Trudeau

[Argus]

I did not say that repatriaiton had any role in making Canada a better place, Argus. I said it was a great achievement by Trudeau.

You don't see the contradiction in those two sentences?

All that time and effort, all the massive expense, and it has not made Canada a better place. It has led to no real improvement.

Why was that a great achievement?

[Argus]

I don't blame you.

I don't think have ever heard such a pile of unadulterated crap in my entire life. It seems like all the Trudeau haters in the world sprung to life when this thread was started. You know August, bakunin, Argus, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a shame, then, that there isn't someone of sufficient intelligence around who can repudiate our statements with anything approaching a convincing argument.

[August1991]

Canada had been trying to repatriate the Constitution for fifty years, stumbling over provincial demands for concessions every time until Trudeau succeded without concession except fot the "Notwithstanding" Clause.

Canada had been trying to find an amending formula for fifty years. For all intents, we still don't have one.

The Charter of Rights was arguably an innovation in that it codified clearly the limits of government authority over the individual. While these limits existed before the Charter, the Charter has made them explicit. There is no doubt that this was one of Trudeau's achievements - whether you approve of the Charter or not.

[newbie]

He was arrogant and self importent.

True. As was Trudeau, as was Chretien, as is Martin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, I have to wonder if any politician in your books is not arrogant and self important. And oh, while we're at it, I think you forgot to add Mr. Harper to your list.

[newbie]

I agree with most of your comments Argus, but I'd give Pierre an A for effort. At least he tried to unify the country, albeit in his own way. Yes, he was arrogant, but that's what's perceived sometimes when one tries to reach one's goal undaunted. If he did nothing he'd be perceived as indecisive or lame duck. He was a die-hard federalist, and I really believe everything he did politically had that theme in mind. I think the West needs to get over Trudeau and move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, saying that "at least" he tried to unify the country "in his own way" is somewhat meaningless. So did Mulroney. I'm sure Chretien's ultimate aim was not to divide the country, though that was the result.

Trudeau made it clear on many occasions that he was opposed to seperatism in large measure because he thought Quebec would be much better off within confederation than as a sort of rump state out on its own. So it wasn't so much his love of Canada as his love of Quebec which made him seek accomodation within confederation for Quebec.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, let me clarify. Trudeau didn't try to unify the country by appeasing Quebec like Mulroney and his Meech and Charlottetown disasters. He wanted every Province in Canada to be equal partners. And while he might have favoured his home province, he didn't give in to them.

[Guest eureka]

No contradiction at all, Argus. Because the politicians since have not built on that achievement: because many so called leaders have the support of so many misinformed critics, it does not lessen what Trudeau did. It merely shows how many 90 pound weaklings we have followed since then.

BTW, I hold no brief for Trudeau in general. I have on other threads, written of the sntence in his response to an open letter I wrote. It is burned in my mind. "I admit that the rights of Anglophones have been reduced, but my government will not allow them to be reduced further"

That phrase slightly predates the Charter but was at a time when the Charter was being debated. That reduction could not have held up in Court without the Charter. The Charter entrenched the discrimination against Anglophones in Quebec.

I also helped the Conservative opponent of Trudeau in the 1979 election: Dr. David de Jong. He was Trudeau's intellectual match but with a larger grasp of the issue of Rights.

There was no chance for him since we ran him on the limited range of issues relating to Quebec and its barbarity. But, we made the point and it was not forgotten either in the 1980 referendum or by Trudeau.

Nonetheless, I consider Trudeau a quite brilliant PM who was a man for the times whose overall tenure ranks with the greatest. And I studied Trudeau for that campaign: all the warts as well as the strengths.

[Sir Chauncy]

Wrote a huge post but somehow it got all mixed up during posting. I deleted it and to heck with typing it all over again.

Is it a common problem here that posts get screwed up somehow, paragraphs intermixing, sentences scattered etc.

Sir Chauncy

[Argus]

He was arrogant and self importent.

True. As was Trudeau, as was Chretien, as is Martin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, I have to wonder if any politician in your books is not arrogant and self important.

If you want to argue that Trudeau or Chretien or Martin are/were NOT arrogant and self-important feel free to give it a shot. I have seen all three in action numerous times and their arrogance is undeniable. Their sense of self-importance arrises more from their actions and I have seen and read more than enough of that to justify my opinion. And yours is based on what exactly? That you don't like to see Liberals criticised?

