Jump to content

Pierre Pollivere responds to questions of racism in his caucus (hilarious!)


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But they don't. In fact they've been known on more than one occasion to completely destroy their party rather than continue to vote for corrupt versions of it.

Right, so no lies or deceit from the Harper Conservatives, nope nope nope!

Same goes for the Republicans in the US.

It's only the Liberals who have lied and deceived their constituents, and never been held accountable.  They're unique, yup yup.  ?   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Right, so no lies or deceit from the Harper Conservatives, nope nope nope!

LOL - you're so transparent when you realize you're losing a debate that it's a wonder we can still see you :) Lets unpack a little here...

Harper spun the truth and put a good face on things  like every politician but real lies and deceit? Not really. I notice you didn' provide any examples of these terrible 'lies and decept" you obviously think he did :) 

But hey - you explain to me when he lied in a similar way as trudeau has about not being briefed on china. Or when he deceived the voters about something the way trudeau has been. 

And don't just waste our time posting some news article about things he did you didn't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Harper offer change, but don't think for a moment harper won that election becasue Quebec was sick of the liberals... come on... 

Really milk and steel, you seem to forget that milk was sacrificed by a couple of percentage points, to placate the Americans it was what they were demanding... lets not forget that milk is also a Ontario industry as well, It is the federal government that developed the dairy cartel to what it is today...And it is the cartel that keeps that Industry in Quebec while others are not allow to participate. 

your going to bring up Muskrat falls, after Quebec deliberately screwed them on the original power project for 50 years, giving back NFLD only a small fraction of the profits...and then wonder why they might want to seek another route... And if the feds wanted to screw you on this they would have funded the entire under water cable to the Maritimes and sold NB, PEI, NS, and Maine the cheap electrical power. Quebec wants it all so it can sell the Maritimes the same power for more..  thats not cooperation but just plain greed...

I did not say Harper win because of Quebec. I do not know what I could have said that make you think that. One thing for sure, it helped a little bit that the LPC was not popular in Quebec. Only the english citizens of Quebec were voting for the LPC.

Foreign companies, other provinces or outside were allowed to sell milk products in Quebec. What you mean is, they had to use Quebec milk first and since we were producing enough milk, there were no issues. Now foreign companies can bypass Quebec milk. Consumers won't win anything. Producers will lose for sure. The quality will no longer rely on us but, on foreigners. It's a lose-lose deal for us. Ontario producers are losing as well, not only Quebec. Better now?

Quebec DID NOT SCREW THEM. At the time, nobody knew the oil industry would rise that much, nobody knew the nuclear industry would become so expensive, nobody knew the coal and other polluting industries would go down like that. No body knew, neither NFL, nor HQ. No one else than HQ were ready to do the project. So at the time, it was very risky and NFL DID NOT want to take any risk. That is why the deal was setup like that. Of course, when you look back with the context of today, HQ did clearly get the best part of the deal. NFL must regrets to not take at least a little part of the risk. but that was their choice.

The federal does fund the entire water cable. Trudeau signed a blank check. I still do not understand why you guys let this one passes. No matter what it does cost, the federal will pay. Perhaps you do not understand that clause Trudeau just gave them.
Whatever the deal that has been signed 50 years ago, Muskret falls was a new project. NFL could have easily negotiate with Quebec about how to share the profit with the participation of HQ. But the NFL's leaders were so stupids, they chose incompetent foreigners and they failed badly. It cost them a fortune.
I think NFL has better leaders now. Legault was invited to meet them regarding another new project coming. NFL would let HQ participate in, and in exchange, the old deal's sharing profit would be renegotiated. That is more clever and I am all for that. If HQ adds more assets to its repository and the NFL gets more profits, it's a win win. Even the other provinces would win since they would probably not have to pay for that very costly under water cable.

Quote

Quebec companies are receiving federal funding and that means jobs in Quebec, stop playing the victim here. or acting like things are so bad in Quebec, when other provinces are much worse off, and don't complain half as much.. 

