bush_cheney2004 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 Most Canadian journalists are smug monkey-see, monkey do jerks with lots of snark but not a lot of brains. That's why so many Canadians turn to the American or British media to get international news. Marche also seems a bit confused about the difference between a mayor and a prime minister. ....Marche needs to take a civics class and get out more often. This is typical Canadian reporting. Sigh. It appears that the author (Marche) just used his existing position to write an election hit piece on PM Harper. Nothing remarkable about that. What is unusual is the presumed engagement or relevance to the Esquire/NYT audience, most of whom don't know or care who the present or future PM of Canada is. Ergo, hardly an international embarrassment. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
poochy Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 I appreciate all you Harper Conservative supporters are feverishly attempting to distract from Harper failings by continuing to shout, 'look squirrel'! By the by, this happens to be the Federal Politics forum... and for what it's worth... I don't live in Ontari-ari-ari-o! Trudeau complains about budegt deficit, Trudeau wont commit to balancing the budget, the Onatario government has done nothing but attack the PM, while supporting Trudeau, while running a 12 billion dollar defict of her own, and having been part of the liberal regime that has doubled Ontario's debt and added as much in one province as the feds did for the whole nation. But yea, just like every other billion dollar scandal in Onatrio isnt as important as $90,000 of repaid money, the obvious hypocrisy of the federal liberals complaing about a small federal deficit while being joined at the hip with the most delinquent government in the country, also doesn't matter to people without anything approaching principles. in other words, if you cared at all about honesty, or principles, you would have to consider the federal deficit, and recent debt increases, relatively small, especially in light of recent world events, and in comparison to other countries, and even other provinces within our own country, it is small. But, again, you are disengenious, you are here to put on a show, nothing deeper than that. Quote
waldo Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 But, again, you are disengenious, you are here to put on a show, nothing deeper than that. 'look squirrel'! Again, this is the Federal Politics forum; your continued deflection of Harper failings by repeatedly referencing the province of Ontario is once again noted. you keep nattering on about the $90K... at some point you'll realize l'affaire Duffy is not about the money... is much, much more than the bribe amount. you declare recent Harper debt increases... "relatively small"? How is Harper adding $175 Billion to Canada's debt... relatively small? How is Harper accountable for ~25% of the total accumulated debt... ever... (most since 2008)... relatively small? How is Harper completely wiping away the $81 billion debt reduction gains of Martin/Chretien... relatively small? How is 7 consecutive Harper deficits... relatively small? Etc., etc., etc.. Quote
waldo Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 What is unusual is the presumed engagement or relevance to the Esquire/NYT audience, most of whom don't know or care who the present or future PM of Canada is. Ergo, hardly an international embarrassment. again... are you really asking the NY Times to account for the interests/distribution of its readership, domestic or other? Are you implying there are no other Americans (real or claimed) that have interest in Canada... interest to either your obsessive level or other? Quote
Argus Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 oh pleeeeese! If nothing else, without getting into actual specifics of wasted money and vote-buying... where's the "honesty" in continually floating that ever elusive balanced budget balloon, year over year... and in this most recent budget, where's the honesty in trumpeting a pre-election balanced promise that had no foundation in reality and that only (ON PAPER) could be realized by dipping into a so-called contingency fund? I said in how he handles our money, not in his politicized spin doctoring and PR work. As for vote buying, he's a piker compared to the governments which preceded him. And both opposition parties have offered up massive new spending programs also designed to buy votes, only without any idea how they intend to pay for them. 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
Argus Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 There are certain leaders in the world that make other people's lives a living hell and people in the world will react to that and because of C-51, I can't really say what I want and you know they are monitoring all these forums. That sounds suspiciously like the ravings of a paranoid looney, actually... 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
ReeferMadness Posted August 16, 2015 Author Report Posted August 16, 2015 It's no longer surpr 'look squirrel'! Again, this is the Federal Politics forum; your continued deflection of Harper failings by repeatedly referencing the province of Ontario is once again noted. you keep nattering on about the $90K... at some point you'll realize l'affaire Duffy is not about the money... is much, much more than the bribe amount. you declare recent Harper debt increases... "relatively small"? How is Harper adding $175 Billion to Canada's debt... relatively small? How is Harper accountable for ~25% of the total accumulated debt... ever... (most since 2008)... relatively small? How is Harper completely wiping away the $81 billion debt reduction gains of Martin/Chretien... relatively small? How is 7 consecutive Harper deficits... relatively small? Etc., etc., etc.. You fail to appreciate the mentality of the Harperites. Harper is God. Harper is infallible. And if - somehow - Harper should ever do anything that is even remotely, tangentially less than perfect, well, of course it's nothing compared to what those Liberal guys did. Get with the program, man. