Smallc Posted May 16, 2016 Report Posted May 16, 2016 Whether she is sending them or not isn't relevant. If she can't handle it, she shouldn't be doing it. Maybe she's not a quitter? The only other PM's wife who did this anything of the sort was known to be a much disliked elitist. Even Mulroney joked about her diva behaviour and spending habits. I'm sorry, but that's absolutely incorrect. All of the PMs spouses have done some of this work. The difference is that Sophie Gregoire is young, active, and engaged....oh and she gets more requests. If that's the direction SGT wants to take, she should prepare for the criticism. claiming she's elitist for wanting to do charitable works on behalf of Canadians is pretty disingenuous. Quote
BC_chick Posted May 16, 2016 Report Posted May 16, 2016 (edited) I'm sorry, but that's absolutely incorrect. All of the PMs spouses have done some of this work. The difference is that Sophie Gregoire is young, active, and engaged....oh and she gets more requests. When I say the only PM's wife who 'did anything of the sort' I'm talking about needing more than one assistant, not doing charity work. IOW, they did some charity work, but the only one who required 'a team' to help her was a much criticized ex PM's wife who was compared to royalty as a joke. So when you, Waldo and op/ed columnists bring up Mulroney, just be prepared. It's not a comparison you want to make lightly. Edited May 16, 2016 by BC_chick 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
WestCoastRunner Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 If we looked at the cost vs the benefits, there would clearly be higher benefits. Sophie has done charity work for women and children which includes raising awareness of bulimia, anorexia etc which are life threatening issues. If it means paying an assistant to help her raise awareness wtf is the problem. The next victim could be anyone's son or daughter. The fact is, she is in high demand and can offer tremendous awareness of these charities. We should be grateful that she is so popular and in demand. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Big Guy Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 If the Trudeau's decided to cover the cost of assistants from their own resources then there would be an outcry from the nay sayers flaunting their wealth. I suspect that the nay sayers are having difficulty with the apparent early success of this new government. Maybe they see Sophie as a softer target. The kids will be next. What schools are they going to - private or public? - and the rest of the crap that the bottom feeders thrive on. Quote 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.
WestCoastRunner Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 If the Trudeau's decided to cover the cost of assistants from their own resources then there would be an outcry from the nay sayers flaunting their wealth. I suspect that the nay sayers are having difficulty with the apparent early success of this new government. Maybe they see Sophie as a softer target. The kids will be next. What schools are they going to - private or public? - and the rest of the crap that the bottom feeders thrive on. Exactly. Sophie is a very popular woman in her own right and if she can draw funds to charities that are in desperate need what harm is there in providing her with an assistant. These aren't partisan charities. These are charities for women and children. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Shady Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 Amazing in 2016 we still have people attacking women for wanting to do things other than just cooking, laundry and raising children. I don't care what she does. She just needs to pay for it herself. She's married to an effing millionaire. Quote
Smallc Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) I don't care what she does. She just needs to pay for it herself. She's married to an effing millionaire. Why did Laureen Teskey need a taxpayer funded assistant? Edited May 17, 2016 by Smallc Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) I don't care what she does. She just needs to pay for it herself. She's married to an effing millionaire. You don't care she raises awareness and money towards helping women and children without asking for a dime? Edited May 17, 2016 by WestCoastRunner Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
cybercoma Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 I'm convinced that maybe one person in this entire thread understands diplomacy. Quote
WestCanMan Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 The 'nannies' (at least one has other duties at the household)are at the expense of other household staff, and are not only for Sophie, but for Justin as well (it's 2016, after all). No matter. The fact is that they don't get less staff, they just have different job descriptions. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
WestCanMan Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 WestCanMan, you choose to perpetuate a myth. Why? Are you really that uninformed about something that has been clarified repeatedly? Or incapable of basic math? The Trudeau's have the same # of household staff as the Harpers had. They choose to have two of them who are qualified nannies. The Harpers chose for Laureen not to do much charity or other work and when they had to travel, they left their kids with housekeepers not qualified in child care ... Either that or they lied about not having qualified nannies. (What do you think?) Different choices, same cost. Or maybe the same choice ... but they just lied about the nannies to avoid this discussion? . It's no myth. Trudeau jumped on the soapbox and said his family didn't need childcare help from the gov't and then they jumped at it the first chance he got. That right there is the definition of hypocrisy whether you want to admit it or not. He has enough money to pay for nannies himself, and then Sophie can have the help she so desperately needs to save our country. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