Then stop pretending we are sucking up money. Sometimes those companies receive unnecessary subsides and they do not create more jobs. It's just a way to thank the friendly donators to the party. I totally admit this is sometimes happening. Quebec people do not benefit from it. The liberal friends do. I am just asking you to be honest about it and do not blame my people for those suckers mostly supported by the english Quebecers. Quebec people are as honest and proud as any other canadians. We ask for our fair share of the overall federal fundings and nothing more, nothing less. But it is so easier to look at only one side of the road, avoid many sections of the big picture and conclude to Quebec bashing. Sometimes it is like it's the real motto of the country. Instead of Coast to coast, it would be, Blame it on Quebec. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - you're so transparent when you realize you're losing a debate that it's a wonder we can still see you :) Lets unpack a little here...

Harper spun the truth and put a good face on things  like every politician but real lies and deceit? Not really. I notice you didn' provide any examples of these terrible 'lies and decept" you obviously think he did :) 

But hey - you explain to me when he lied in a similar way as trudeau has about not being briefed on china. Or when he deceived the voters about something the way trudeau has been. 

And don't just waste our time posting some news article about things he did you didn't like.

Liberals have raised lies, hypocrisy and corruption to a level they are the only ones that can reach it, to a point we can label their name on it.

But pretending that would give a free pass to the conservatives and Harper, it's a big no. There are two major promesses Harper did so may times and did the exact opposite, he clearly f---ed his own supporters with it.

Senate: He was totally against partisan appointment and he wanted a triple E senate (the Preston Manning's dream, it rings you a bell?). One of the E was for Elected. Not only he did not hold that promise, he did not even tried and he end up with  the Canada's new record of partisan appointments. He so screwed you on that.

Decentralization: Harper did promise that the federal would become more decentralized to the benefit of the provinces. Especially in the area where there are duplications of the roles. He promised that at the golden age of the liberal era when the centralization and the liberal way became a liberal dictatorship. The new CPC was just born out of a painful pilgrim path going through Reform party and Canadian Alliance party. The canadians and mostly the westeners could not stand the federal government anymore. Bottom line, not only he did not do any step toward that direction, he was abusing it himself when it was his turn. So whenever a liberal is getting back the power, it still can abuse of a very centralized système at the expenses of the provinces.

No matter how big the liberals could screw things up, it cannot shadow those Harper's betrayals. I suggest a little more humility in your critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Benz said:

Liberals have raised lies, hypocrisy and corruption to a level they are the only ones that can reach it, to a point we can label their name on it.

But pretending that would give a free pass to the conservatives and Harper, it's a big no. There are two major promesses Harper did so may times and did the exact opposite, he clearly f---ed his own supporters with it.

Well as we will see that isn't true.

54 minutes ago, Benz said:

Senate: He was totally against partisan appointment and he wanted a triple E senate (the Preston Manning's dream, it rings you a bell?). One of the E was for Elected. Not only he did not hold that promise, he did not even tried and he end up with  the Canada's new record of partisan appointments. He so screwed you on that.

So - harper actually went to court to win the right to do that - the supreme court shot him down and he got into a huge pissing match with them saying it should absolutely be lawful but they ruled it wasn't and he couldn't, so he didn't fill seats for ages even tho he could have loaded up the senate with conservatives.

You don't know your history very well do you. He made a major effort spanning years.

54 minutes ago, Benz said:

Decentralization: Harper did promise that the federal would become more decentralized to the benefit of the provinces. Especially in the area where there are duplications of the roles. He promised that at the golden age of the liberal era when the centralization and the liberal way became a liberal dictatorship. The new CPC was just born out of a painful pilgrim path going through Reform party and Canadian Alliance party. The canadians and mostly the westeners could not stand the federal government anymore. Bottom line, not only he did not do any step toward that direction, he was abusing it himself when it was his turn.

once again the opposite is true. You  REALLY don't know your history. Not only that he increased provincial transfer funds (despite a recession) to help provinces do what they already were responsible for.

