the US! Edited August 2, 2015 by WIP Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
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.