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted August 16, 2015 Author Report Posted August 16, 2015 It appears that the author (Marche) just used his existing position to write an election hit piece on PM Harper. Nothing remarkable about that. What is unusual is the presumed engagement or relevance to the Esquire/NYT audience, most of whom don't know or care who the present or future PM of Canada is. Ergo, hardly an international embarrassment. It's not who wrote it. It's that the New York Times published it. And if most of the audience don't know much about Canada, it's even worse. Even if they only casually browse the article, it portrays a very unflattering picture of this country. We look like some redneck backwater. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted August 16, 2015 Author Report Posted August 16, 2015 The difference with Harper is he's an honest man in how he handles our finances and money. As for Russia... don't be shifting into paranoid loony role. And there is a reason why you keep your king back when playing chess. There is a reason why the prime minister should be as protected from crazed terrorists as possible. Sneering at it as cowardice is infantile. Honest man. Harper. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! jeez, even you don't believe that. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 It's not who wrote it. It's that the New York Times published it. And if most of the audience don't know much about Canada, it's even worse. Even if they only casually browse the article, it portrays a very unflattering picture of this country. We look like some redneck backwater. I understand that some Canadians may feel that way about publishing such a view, but that is just more of the same political dynamic, as it is clearly a partisan attack. Canadians gave the CPC a clear majority in 2011, and to the victors go the spoils. Further, a Canadian PM has more unchecked power than in nearly any other western government. Internalizing the perceived "embarrassment" is not just a Canadian value (some Americans did the same thing after Dubya's re-election in 2004), but the majority of people would easily recognize what such a pre-election hit job is trying to accomplish. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 but the majority of people would easily recognize what such a pre-election hit job is trying to accomplish. why do you want to suppress/stifle free-speech? Perhaps you should channel your concerns to the editorial staff/publisher of the NYT for allowing such a, as you say, "hit job" to be published in... "the old gray lady"... in... "the newspaper of record! Freedom! Quote
socialist Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 Honest man. Harper. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! jeez, even you don't believe that. The left have an unshakeable belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. However by brute force and ignorance they can turn convince anyone to believe their rubbish. They do not learn from experience, but repeat the same mistakes, each time believing that it is the fault of others for not accepting leftzo cool aid. Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
overthere Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 from the article : Americans have traditionally looked to Canada as a liberal haven, with gun control, universal health care and good public education. And all of those things exist in Canada, unchanged by Harper. Gun control and licensing: check. Universal health care: check. Good public education: check. What's the problem? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Kitchener2 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 The Toronto glitterati have never gotten over the horror of having the prime minister come from one of the barbaric frontier colonies, and not from central Canada. The Liberal party has never had a leader from outside Ontario and Quebec and never will. You know Harper's from Etobicoke, right? And Mackenzie King, Canada's longest-serving Prime Minister, was MP for Prince Albert while leader of the Liberals. Quote
socialist Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 You know Harper's from Etobicoke, right? And Mackenzie King, Canada's longest-serving Prime Minister, was MP for Prince Albert while leader of the Liberals. The most reputable polls are calling for a CPC minority. I'd be fine with that. There wouldn't be any more drastic swings in the Canadian political environment, and Harper has managed that mandate in the past. The only risk is a Liberal / NDP Coalition again, or returning to the polls quickly for another election. If there's a Liberal / NDP Coalition, and the Liberals are still in majority in Ontario, then Canadians & especially Ontarians will flock from the country in droves. Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want more taxpayers and employers to leave? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
socialist Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) from the article : And all of those things exist in Canada, unchanged by Harper. Gun control and licensing: check. Universal health care: check. Good public education: check. What's the problem? Harper has already talked about retirement in another two years. The rest of us will be the unfortunate ones stuck with carbon taxes on everything we buy and a new national government program pyramid liability. So much for caring about the middle class. Edited August 16, 2015 by socialist Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Kitchener2 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 The most reputable polls are calling for a CPC minority. I'd be fine with that. There wouldn't be any more drastic swings in the Canadian political environment, and Harper has managed that mandate in the past. The only risk is a Liberal / NDP Coalition again, or returning to the polls quickly for another election. If there's a Liberal / NDP Coalition, and the Liberals are still in majority in Ontario, then Canadians & especially Ontarians will flock from the country in droves. Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want more taxpayers and employers to leave? Shouldn't your "reply" bear some relation to what you are quoting? But as for whether "If there's a Liberal / NDP Coalition, and the Liberals are still in majority in Ontario, then Canadians & especially Ontarians will flock from the country in droves": of course not. No more than they will move if Harper wins again, even though most Canadians don't want him as PM. Silly fantasies like this colour everything you say as ill-informed ideological nonsense. Quote
Icebound Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 Do you really want more taxpayers and employers to leave?[/size] Employers will continue to leave as long as Canadians refuse to work for $2 an hour. Quote