54 minutes ago, Benz said:

So whenever a liberal is getting back the power, it still can abuse of a very centralized système at the expenses of the provinces.

No, they had to add back a lot of that infrastructure first. Trudeau has been on a massive federal employee hiring spree for ages and has radically expanded the size of gov't. That is why.

54 minutes ago, Benz said:

No matter how big the liberals could screw things up, it cannot shadow those Harper's betrayals. I suggest a little more humility in your critics.

Buddy - you came here with outright fabrications that 2 seconds of googling could have told you were BRUTALLY wrong and you think WE should have more humility?

Not only did harper deliver on those promises or make every effort to do so, he did it in a minority with no ndp backing him up.

Further, if it was true in some alternate universe are you SERIOUSLY proposing that not changing the senate is on par with what trudeau has done  and somehow is so bad justin is BETTER? Tamporing with the justice system? The new censorship law? The attack on gun owners rights? LETTING CHINA BUY AN ELECTION??? Those things aren't as bad as harper not delivering reform in the senate? Are you OUT of your MIND?

Nice attempt at trolling i guess but jeez - at least make an effort next time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well as we will see that isn't true.

So - harper actually went to court to win the right to do that - the supreme court shot him down and he got into a huge pissing match with them saying it should absolutely be lawful but they ruled it wasn't and he couldn't, so he didn't fill seats for ages even tho he could have loaded up the senate with conservatives.

You don't know your history very well do you. He made a major effort spanning years.

once again the opposite is true. You  REALLY don't know your history. Not only that he increased provincial transfer funds (despite a recession) to help provinces do what they already were responsible for.

No, they had to add back a lot of that infrastructure first. Trudeau has been on a massive federal employee hiring spree for ages and has radically expanded the size of gov't. That is why.

Buddy - you came here with outright fabrications that 2 seconds of googling could have told you were BRUTALLY wrong and you think WE should have more humility?

Not only did harper deliver on those promises or make every effort to do so, he did it in a minority with no ndp backing him up.

 

1. Anyone that has at least one single cell functioning, knew you need to change the constitution for that. Harper tried to change the system without changing the rules of the system. It was a planned fail and you are one super naive to believe that trap. How more stupid this can be. One does not attempt to change the rules and then ask the court to avoid the rules. Harper needed to reopen the constitution but, he was too chicken to attempt to do that. This is the worst lame excuse to defend a coward.

2. Giving a little bit more money to the province IS NOT the same thing as real decentralization. Now you are sounding like an old liberal trying to justify the system. It's always the same thing, over and over. The provinces are whining and sticking up together until the federal is breaking their unity one by one by giving a little bit of money the easiest whores. The only time I saw 2 real province leaders standing up against the federal and make it back down, it is when Mike Harris and Lucien Bouchard teamed up in 2000. 

 

Quote

Further, if it was true in some alternate universe are you SERIOUSLY proposing that not changing the senate is on par with what trudeau has done  and somehow is so bad justin is BETTER? Tamporing with the justice system? The new censorship law? The attack on gun owners rights? LETTING CHINA BUY AN ELECTION??? Those things aren't as bad as harper not delivering reform in the senate? Are you OUT of your MIND?

Nice attempt at trolling i guess but jeez - at least make an effort next time

This is not what I said. No matter how bad and terrible Trudeau is, it does not excuse Harper's fail. One big bad does not excuse a smaller one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Benz said:

1. Anyone that has at least one single cell functioning, knew you need to change the constitution for that.

Nope.  A lot of experts agreed with Harper. It seemed an excellent compromise solution given the previous failures. It made a lot of sense - allow the provinces to present a short list and the pm is still choosing. THe consensus at the time was that should be acceptable, it's still the PM making the choice and a future pm could always undo it so they weren't bound to it

But lets take a step back. YOU claimed he didn't do a single thing to even try. Now suddenly you've magically become an expert on the fact he did try and tried very hard.

