Moonbox Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 53 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Virtually all of them except trudeau. Of course - i understand as a liberal supporter you might not notice a difference between a corrupt (bordering on criminal) person and one that isn't. I'm not a Liberal supporter. I've voted for the Liberals federally once in my entire life, and never provincially. Having voted for Harper every time, however, I'm a bit jaded about opposition leaders telling us they're going to be more transparent and accountable, and then not following through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 23, 2023 Report Share Posted February 23, 2023 21 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I'm not a Liberal supporter. I've voted for the Liberals federally once in my entire life, and never provincially. Riiiighhht. 21 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Having voted for Harper every time, however, I'm a bit jaded about opposition leaders telling us they're going to be more transparent and accountable, and then not following through. Really. And which action specifically of harper's made you 'jaded' like that? And why would that be some sort of reason to vote in FAVOR of actual corruption and bad governance, which you claimed the liberal voters were forced to because they didn't have an alternative? And if you're claiming that TRUDEAU is somehow transparent and accountable and therefore there's no other option then i think we can all agree you're either lying or insane. Although i suppose both could be true You know - you have a really bad habit of saying stuff that you later have to walk back and dance around. Maybe you should consider your position before speaking the first time. Liberal voters chose corruption, bad governance AND a severe lack of transparency ( and new laws to go with it) - pretending they didn't have an option is a little silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 16 hours ago, CdnFox said: Really. And which action specifically of harper's made you 'jaded' like that? Well we're talking about one here, so...ya. ? We could also talk about Harper implementing the PBO, and then basically feuding with him at every turn. We can talk about the Senate expense scandals, the failing grades on transparency and access to information, the G20 debacle, muzzling scientists, pro-rogueing parliament, funneling something like 80% of infrastructure spending into conservative ridings, the in-and-out election financing scandal, robo-calls, contempt for parliament, and then (my favorite) - railing about Liberal Omnibus bills and snap-elections, but then passing omnibus bills himself as PM and calling snap elections after his Bill C-16 implemented fixed-election dates. 16 hours ago, CdnFox said: You know - you have a really bad habit of saying stuff that you later have to walk back and dance around. Maybe you should consider your position before speaking the first time. You have a really bad habit of making up goofy strawmen to argue against. ? 17 hours ago, CdnFox said: And why would that be some sort of reason to vote in FAVOR of actual corruption and bad governance, which you claimed the liberal voters were forced to because they didn't have an alternative? Nobody said anyone was voting in FAVOR of actual corruption and bad governance, and nobody said anyone was forced to vote Liberal. My statement was that unless a superior alternative was presented (which in the case of Trudeau is actually a pretty low bar), he'll keep getting elected. ?♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 49 minutes ago, Moonbox said: We could also talk about Harper implementing the PBO, and then basically feuding with him at every turn. uhh - that actually IS improving transparancy. Not having a PBO and not discussing budgetary issues publicly is LESS transparent. 50 minutes ago, Moonbox said: We can talk about the Senate expense scandals, You mean where he tried to force somoene to pay back money to the taxpayers that he felt they'd taken inappropriately? First off - that's my kind of scandal! I wish we had MORE Leaders giving money TO us under the table rather than taking moeny FROM us But - that's not really a transparency issue either. And there were no "failing grades" on transparency or information. I mean - that's just totally made up. The G20 'debacle' was a media shitstorm to sell papers, there was nothing really wrong there. And again - not a transparency issue. The muzzling scientists thing is a bit of a media myth. We can go over that if you like but i'd suggest doing your homework first. And again - not a transparency issue, the scienists' work and research wasn't muzzled. Oh - and trudeau has kept those same laws. Soooo - is he 'muzzling scientists'? Odd how a staunch conservative like you thinks it's muzzling when the CPC does it but not Justin. Every gov't in the history of Canada has prorogued parliament. Which one hasn't. Justin has several times now and so did EVERY GOV"T IN OUR HISTORY. It gets done multiple times. The left tried to turn that into some sort of 'scandal' but EVERY single leader has done that. So .. how is that a 'transparency issue? I mean - virtually everything you said is NOT a transparency issue. Except where you just vaguely say he got "low marks" on transparency. You really have no idea what you're talking about do you. 55 minutes ago, Moonbox said: You have a really bad habit of making up goofy strawmen to argue against. Ahhh -so quoting you specifically is 'Making up goofy straw men". Well - you're pretty goofy but if you self identify as a straw man then so be it. I assume you're real tho. (although if you were a bot it would make more sense now that i think about it) 57 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Nobody said anyone was voting in FAVOR of actual corruption and bad governance, That is literally what we're discussing. Liberal voters did in fact vote in favour of that. YOU claim its' because they didn't have any options. And then said that harper made you distrust opposition that talks about transparency. Let me guess - this is yet another example of you discovering that you have no idea what you're talking about when challenged and now you're having your usual hissy fit and trying to change what we're talking about Man you really suck at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: I mean - virtually everything you said is NOT a transparency issue. Except where you just vaguely say he got "low marks" on transparency. Those were the consistent results of the freedom of information audits and from media/journalist NGO's. ? 