Hal 9000 Posted January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 The fact you seem to be missing is that Harper for the most part, didn't take questions. Except of course when he had to in QP, and then Mulcair mostly made him look a fool. Remember the senate scandal, "just show us the cheque"etcetera. I'll miss those days in a way, it was fun watching Harper embarrass himself with rehearsed talking points that had no point. I'm not missing that. This thread was derailed on post #2 and the issue soon became about Harper being an angry man. I can't remember a time when I saw him angry, I do however, remember many instances of Cretien being visibly angry. Call the guy a bad politician all you want, but it seems that if you (the general you) don't like a guy, you'll paint him as everything bad. Fact is; he isn't an angry hateful person and he actually is quite smart. You don't like his politics - that's all, why the hyperbole. The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
On Guard for Thee Posted January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 I'm not missing that. This thread was derailed on post #2 and the issue soon became about Harper being an angry man. I can't remember a time when I saw him angry, I do however, remember many instances of Cretien being visibly angry. Call the guy a bad politician all you want, but it seems that if you (the general you) don't like a guy, you'll paint him as everything bad. Fact is; he isn't an angry hateful person and he actually is quite smart. You don't like his politics - that's all, why the hyperbole. Harper was well known for his outbursts and snits, but maybe that's why he avoided the press as much as he could. You could see his BP rising in QP when the house laughed at the current talking point, especially when repeated ad nauseum.
Argus Posted January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 P Chrétien did a lot of crappy things, but tossing aside the nut screaming in his face a few inches away was not one of them! So assault and battery is acceptable if you're a Liberal? I have zero doubt you'd be screaming for Harper to be charged if he'd done anything similar. Hell, half the Ontario bar would be rushing forward to eagerly offer their services to the 'victim' pro bono. "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 January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 Harper was well known for his outbursts and snits, but maybe that's why he avoided the press as much as he could. You could see his BP rising in QP when the house laughed at the current talking point, especially when repeated ad nauseum. Well known by the freaks of the far left perhaps but his demeanor in public was fairly calm an mild-mannered. "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 January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 Here's a bit of a scorecard to ste you straight. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/scoc-harper-gov-scorecard-741324 In fact, the Conservative government’s record on charter cases was not much different from its two post-charter predecessors, who also lost big cases, the study concludes. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/perception-of-animosity-between-harper-top-court-misguided-study/article28286511/ "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 January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 Good point, I don't recall Harper ever trying to strangle a protester. Harper would never get his hands dirty himself. Instead he sent CRA to intimidate charities he didn't like. He branded environmental protesters as terrorists. He simply refused to engage with the 60% - 70% of Canadians who disagreed with him (and in many cases deeply despised him). 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 January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 Harper managed to steer the country through a global recession. He was deft enough that other countries looked to him for advice, or have we forgotten that already? Did other counties really look to him for advice? He did fine, but I think that's pure exaggeration. I think the word you're looking for is invention. In fact, the main reasons that Canada did as well as it did in the recession is that Harper wasn't elected sooner. He likely would have deregulated the banking sector, got us into the Iraq war that is still bankrupting the US and put us into a deficit situation even before the recession. If Harper gave honest advice it would be something like this: The way I steered through a global recession is that I inherited a massive surplus from a previous government, inherited sound banking regulations from a previous government (which I opposed at the time), wasn't mired in the Iraq war thanks to a previous government and was in a time when world commodity prices rebounded quickly. 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
Big Guy Posted January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 I doubt that any honest Harper fan would disagree that Harper did inherit a fair surplus, had previously fought to de-regulate Canadian banks and did criticize Chretian and Martin government for not joining the USA invasion of Iraq. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 Well known by the freaks of the far left perhaps but his demeanor in public was fairly calm an mild-mannered. Known much more intimately by the real freaks of the right who were in his party.
Argus Posted January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 Harper would never get his hands dirty himself. Instead he sent CRA to intimidate charities he didn't like. He branded environmental protesters as terrorists. He simply refused to engage with the 60% - 70% of Canadians who disagreed with him (and in many cases deeply despised him). As someone who used to work at CRA I can honestly laugh at your suggestion Harper gave them marching orders to audit charities. Charities are a huge source of tax fraud in Canada, and the laws on them are often flouted by those who are ideologically motivated. As for being 'despised' that all boils down to "Waaah! Wahhh! The bad man won't give me more moneeeyyyy! Waaah!" "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 January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 Known much more intimately by the real freaks of the right who were in his party. You mean by taxpayers. "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 January 23, 2016 Report Posted January 23, 2016 As someone who used to work at CRA I can honestly laugh at your suggestion Harper gave them marching orders to audit charities. Charities are a huge source of tax fraud in Canada, and the laws on them are often flouted by those who are ideologically motivated. As for being 'despised' that all boils down to "Waaah! Wahhh! The bad man won't give me more moneeeyyyy! Waaah!" I don't know what you did at CRA but clearly if you can "honestly laugh" at the suggestion, it clearly wasn't senior enough to know what goes on at the political level. The fact that the CRA was given funding specifically to audit charities is a matter of public record. So, if you want to "honestly" do anything, the first thing you can do is admit that whatever your experience at CRA, you are clearly wrong in this instance. Despite nobody having seen an example of a right-wing group like the Fraser Institute being subject to an audit CRA denies that it targeted left wing groups. The agency rejects this, saying it was given funding to audit 60 charities and took care to ensure the probes’ targets reflected a cross-section of Canadian charities by region and category. Yet, although the CRA claimed to have been very careful to ensure that the targets reflected a cross-section of Canadian charities, curiously, no records are kept of what this even means. After the interview, the CRA said it does not keep records with respect to political leanings of charities. At least one independent researcher cast doubt on the objectivity of CRA with respect to these audits Gareth Kirkby, a former journalist who researched this topic as part of a master’s thesis for Royal Roads University, expressed doubt these audits are balanced in terms of political leanings. Mr. Kirkby says his research led him to conclude three specific charitable sectors are being singled out: environmental groups, development and human rights charities, and charities receiving donations from labour groups. Yep. Sounds perfectly above board to me. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 You mean by taxpayers.I would assume they pay taxes, wouldn't you? What's your point?