Sooooo - you either lied then or you're just making shit up now.  Ether way, your credibility is taking a serious beating here.

 

1 minute ago, Benz said:

2. Giving a little bit more money to the province IS NOT the same thing as real decentralization.

Which is why i mentioned it was on top of his other efforts, and it IS a necessary part of decentralization. So nobody suggested that transfer increases were the same thing.

So now you can't even be honest about what I said. Well well.

Here's a hint in life kid - if you have to lie to make your point, it's probably not a very good point.

1 minute ago, Benz said:

 

This is not what I said.

It was actually. Maybe you meant to say something different.

1 minute ago, Benz said:

No matter how bad and terrible Trudeau is, it does not excuse Harper's fail. One big bad does not excuse a smaller one.

Well as we've seen your 'bad' harper things didn't exist. So it's not even an issue.

But at the end of the day gov'ts will screw up one way or another. Scope and scale DOES matter. ANd clearly there's a long history that says if conservative voters don't think the gov't is being above board or is corrupt they destroy them. Liberal voters don't have that track record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - you're so transparent when you realize you're losing a debate that it's a wonder we can still see you :) Lets unpack a little here...

Yes, let's unpack your latest strawman.  You can't help yourself...

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Harper spun the truth and put a good face on things  like every politician but real lies and deceit? Not really. I notice you didn' provide any examples of these terrible 'lies and decept" you obviously think he did :) 

Yeah man, totally.  Conservatives only "spun the truth".  They didn't lie..."not really".  It's only the Liberals that do that.  ?

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But hey - you explain to me when he lied in a similar way as trudeau has about not being briefed on china. Or when he deceived the voters about something the way trudeau has been. 

In a similar way as Trudeau?  What does that even mean, lol?  

You're proving my point though.  A partisan hack will downplay the misteps/mistruths of his team, and exaggerate those of their opponents.  "Just spinning the truth...not as bad as..."  It's all pretty tiresome.  

Keep in mind that I've been extremely critical of Trudeau on this issue, but how dare I question the spotless record of the Harper government.  ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, let's unpack your latest strawman.  You can't help yourself...

Yeah man, totally.  Conservatives only "spun the truth".  They didn't lie..."not really".  It's only the Liberals that do that.  ?

ROFLMAO - so by "unpack" you mean just make sarcastic statements using reductio ad absurdum as your only argument :) 

Well that's one way to admit i was right i guess :)

 

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

In a similar way as Trudeau?  What does that even mean, lol?  

Similar? Pretty simple:

similar
  1. Having a resemblance in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.

I know - english is hard for you.

So - for example Trudeau said he had not been briefed on chinese interference and it turns out he has several times. That is an out and out blatant lie. Not someone else in his gov't lied, he lied.

Did harper do anything like that? No? Hmmmmm

Trudeau made specific claims during the SNC lavalin case and later a recording showed he had out and out lied.  Did harper do anything like that? No? Hmmmmm

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You're proving my point though.  A partisan hack will downplay the misteps/mistruths of his team, and exaggerate those of their opponents.  "Just spinning the truth...not as bad as..."  It's all pretty tiresome.  

Down play what - you haven't given a SINGLE example.  The guy was in power for 9 years and YOU CAN"T FIND A SINGLE EXAMPLE :)   You can't accuse me of downplaying anything till you put an example on the table.

So it would seem that what tires you out is trying to defend an argument that you know is wrong :)

 

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Keep in mind that I've been extremely critical of Trudeau on this issue, but how dare I question the spotless record of the Harper government.  ?

Keep in mind you haven't made a single argument to back up your assertion.

And again you simply must try to change the channel. Nobody has claimed harper is "spotless".  What we're discussing is did he out and out lie as we're seeing justin do right now.

And you can't come up with a single example of when he did.

