Charest, Poilievre & Maxime Bernier

[August1991]

But you know what, Nationalist?

Mulroney created our federal VAT, a consumption tax that no US federal politician has been able to create.

(Obamacare? Easy. Try to create a consumption tax.)

Mulroney reduced tariffs on trade with Americans. (Try that, now.)

True, Mulroney tried and failed to change the way our federal State is organised.

========

In Quebec, I saw how Charest works. Harper may dislike him.

But Charest gets things done. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by August1991

[Nationalist]

42 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Such is your right.

I prefer Charest, in part because I think Canadians prefer slow change - when there's broad agreement.

With that said, I hope Charest keeps Poilievre in the tent, pissing out.

=====

IMHO, a good federal Canada is a PM Charest with a Poilievre on the front bench.

 

 

And that is your right.

[August1991]

42 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

And that is your right.

If ever Poilievre becomes a federal PM, what will he do?

-eliminate the penny, as Harper did?

-what else?

Even Stephen Harper explained that with a majority government, it is hard to change things.

======

Moreover, Canada is not the US.

Our political system works differently.

Edited August 19, 2022 by August1991

[Nationalist]

51 minutes ago, August1991 said:

If ever Poilievre becomes a federal PM, what will he do?

-eliminate the penny, as Harper did?

-what else?

Even Stephen Harper explained that with a majority government, it is hard to change things.

======

Moreover, Canada is not the US.

Our political system works differently.

You're gonna teach me how the Canadian political system works now? Oh goodie.

I will vote my conscience...as everyone should.

If Poilievre becomes PM, I would expect him to end this assault on fossil fuels, end these destructive Rona regulations, allow farmers and ranchers to do what they do without stupid green rules and bring common sense back to the fore in Canada. 

What do you expect Charest will do? Other than continue the policies of fellow Libbie, Pixie-Dust?

Edited August 19, 2022 by Nationalist

[August1991]

On 8/19/2022 at 7:46 AM, Nationalist said:

You're gonna teach me how the Canadian political system works now? Oh goodie.

I will vote my conscience...as everyone should.

If Poilievre becomes PM, I would expect him to end this assault on fossil fuels, end these destructive Rona regulations, allow farmers and ranchers to do what they do without stupid green rules and bring common sense back to the fore in Canada. 

What do you expect Charest will do? Other than continue the policies of fellow Libbie, Pixie-Dust?

Nationalist,

True, we have only one button to throw in the jar: and then, it's a crap-shoot which button is drawn.

====

In Canada, like most 19th century societies (eg, the Austrian-Hungarian) the jars are based on regions/groups. To win in federal Canada, a politician must win broad support - language, region, religion.

I kinda like the idea.

==

For some questions, maybe we should require that gays or left-handed people also agree to a change in the Constitution. 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by August1991

[August1991]

I prefer the Canadian way.

Some of us are not left-handed.

Our federal government respects provincial rights.

====

Why?

Many of us are Catholic - likely never baptised.  Or we have a French family name.

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by August1991

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, August1991 said:

For some questions, maybe we should require that gays or left-handed people also agree to a change in the Constitution.

For some questions the majority may need to accept changes that only a minority require.

It is what it is.

[August1991]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

For some questions the majority may need to accept changes that only a minority require.

It is what it is.

I have no problem with two people shacking up. Even signing a contract.

But it's not a marriage unless it's religious, man and woman, in front of family and friends.

Sure, you can "marry" in Las Vegas, in front of others,

=====

But that's like "salad dressing" compared to mayonnaise.

Mayonnaise requires real eggs.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

But that's like "salad dressing" compared to mayonnaise.

Mayonnaise requires real eggs.

Salad dressing is just mayonnaise and ketchup. Stir in some relish and you get Thousand Islands dressing.

[August1991]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Salad dressing is just mayonnaise and ketchup. Stir in some relish and you get Thousand Islands dressing.

In the US, to use the word "mayonnaise", the product must contain whole eggs - yolks.

Otherwise, it is "salad dressing".

=====

In discussions of gays on this forum, this point has always bothered me.

==

Some people are left-handed. But don't tell me that they're right-handed as a way to make me respect them.

Left-handed people are left-handed.

Elton John doesn't have a husband.

[August1991]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Salad dressing is just mayonnaise and ketchup. Stir in some relish and you get Thousand Islands dressing.

WTF?

Do you know what is mayonnaise?

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, August1991 said:

WTF?

Do you know what is mayonnaise?

Of course I do!

FFS!

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

Nationalist,

 

 

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

==

For some questions, maybe we should require that gays or left-handed people also agree to a change in the Constitution. 

 

 

What the hell are you getting at? 

[Zeitgeist]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

I prefer the Canadian way.

Some of us are not left-handed.

Our federal government respects provincial rights.

====

Why?

Many of us are Catholic - likely never baptised.  Or we have a French family name.

 

Your last paragraph explains why you’re a Whig.  I’m also Catholic, yet I’ve realized that the Tories are on the sounder path, at least for now.  