ReeferMadness Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 I doubt that any honest Harper fan would disagree that Harper did inherit a fair surplus, had previously fought to de-regulate Canadian banks and did criticize Chretian and Martin government for not joining the USA invasion of Iraq. And yet I keep hearing those same fans heaping glory on Harper for getting us through the recession. Exactly what he did, nobody has ever been clear. 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
msj Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 And yet I keep hearing those same fans heaping glory on Harper for getting us through the recession. Exactly what he did, nobody has ever been clear. Oh, he was a great Keynesian, didn't you know? But of course he was forced to spend that money and run those deficits because of the opposition! I think that is a fine example of CPC supporters talking out of both ends at once . If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
ReeferMadness Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 Oh, he was a great Keynesian, didn't you know? But of course he was forced to spend that money and run those deficits because of the opposition! I think that is a fine example of CPC supporters talking out of both ends at once . Honestly, I have no idea where all that money went. OK, that's not true. I know they spent a lot of advertisements. 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
msj Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 Honestly, I have no idea where all that money went. OK, that's not true. I know they spent a lot of advertisements. Well, full disclosure, I got some of it. I spent it on my trip to Palm Springs and then Maui . You see, a First Nation band received some grant money to build some infrastructure. Normally this comes through AANDC ( at that time INAC) but this was more of a sewer/pave the streets of a housing development type of thing. Anyway, I got to audit the project which included driving around and inspecting it. The engineering firm made good money off that project. Especially since a few years later a storm wiped out some of the work they did and it was discovered that they didn't quite engineer it up to the standards that the plans indicated. Anyway, that's all history now. Almost literally water under the bridge. If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Argus Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 Oh, he was a great Keynesian, didn't you know? But of course he was forced to spend that money and run those deficits because of the opposition! I think that is a fine example of CPC supporters talking out of both ends at once . Lefty: "Look at the big deficits he ran! Ahhhg! The horror! The horror!" Righty:"But you and your party demanded he run big deficits..." Lefty: "Never mind what we demanded!" Talking out of both ends, eh? I think you're talking from experience. "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 January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 Honestly, I have no idea where all that money went. OK, that's not true. I know they spent a lot of advertisements. That's right. Harper blew nearly a billion on ads during NHL games about government plans that didn't even exist, or the party itself.
msj Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 Lefty: "Look at the big deficits he ran! Ahhhg! The horror! The horror!"Righty:"But you and your party demanded he run big deficits..."Lefty: "Never mind what we demanded!"Talking out of both ends, eh? I think you're talking from experience. I don't think deficits of a 1% or 2% point of GDP is "big" or a big deal so maybe you can find a new strawman to fill? If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Argus Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 I don't think deficits of a 1% or 2% point of GDP is "big" or a big deal so maybe you can find a new strawman to fill? You were the one complaining about them. "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 January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 You were the one complaining about them. Stephen Poloz basically called for deficits when he didn't lower rates the other day. Given the current economic climate in Canada, that will probably continue into the medium term, I'm certainly not opposed to deficits approaching $20B.
msj Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 You were the one complaining about them. Yes, I do complain about them in 2 ways: 1) the CPC's strange fixation on them to the point that anyone should care about a deficit, or a surplus, of $5 or $10 billion. In the greater scheme of things it's not that big a deal to not have a big fat $0 for the fiscal year. 2) that there are times we should be running bigger deficits followed by times to run smaller deficits and even surpluses. But, once again, this fixation on getting the number down to $0 rather than within a range makes for bad politics/fiscal policy. If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Argus Posted January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 Stephen Poloz basically called for deficits when he didn't lower rates the other day. Given the current economic climate in Canada, that will probably continue into the medium term, I'm certainly not opposed to deficits approaching $20B. Funny how he's bitching and complaining about the level of debt held by the Canadian public, yet the debt load on Canadian governments is far higher, with far higher interest payments. Household debt stands at 171.1 per cent of disposable income. Government debt is at 282% of disposable income. http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/william-watson-ottawa-is-the-debt-pot-calling-the-kettle-broke In the short term, massive interest payments on debt gobble up revenues that could be better spent, Lammam said. Local, provincial and federal governments pay more than $60 billion a year to service their debt, money that could be better spent on services. Over the long-term, a growing body of research suggest heavy government debt loads dampen economic growth. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-debt-in-canada-set-to-top-1-3-trillion-in-2016-fraser-institute "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 January 24, 2016 Report Posted January 24, 2016 Funny how he's bitching and complaining about the level of debt held by the Canadian public, yet the debt load on Canadian governments is far higher, with far higher interest payments. Household debt stands at 171.1 per cent of disposable income. Government debt is at 282% of disposable income. Probably because they aren't remotely the same thing.
Recommended Posts