Awwww muffin - you try so hard but always fail SO bad :)  I know you don't WANT it to be true but unfortunately facts don't care about your feeewings  Better luck next time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope.  A lot of experts agreed with Harper. It seemed an excellent compromise solution given the previous failures. It made a lot of sense - allow the provinces to present a short list and the pm is still choosing. THe consensus at the time was that should be acceptable, it's still the PM making the choice and a future pm could always undo it so they weren't bound to it

lolll experts! Harper has always been selective on who he wants to listen to. He should have listen to our experts instead of his. He tried to force the federal to accept a list of names coming from the provinces, even if the CONSTITUTION gives 100% of the power to the federal on that matter. Where the ---- he found his experts? In a crackerjack box?

When the time came for him to name new senators, did he required a list of names coming from the provinces? Who did he chose in Quebec's names list? ?

Quote

But lets take a step back. YOU claimed he didn't do a single thing to even try. Now suddenly you've magically become an expert on the fact he did try and tried very hard.

ok, I can give you that one. He did try very hard to fail on purpose. He did not try to do the right thing that needs to be done though. If he really wanted to make it happen, after his ridiculous fail, he would have open the discussion for the constitution and Quebec would have been an ally. But he has been raised to hate Quebec and blame Quebec for everything like so many other small size ones.

Quote

Sooooo - you either lied then or you're just making shit up now.  Ether way, your credibility is taking a serious beating here.

You wish. How old are you? Facts are facts dude.

Quote

Which is why i mentioned it was on top of his other efforts, and it IS a necessary part of decentralization. So nobody suggested that transfer increases were the same thing.

So now you can't even be honest about what I said. Well well.

Don't play the victim with me. You are the one arguing it is a necessary move, while it is only momentary one that can't last forever. Because the next government can reverses everything and even make it worst. Admit it, it was far from enough.

Quote

Here's a hint in life kid - if you have to lie to make your point, it's probably not a very good point.

It was actually. Maybe you meant to say something different.

Well as we've seen your 'bad' harper things didn't exist. So it's not even an issue.

At this point, the best word to describe you is pathetic. You failed miserably. You need to learn that it is ok to lose sometimes. I know that you know what Harper did is not what should have been done. You also know that if he really wanted to make it happen, he would have done the right thing afterward. He rather used that as a lame excuse to not do it and only fanatic supporter can swallow that. Harper was more focus on fighting for the power, than fighting for his convictions.

Quote

But at the end of the day gov'ts will screw up one way or another. Scope and scale DOES matter. ANd clearly there's a long history that says if conservative voters don't think the gov't is being above board or is corrupt they destroy them. Liberal voters don't have that track record.

Liberals have a total different mindset. They are not capable to differ good from wrong regarding the administration of public funds. It is systematic. They put their hands in the cookie jar and then they try to figure out of way to not being caught. They see that as a game, a game in which they want to be the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Keep in mind you haven't made a single argument to back up your assertion.

That what?  That the Conservatives lie too, or that the Conservatives lie "in a similar way" to Trudeau?  

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Down play what - you haven't given a SINGLE example.  The guy was in power for 9 years and YOU CAN"T FIND A SINGLE EXAMPLE :)   You can't accuse me of downplaying anything till you put an example on the table.

Because it's retarded to argue that Harper never lied, or that his government never did.  He was breaking election promises in his first year in government, promising not to tax income trusts and then implementing income tax trusts before the end of that year.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benz said:

lolll experts! Harper has always been selective on who he wants to listen to. He should have listen to our experts instead of his. He tried to force the federal to accept a list of names coming from the provinces, even if the CONSTITUTION gives 100% of the power to the federal on that matter. Where the ---- he found his experts? In a crackerjack box?

First off - YOUR experts? So...  you're a member of the liberal party or what?

And sorry but if you have dedicated experts then YOU are being JUST as selective as he is.

In any case many neutral experts did say it should be possible.