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: That is literally what we're discussing. Liberal voters did in fact vote in favour of that. YOU claim its' because they didn't have any options. No, they voted Liberal in favor of an alternative that they trusted even less. Things can always, always get worse. 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Let me guess - this is yet another example of you discovering that you have no idea what you're talking about when challenged and now you're having your usual hissy fit and trying to change what we're talking about Man you really suck at this. There's the emotional projection again. You just can't help it. ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 12 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Those were the consistent results of the freedom of information audits and from media/journalist NGO's No they weren't. if anything he generally got marks for improving transparency. When he got critisized it was generally not for making improvements fast enough, but not for making things worse. Transparency was bad going into it and it was better when he left Whereas trudeau is universally condemned for his making transparency far worse. Soooo - your story isn't adding up here. Quote No, they voted Liberal in favor of an alternative that they trusted even less. That's still voting for corruption, bad governance and all that good stuff. All you're suggesting is they prefer that to other options. That's still bad. 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: There's the emotional projection again. You just can't help it. ROFLMAO - i never mentioned anything 'emotional' - i think you must be talking to the mirror So basically is that how you work? Whatever you're feeling you apply to others? You think i'm smarter so you assume i must think that as well, you get emotional so you assume i must be getting emotional as well? Wow. You're a little broken aren't you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 8 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No they weren't. if anything he generally got marks for improving transparency. When he got critisized it was generally not for making improvements fast enough, but not for making things worse. Transparency was bad going into it and it was better when he left but not actually. Harper had a lot of great ideas and promises, but he didn't actually follow through. The PBO he appointed to monitor government spending comically ended up spending most of its tenure locking horns with the government over their hiding or omitting the information he needed to do his job. The media (at large) complained the whole time how little access they had to information or members/representatives for the government, and the Access to Information infrastructure crumbled under him. 8 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Whereas trudeau is universally condemned for his making transparency far worse. Soooo - your story isn't adding up here. That's not my story. Once again you've just made something up to argue against. That same (former) PBO has explained that transparency probably is worse under Trudeau, continuing a long and sad trend in the wrong direction for our Federal Government. Both promised more transparency, both went the wrong way with it. 8 minutes ago, CdnFox said: ROFLMAO - i never mentioned anything 'emotional' - i think you must be talking to the mirror No, no, not you. You're just telling other people they're having "hissy fits". ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 8 minutes ago, Moonbox said: but not actually. Harper had a lot of great ideas and promises, but he didn't actually follow through. But actually. He followed through on a lot of them. More and more over time. Remember that he only had a minority gov't for the majority of his time in power. That limits what you can do (unless the ndp is propping you up of course ) Quote The PBO he appointed to monitor government spending comically ended up spending most of its tenure locking horns with the government over their hiding or omitting the information he needed to do his job. No, that's certainly not true. The PBO always had enough to do its' job even when it occasionally fought for more. And if your evidence that harper was not transparent is that he hired someone who shed light on every single area that wasn't being fully reported then i'm afraid you defeated your own argument. 11 minutes ago, Moonbox said: The media (at large) complained the whole time how little access they had to information or members/representatives for the government, and the Access to Information infrastructure crumbled under him. No they didn't. Sorry, that's just made up. THe media always wants MORE access but they didn't complain about it crumbling. 12 minutes ago, Moonbox said: No, no, not you. You're just telling other people they're having "hissy fits". That would be YOU being emotional not me ROFLMAO - god you suck at this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said: But actually. He followed through on a lot of them. More and more over time. Remember that he only had a minority gov't for the majority of his time in power. That limits what you can do (unless the ndp is propping you up of course ) Yeah yeah, minorities excuse lots of things, unless you're the Liberals. ? 