And oh, while we're at it,  I think you forgot to add Mr. Harper to your list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? Because he's a conservative and you don't like conservatives? So he deserves whatever term you think is insulting? Sorry. But I need something with a little more justification - and intelligence - behind it.

I haven't noted any particular degree of arrogance or self-importance in Harper. But then he doesn't really have a lot to be arrogant about.

[newbie]

I haven't noted any particular degree of arrogance or self-importance in Harper. But then he doesn't really have a lot to be arrogant about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must not have seen him in action in the House of Parliament during Question Period.

[Argus]

I haven't noted any particular degree of arrogance or self-importance in Harper. But then he doesn't really have a lot to be arrogant about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must not have seen him in action in the House of Parliament during Question Period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have seen him, and his arrogance, if you can call it that, is a flickering candle next to the flaming bonfire of Paul Martin.

[newbie]

If you want to argue that Trudeau or Chretien or Martin are/were NOT arrogant and self-important feel free to give it a shot. I have seen all three in action numerous times and their arrogance is undeniable. Their sense of self-importance arrises more from their actions and I have seen and read more than enough of that to justify my opinion. And yours is based on what exactly? That you don't like to see Liberals criticised?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This bickering back and forth is really useless. It's the old "my Dad is better than your Dad" mentality. But allow me to say that I respect all members of Parliament and do not tar all parties with the same brush, unlike a few members on this forum. I might lean left, but I try not to let my bias cloud my judgement. All of us are partisan to some extent, some more than others. I don't mind Liberals being criticised if they've deserved it, but not simply because they're Liberal. Same goes for Conseravtive and NDP. So, I've decided not to partake anymore in this type of endless and mindless tirade against political leaders. No one's mind is going to be changed here; just more of the same old tired political rhetoric.

[Guest eureka]

There was considerable dissection of Trudeau the man and the politician back in 1968/9 when he became the leader of the Liberals. I recall something by one analyst, I forget the name, at the time. He wrote that Trudeau was intellectually a J.S. Mill liberal and in practise, a pragmatic Benthamite.

I think that sheds some light on what Trudeau was actually about.

[Argus]

If you want to argue that Trudeau or Chretien or Martin are/were NOT arrogant and self-important feel free to give it a shot. I have seen all three in action numerous times and their arrogance is undeniable. Their sense of self-importance arrises more from their actions and I have seen and read more than enough of that to justify my opinion. And yours is based on what exactly? That you don't like to see Liberals criticised?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This bickering back and forth is really useless.

Well, it's kind of why we're here.

It's the old "my Dad is better than your Dad" mentality.  But allow me to say that  I respect all members of Parliament

Why would you respect that bunch of bland, dull-witted poseurs? For myself, finding a member of parliament who has more than half a brain, and who actually cares something about their constituents is always a pleasant surprise. But it is a surprise.

and do not tar all parties with the same brush, unlike a few members on this forum. I might lean left, but I try not to let my bias cloud my judgement. All of us are partisan to some extent, some more than others. I don't mind Liberals being criticised if they' deserved it, but not simply because they're Liberal.

My opinion of our last four prime ministers is unflattering, but has nothing to do with their politial affiliation. I was quite willing to be impressed by Chretien, and then Martin. They quickly disabused me of any notions that they were more than weasels.

[Chimera]

So what about the accusation of Trudeau being a separatist?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that he was involved with the separitists while in university, but I've never seen empirical evidence for or against.

Anybody?

[mirror]

So what about the accusation of Trudeau being a separatist?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that he was involved with the separitists while in university, but I've never seen empirical evidence for or against.

Anybody?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All sorts of rumours and falsehoods were started about Trudeau including his being a communist, gay, crook, etc. by his opponents. That's just what they were - falsehoods.

[AmericanPop]

Trudeau's early days were marked by a grand transformation. In his early days at Brebeuf he was a Quebec Nationalist, playing around with revolutionary ideas and even organizing a small cell intent on acting out a coup on the quebec provincial government. It is true that he also dabbled in anti-semetic sentiments but such was to be expected at the time.