Argus Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 You know Harper's from Etobicoke, right? And Mackenzie King, Canada's longest-serving Prime Minister, was MP for Prince Albert while leader of the Liberals. Harper is closely identified with the West. The glitterati consider him to be a heathen savage from the outback. King was born and raised in Ontario, and was a product of Osgood Law school before going to Harvard. I'm not certain he even knew the West existed until after he'd already been in politics for some years. If he was MP for a western seat it was a safe seat he was given. 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
Signals.Cpl Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 So what's the differences with Harper? That guy is going to get us into many problems with Russia just to show |Harper is a tough guy, ...NOT, he ran into the closet. What would you have done in his place? Run towards the gunfire? He is the PM of this Country, it is his job to run the country, not to stare down terrorists. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Kitchener2 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 Harper is closely identified with the West. The glitterati consider him to be a heathen savage from the outback. King was born and raised in Ontario, and was a product of Osgood Law school before going to Harvard. I'm not certain he even knew the West existed until after he'd already been in politics for some years. If he was MP for a western seat it was a safe seat he was given. Since only you know what you could mean by "glitterati," this is entirely obscure; it seems to be something you're making true by your own personal defintions, rather than a matter of fact. Certainly it's no secret to even basically politically informed people that Harper grew up in a Toronto suburb and went to U of T. If being from Ontario but representing an Alberta riding makes him an Albertan, then King's being from Ontario but for many years representing a Saskatchewan riding makes him a Saskatchewanian. (He was profoundly attached to the prairies and was a great booster of their development.) Move your goalposts however you like; your initial claims are just unwarranted. Quote
socialist Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 Since only you know what you could mean by "glitterati," this is entirely obscure; it seems to be something you're making true by your own personal defintions, rather than a matter of fact. Certainly it's no secret to even basically politically informed people that Harper grew up in a Toronto suburb and went to U of T. If being from Ontario but representing an Alberta riding makes him an Albertan, then King's being from Ontario but for many years representing a Saskatchewan riding makes him a Saskatchewanian. (He was profoundly attached to the prairies and was a great booster of their development.) Move your goalposts however you like; your initial claims are just unwarranted. Why should I or anyone care what some lying, inaccurate, whining, hyperbolic left winger writes in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. His article more or less whines about Canada not being an inspiration to American Liberals. Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Kitchener2 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Posted August 16, 2015 Why should I or anyone care what some lying, inaccurate, whining, hyperbolic left winger writes in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. His article more or less whines about Canada not being an inspiration to American Liberals. You don't have to care about anything at all, as far as I can see. And you can riffle through the Angry Adjectives section of your thesaurus as fast as you like, in making various baseless pronouncements. Doesn't make your claims less demonstrably false, nor even intelligible. Quote
socialist Posted August 17, 2015 Report Posted August 17, 2015 You don't have to care about anything at all, as far as I can see. And you can riffle through the Angry Adjectives section of your thesaurus as fast as you like, in making various baseless pronouncements. Doesn't make your claims less demonstrably false, nor even intelligible. I believe you love fake scandals because you are frustrated as h3ll that the CPC under leadership of Harper has won three elections in a row, bigger wins each time. You tried to get rid of Harper by insisting on the so called 'secret agenda' (that tactic had such great promise, right , and when that did not work, it was the creation of a myth that Harper was a complete control freak and is a dictator (that myth making showed such great promise too right,) and then, at long last, when nothing seemed to work for the Harper haters, the fake scandal machine was set in motion. True story. We will see how well that works out for you in the end. Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Kitchener2 Posted August 17, 2015 Report Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) I believe you love fake scandals because you are frustrated as h3ll that the CPC under leadership of Harper has won three elections in a row, bigger wins each time. You tried to get rid of Harper by insisting on the so called 'secret agenda' (that tactic had such great promise, right , and when that did not work, it was the creation of a myth that Harper was a complete control freak and is a dictator (that myth making showed such great promise too right,) and then, at long last, when nothing seemed to work for the Harper haters, the fake scandal machine was set in motion. True story. We will see how well that works out for you in the end. Genuine question here: Are you aware that you are completely making things up? That is, when you compare the things that I've written with things that you seem to intend as replies to what I've written, do you notice that you seem to be responding to some fictional third person who's written altogether different things? Is this a common thing with you, to respond to other voices you hear or read, and not to the things people have actually said? I invite you to examine the various bizarre statements you make above, directed at me, about various highly specific things you think I've said and done, and compare those things to the points I've actually made in this thread. If that comparison doesn't give you reason to think that your political ideologies have driven your judgement onto the rocks, I really don't know what would convince you. Edited August 17, 2015 by Kitchener2 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.