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

  I’m also Catholic

it's never too late to come to Jesus

no man nor office between you

House of Orange

faithful unto Judgment Day

join us

Edited August 21, 2022 by Dougie93

[August1991]

On 8/21/2022 at 2:33 AM, eyeball said:

Of course I do!

FFS!

Eyeball, don't tell me that mayonnaise is salad dressing when it's not.

I have no problem with two people shacking up, living together - it used to be called living "common law".

If the two people decide a contract, no problem. (Now, it's called a pre-nup - in common speech.)

I have no problem with Elton John being gay. Some people are left-handed, others are not.

But please don't tell me that Elton John has a husband.

====

Elton John apparently flew often to Moscow to meet Putin. I suspect that this was the issue.

 

[August1991]

On 8/21/2022 at 7:56 AM, Nationalist said:

 

 

What the hell are you getting at? 

The founders of the US Constitution have precise terms - largely based on geography.

In 1971, Trudeau Snr proposed an amendment process giving the Quebec government - French North America - a right to veto any change to Canada's federal constitution. Bourassa, negotiating more, walked away.

Canada, what a country.

====

In this modern world, to change a constitution, why not require majorities among other large groups:

-If gay people disagree with the change, then maybe it's a bad idea

Edited August 23, 2022 by August1991

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

Eyeball, don't tell me that mayonnaise is salad dressing when it's not.

I didn't. I said I make salad dressing from mayonnaise. It doesn't work the other way, but everyone knows that.

 

Quote

 

I have no problem with two people shacking up, living together - it used to be called living "common law".

If the two people decide a contract, no problem. (Now, it's called a pre-nup - in common speech.)

I have no problem with Elton John being gay. Some people are left-handed, others are not.

But please don't tell me that Elton John has a husband.

====

Elton John apparently flew often to Moscow to meet Putin. I suspect that this was the issue.

 

I'm sorry but what the heck does any of this have to do with mayonnaise and salad dressing?

Edited August 23, 2022 by eyeball

[August1991]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

...

I'm sorry but what the heck does any of this have to do with mayonnaise and salad dressing?

Two women are welcome to live together, sign a contract to care for each other.

But it's not a marriage. They are not husbands.

====

Champagne is produced in a particular region of France. Elsewhere, it has a different name. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by August1991

[TreeBeard]

On 8/20/2022 at 9:54 PM, August1991 said:

I have no problem with two people shacking up. Even signing a contract.

But it's not a marriage unless it's religious, man and woman, in front of family and friends.

Sure, you can "marry" in Las Vegas, in front of others,

=====

But that's like "salad dressing" compared to mayonnaise.

Mayonnaise requires real eggs.

So you’re saying that only religious marriages are “real”, but marriages governed by Canadian law are not?

[August1991]

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So you’re saying that only religious marriages are “real”, but marriages governed by Canadian law are not?

More or less.

"Governed by Canadian law" is a big term - do you know family law in Canada? (It's governed by provincial law - for good reason.)

====

IMHO, two people are welcome to sign a family contract.

But the word "marriage"?  It's like left-handed or husband. We are what we are.

I fear that well-meaning people like Elton John - and the current White House under Biden - are trying to change the world.

Respect? Wrong way to do it.

  

Edited August 23, 2022 by August1991

[TreeBeard]

27 minutes ago, August1991 said:

More or less.

"Governed by Canadian law" is a big term - do you know family law in Canada? (It's governed by provincial law - for good reason.)

====

IMHO, two people are welcome to sign a family contract.

But the word "marriage"?  It's like left-handed or husband. We are what we are.

I fear that well-meaning people like Elton John - and the current White House under Biden - are trying to change the world.

Respect? Wrong way to do it.

  

In Canada, the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with religion.  In fact, I put no stock in a religion governing my private life.  

If your argument is one of biblical tradition, then I suppose you accept marriage as one man and wives?

[August1991]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

In Canada, the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with religion.  In fact, I put no stock in a religion governing my private life.  

If your argument is one of biblical tradition, then I suppose you accept marriage as one man and wives?

In Canada, the legal definition of marriage - contracts of marriage - are clearly under provincial jurisdiction.

Our federal Supreme Court chose to supercede provincal jurisdiction.

=====

I have no problem with gays; I object to their use of marriage to describe their living arrangement.

Moreover, I fear that this abuse of federal power will lead to greater issues in our federation.

 

 

[August1991]

29 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

In Canada, the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with religion.

Precisely. I wish so much that when this gay marriage question had arrived at the federal Supreme Court, it had answered: "Not our problem. You decide."

====

Canada today is civilised because we have a federal state.

I fear that we will no longer be civilised in the future.

 

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Precisely. I wish so much that when this gay marriage question had arrived at the federal Supreme Court, it had answered: "Not our problem. You decide."

It is Canada’s problem if Canadian laws are discriminating against someone.   The Supreme Court never had the option to say “not our problem “.  
 

Canada could have changed the law in such a way that no one is married.   But Canada has deemed it in its best interest to have legal marriages.