His views began to mature when he began schooling at Harvard, in Paris and particularly the london school of economics. Harvard had trained him thoroughly in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, and Paris, with its incredibly diverse range of political opinion, provided him with an arena for which he could explore alternatives to the corpratism, nationalism and clericalism that dominated scholarly thought back home. But it is in London where his professors perhaps had the most impact, particularly on his economic views. Here he was introduced to keynesian economics (at a time when it still hadn't caught the attention of most intellectuals) and where he began sympathising with Communism. In the following years he would be approved by Harvard to complete his thesis abroad, which Trudeau decided would focus on the possible compatility of Christianity with Communism. Trudeau would explore Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia at a time when the Iron Curtain was stiffening and when decolonization was taking hold in India, Indochina and China. Trudeau returned to Montreal very much a cosmopolitan with worldly experience, which would prove beneficial later on in his debates with Rene Levesque, who sometimes found it hard to find examples, let alone personal experience, to buttress his arguments.

[Pliny]

Interesting reading.

Turdeau was an intellectual and idealist and a very charismatic figure. He had a vision but it wasn't a vision of Canada, it was a vision of the State. You will note that he did spend a lot of Canada's future GNP and then his finance minister took over and the next finance minister took the helm after him. There was an old joke that Chretien used to open beer bottles with his teeth for Trudeau at political social functions the result being he was always ready. Chretien had been fudging the books for so long that Paul Martin had a hard time covering up all the patronage. But Turdeau did get a good dose of Keynesian economics and was quite the Statist. If you believe the State and laws are necessary to hold people together then Turdeau was a great man. If you believe a society is held together by mutual bonds and common agreements among men then Turdeau was a fuddle duddle.

[Leafless]

Trudeau's early days were marked by a grand transformation. In his early days at Brebeuf he was a Quebec Nationalist, playing around with revolutionary ideas and even organizing a small cell intent on acting out a coup on the quebec provincial government. It is true that he also dabbled in anti-semetic sentiments but such was to be expected at the time.

His views began to mature when he began schooling at Harvard, in Paris and particularly the london school of economics. Harvard had trained him thoroughly in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, and Paris, with its incredibly diverse range of political opinion, provided him with an arena for which he could explore alternatives to the corpratism, nationalism and clericalism that dominated scholarly thought back home. But it is in London where his professors perhaps had the most impact, particularly on his economic views. Here he was introduced to keynesian economics (at a time when it still hadn't caught the attention of most intellectuals) and where he began sympathising with Communism. In the following years he would be approved by Harvard to complete his thesis abroad, which Trudeau decided would focus on the possible compatility of Christianity with Communism. Trudeau would explore Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia at a time when the Iron Curtain was stiffening and when decolonization was taking hold in India, Indochina and China. Trudeau returned to Montreal very much a cosmopolitan with worldly experience, which would prove beneficial later on in his debates with Rene Levesque, who sometimes found it hard to find examples, let alone personal experience, to buttress his arguments.

You have a lot of regard for a man that was named "the worst Canadian"

"After nearly snagging top spot as the greatest Canuck, Pierre Elliott Trudeau has tumbled to the title of Worst Canadian in an online contest that also includes several convicted criminals."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2007...4379992-cp.html

[M.Dancer]

You have a lot of regard for a man that was named "the worst Canadian"

"After nearly snagging top spot as the greatest Canuck, Pierre Elliott Trudeau has tumbled to the title of Worst Canadian in an online contest that also includes several convicted criminals."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2007...4379992-cp.html

Reid said the poll was designed as a tongue-in-cheek exercise to get Canadians talking about history, but it could also serve as an example of the unscientific nature of online contests.

He offered as an example the fact the No. 2 spot is occupied not by a politician or murderer - both of whom are on the list - but by the frontman of a Winnipeg punk band. Reid said Propagandhi's Chris Hannah started an online campaign to earn the Worst Canadian title for himself.

"Kind of an interesting way to get some attention," suggested Reid

You havce a lot of something or other for a man who can barely comprehend written english.

[guyser]

You have a lot of regard for a man that was named "the worst Canadian"

"After nearly snagging top spot as the greatest Canuck, Pierre Elliott Trudeau has tumbled to the title of Worst Canadian in an online contest that also includes several convicted criminals."

Kind of a funny poll when you look at who's second -Chris Hannah -third is Morgantaler. Only one and three are known.

Silly stuff, same as "best" from the CBC , fun but nothing more.

[Michael Bluth]

I have seen him, and his arrogance, if you can call it that, is a flickering candle next to the flaming bonfire of Paul Martin.

You'd think Martin being the worst Liberal PM in a century would have tempered the arrogance.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt I guess.