PIK Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 Sophie will be out lobbying for her husband or the liberal party, they can pay. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 Exactly. Sophie is a very popular woman in her own right and if she can draw funds to charities that are in desperate need what harm is there in providing her with an assistant. These aren't partisan charities. These are charities for women and children. What she is is a rich dilettante without a job who attends charity balls and concerts and such. Why should the taxpayers pay for that? 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 May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 What she is is a rich dilettante without a job who attends charity balls and concerts and such. Why should the taxpayers pay for that? Because we did for previous PMs spouses? Quote
Argus Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) Because we did for previous PMs spouses? Are you advocating a Mulroney style government now? You seem to be much admiring of their style. Edited May 17, 2016 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 May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 Are you advocating a Mulroney style government now? You seem to be much admiring of their style. We also paid for Sheila Martin and Laureen Teskey to do the same things - people just didn't care much about them, so they didn't ask. Quote
Argus Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 We also paid for Sheila Martin and Laureen Teskey to do the same things - people just didn't care much about them, so they didn't ask. They weren't whining about it and demanding more money from the taxpayer. 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
jacee Posted May 17, 2016 Author Report Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) It's no myth. Trudeau jumped on the soapbox and said his family didn't need childcare help from the gov't and then they jumped at it the first chance he got. That right there is the definition of hypocrisy whether you want to admit it or not. Trudeau said rich people didn't need the government child care subsidy cheque.Harper and wife and his wealthy supporters happily took the child care subsidy: Harper never suggested rich people like him didn't need the child care subsidy. He just took it! ... legislated it for himself and his wealthy contributors. We all know that Trudeau became a wealthy man via family. How did Harper BECOME a multimillionaire while in elected office? It helps when you can legislate yourself an extra monthly cheque! . . Edited May 17, 2016 by jacee Quote
waldo Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 It's no myth. Trudeau jumped on the soapbox and said his family didn't need childcare help from the gov't and then they jumped at it the first chance he got. That right there is the definition of hypocrisy whether you want to admit it or not. He has enough money to pay for nannies himself, and then Sophie can have the help she so desperately needs to save our country. not sure why you continue with such an easy facet: no additional staff have been added over/above the complement 'the Harper family' had... as I understand, no additional monies are being expended. Along with other tasked roles, two of the Trudeau staff are also certified/capable of acting as nannies for the young children. Where's the beef man? . Quote
Argus Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) How did Harper BECOME a multimillionaire while in elected office? What evidence do you have Harper is wealthy? Of course, to progressives, the term 'wealthy' often seems to be anyone who actually pays income taxes. But personally, if I made over $350k a year for ten years and didn't have to pay for food, transportation or housing, I would expect I'd have a pretty darn good nest egg socked away. Edited May 17, 2016 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 May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 They weren't whining about it and demanding more money from the taxpayer. They didn't get as many requests either. Quote
Argus Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 They didn't get as many requests either. And you know this how? 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
jacee Posted May 17, 2016 Author Report Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) What evidence do you have Harper is wealthy? Of course, to progressives, the term 'wealthy' often seems to be anyone who actually pays income taxes. But personally, if I made over $350k a year for ten years and didn't have to pay for food, transportation or housing, I would expect I'd have a pretty darn good nest egg socked away. How much of that would be the child care subsidy Harper legislated for himself while his wife took care of his kids for free?. Edited May 17, 2016 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 And you know this how? It's an educated guess. Quote
Smallc Posted May 17, 2016 Report Posted May 17, 2016 How much of that would be the child care subsidy Harper legislated for himself while his wife did it for free? . Does the PMs family not pay for incidentals? Is that only an American thing (oh, what have I done?)? 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.