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No, that's certainly not true. The PBO always had enough to do its' job even when it occasionally fought for more. No, he didn't. He said he didn't. He spent years arguing he didn't. That's why he fought for more. That's why Harper was held in contempt for parliament. That's why the media complained throughout the entire Harper era that they had no access to information or officials. 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No they didn't. Sorry, that's just made up. THe media always wants MORE access but they didn't complain about it crumbling. About the only leg you can stand on here is whether or not they used the word "crumbling". He slashed the access to information budget. He muzzled his MPs. He stonewalled parliament and the PBO. 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That would be YOU being emotional not me ROFLMAO - god you suck at this Projection is an unconscious defense mechanism stemming from the ego. In projection, you take an unacceptable part of yourself, such as your feelings, thoughts, tendencies, and fears, disown it, and place it onto someone else. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 27 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Yeah yeah, minorities excuse lots of things, unless you're the Liberals. Sure. The libs have the pet ndp to turn their minorities into majorities 28 minutes ago, Moonbox said: No, he didn't. He said he didn't. Yes he did, and he frequently put out reports and did his job so obviously he did And harper didn't get along with the first one but he got along fine with the second one. The contempt motion was to force an election by the opposition and we all know how that turned out - the voters said 'bugger off' to the oppositon and harper got a majority. 32 minutes ago, Moonbox said: About the only leg you can stand on here is whether or not they used the word "crumbling". That's the word you used. So if what you're saying is that the only leg i can stand on is that what you said is wrong... er.. ok, i guess so. 32 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Projection is an unconscious defense mechanism stemming from the ego. Well normally i don't approve of self-diagnosis but i think you've hit your problem right on the head there The irony of you claiming others are doing it is delicious You have these little freak outs (and not just with me i notice) and then crybaby about how it's everyone else who's "emotional", and when it's pointed out you claim others are the REAL emotional ones LOL! Check your medical coverage - maybe you can get some therapy covered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 On 2/15/2023 at 4:06 PM, Army Guy said: It seems China keeps coming back to haunt this government On 2/15/2023 at 4:06 PM, Army Guy said: when are liberal voters going to do something, instead of dismiss it. Trudeau wasn't elected. He was installed. Like a toilet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 24, 2023 Report Share Posted February 24, 2023 1 minute ago, Goddess said: Trudeau wasn't elected. He was installed. Like a toilet. Well - he was installed as leader of the party but his party WAS elected and formed gov't. And that's thanks to the liberal voters. And they do need to step up and give a crap for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 (edited) 19 hours ago, CdnFox said: Yes he did, and he frequently put out reports and did his job so obviously he did And harper didn't get along with the first one but he got along fine with the second one. Because he changed the job description and hired someone pliable. Watchdogs should all be like that. ? 19 hours ago, CdnFox said: That's the word you used. So if what you're saying is that the only leg i can stand on is that what you said is wrong... er.. ok, i guess so. If petty word-mongering is how you're trying to score points, go for it. Make mom proud. ? 19 hours ago, CdnFox said: The irony of you claiming others are doing it is delicious You have these little freak outs (and not just with me i notice) and then crybaby about how it's everyone else who's "emotional", and when it's pointed out you claim others are the REAL emotional ones LOL! More projection, mixed with oblivious hypocrisy. ? Edited February 25, 2023 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDog Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 This is what central CanaDUH wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Because he changed the job description and hired someone pliable. Watchdogs should all be like that. The job description stayed the same. And the first guy's term came to an end. They were all hired for a period of time. I love how you're trying to turn the fact he created the PBO's office into a sign that he was LESS transparent tho " I created a watchdog positon which has the freedom to investigate the budget and expenditures". "Curse your lack of transparency" How many positions like that has trudeau created? Ohhhh right 29 minutes ago, Moonbox said: If petty word-mongering is how you're trying to score points, go for it. It's literally what you said. So - if i quote you and use the words you said, it's "Petty word mongerinug" Well i don't think you're in any danger of making your mom proud at least you - "I SAY IT IS <this> me - "It doesnt' make sense to say it's <this>" You - HOW DAAAAAAARREEEEE YOU NIT PICK WHAT I SAAAAAAY!!!! LOL - holy shit man, if you think the word is petty or don't agree that's the right word then next time don't use it and i won't quote it i apologize for mistakenly thinking you meant what you said And everyone can see it's not anyone else who's projecting kiddo Edited February 25, 2023 by CdnFox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 Speaking for myself, I find all this 'whataboutism' extremely boring. What seems to be overlooked is that Trudeau and senior aides were briefed at least twice on Michael Chan by security officials. In a 2019 briefing, security officials told PMO staff (including chief of staff Katie Telford) that someone should reach out to Mary Ng and advise her to be extra careful when dealing with Chan. But according to Ng, no one from the PMO ever contacted her. A confidant of Ng claims that Chan was dropped as co-chair after public comments condemning Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrations. The question here should be... why bother having a security agency at all if the highest levels of government pay no attention to what they have to say? Chan does have an amazing reputation at fund raising for federal and provincial Liberal parties which appears to be higher on the priority list than who he allegedly has ties to. As far as I understand, CSIS has nothing on Mary Ng and as such should be completely exonerated for any wrong doing. Chan has brought a libel action against the Globe for a 2015 article but the case has not yet gone to court. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-csis-warned-trudeau-about-toronto-area-politicians-alleged-ties-to/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 5 minutes ago, suds said: why bother having a security agency at all if the highest levels of government pay no attention to what they have to say? Well this comes back to my original point tho - the voters have to hold the highest level of gov't to account if they don't pay attention. And they're not doing that. Voting liberal after all that's happened is absolutely horrible - and we get excuses like "but there's no alterative - after all harper hired a budget officer and it's turned me off the CPC". As long as the liberal supporters are prepared to vote in gov'ts who do this - why would they change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 25, 2023 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 I think there is more to this story than is being told, now there is issues with another Liberal candidate in the TO area..., lets not forget there was a list out there with 11 MP's names on it with CSIS allegations of Chinese's interference, this story seems to be growing legs. What do liberal voters think of the globes statement below ? Go figure Chinese don't like PP either...to conservative for them... Quote “The Liberal Party of Canada is becoming the only party that the People’s Republic of China can support,” a CSIS document reviewed by Global News states. LILLEY: New report names candidate CSIS claims got help from China (msn.com) Liberals ignored CSIS warning on 2019 candidate accused in Chinese interference probe: sources (msn.com) Quote Even if allegations regarding Chan and Dong's alleged acts for the Chinese Communist Party are proven to be true, some national security experts say Canada lacks foreign interference laws that would make these actions illegal. Now that is something to chew on, yes there is interference but we really can't do anything about it legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted February 25, 2023 Report Share Posted February 25, 2023 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Now that is something to chew on, yes there is interference but we really can't do anything about it legally. If the goal is to have our elections decided by Canadians then why not start with the nomination process? As CSIS points out, not having to be a Canadian citizen to be a voting member of a political party almost begs for interference especially with those ridings which have a habitual tendency of voting one way. It does seem rather odd that one must be a Canadian citizen to vote in elections but not a requirement to vote for the candidates who would run in those elections. If Canada suffers from a lack of certain foreign interference laws then how about we start making some? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 26, 2023 Report Share Posted February 26, 2023 10 hours ago, CdnFox said: The job description stayed the same. And the first guy's term came to an end. They were all hired for a period of time. I love how you're trying to turn the fact he created the PBO's office into a sign that he was LESS transparent tho " I created a watchdog positon which has the freedom to investigate the budget and expenditures". "Curse your lack of transparency" Creating the watchdog is great. Muzzling the watchdog and not giving it the information it was asking for to do its job and then feuding with it, isn't. Your proposed transparency isn't transparency at all, but rather smoke and mirrors for the dumdums to nod their heads at. Next we need a "Ministry of Truth" for geniuses like you to get impressed about. "They created the Ministry of Truth, so we get more Truth!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 26, 2023 Report Share Posted February 26, 2023 1 minute ago, Moonbox said: Creating the watchdog is great. Muzzling the watchdog and not giving it the information it was asking for to do its job and then feuding with it, isn't. He had the tools, and did the job and produced reports. He just wanted to expand his job and got cocky. If Harper had intended to create a fake position or neuter it he would have been much more selective about who he hired, making sure it was some species of loyalist. Fake outrage about a non-problem. It's pretty obvious. Have you even READ any of the reports generated during harper's time by that office? no? If you had instead of pretending to be fake-outraged by this you'd have noticed they are in fact full of facts, very detailed and critical of the gov't frequently. Harper improved transparency a great deal. If he hadn't - he would never ever have had to fight with the guy in the first place. So lets quit with the fake bullshit. Overall harper's time in office was an improvement in transparency. Overall Justin's time has been the opposite. So your pretending that this is some sort of justification for liberal supporters and yourself to avoid the CPC is clearly not genuine or justified, Want to try again? Or are you done pretending now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.