But that's not really the issue. The point is YOU claimed he did NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!   Which is in fact a lie. He did try and he tried hard. So.. of the two points you tried to make we can agree that one was completely fake news.

If you have to lie to make a point - you don't have a very good point.

1 hour ago, Benz said:

When the time came for him to name new senators, did he required a list of names coming from the provinces? Who did he chose in Quebec's names list? ?

Uhhh no, he just refused to name any. I thought you knew about this?

1 hour ago, Benz said:

 

You wish. How old are you? Facts are facts dude.

You haven't come up with a single fact yet kiddo. In fact  if anything you've been shown to be wrong

So lets cut through the remaining drivel.  You got caught lying and now you're just  resorting to insults and stupidity.

Both your stated 'reasons' were wrong. Harper did make a very serious attempt at change without opening the constitution, which is what he promised, and he absolutely did give more autonomy to the provinces and funded their activites so you were dishonest there again.

Which suggests you're just a liberal shill who's furious that his attempt to smear harper went sideways on him.  You should have asked "your" experts about it first :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That what?  That the Conservatives lie too, or that the Conservatives lie "in a similar way" to Trudeau?  

Either. Or anything else for that matter.

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Because it's retarded to argue that Harper never lied, or that his government never did. 

LOL - ahhh and here we see the attempt to change the channel :)   trying to slip the 'his gov't' in as well because you can't find a single example of him doing it :)  If you're so sure he did why can't you find any evidence of it?

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

He was breaking election promises in his first year in government, promising not to tax income trusts and then implementing income tax trusts before the end of that year.  

Sure. And he stood up, owned it, said 'there was information we didn't have and in light of that i have to break my promise", put it to a vote in parliament and everyone voted for it.

That's called a mistake. He didn't try to hide it, he didn't try to lie about it, he owned it and said sorry for his screw up.

So.. was that the closest you could come to a lie? :) ROFLMAO!  I  swear to god i can hear you pulling your hair out from here - you can't find a single thing can you :)

Hilarious!

Harper wasn't perfect by any means but obviously as you have discovered he didn't lie to or decieve the public - justin trudeau has been caught doing both on a number of occasions now. You were wrong - sorry you're butthurt over it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure. And he stood up, owned it, said 'there was information we didn't have and in light of that i have to break my promise", put it to a vote in parliament and everyone voted for it.

No, he made a promise that he thought would get him votes and support from the business community, then he reneged.  The problem with corporations converting to income trusts as a tax loophole was apparent long before the election promises were made.  

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Harper wasn't perfect by any means but obviously as you have discovered he didn't lie to or decieve the public - justin trudeau has been caught doing both on a number of occasions now. You were wrong - sorry you're butthurt over it.

I've discovered no such thing, and you continue to prove my point.  Whether it's Harper lying that he didn't know anything about the Mike Duffy scandal despite meeting him in person about it months earlier, deception over the F-35 costs or the income trust about-face, you're going to frame it as "spin" rather than deception, because that's what partisan hacks do.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, he made a promise that he thought would get him votes and support from the business community, then he reneged. 

Sure  sure - provide your source which shows that was his intent. He went through it at the time, until you actually have the books in front of you it's often not possible to see the full effect and everyone accepted that at the time. And he still stood up and explained it and said this is why we screwed up.  So no lie there.

Remember - we're looking for evidence of HIM lying. Not you.

33 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I've discovered no such thing,

Well everyone else watching you dance like a monkey to try to avoid it sure has :)

Still can't come up with a single example of Harper lying can you  :)  But but but but - there must be at least one!  He lies constantly according to you :)

36 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Whether it's Harper lying that he didn't know anything about the Mike Duffy scandal despite meeting him in person about it months earlier,

Uhhhh actually both him and duffy and the other person involved agreed that harper wasn't in the room to discuss it when the loan offer was made. Harper just met with him to say one way or another he had to pay the money back to taxpayers.

Soooo - not a lie.

37 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

deception over the F-35 costs

There wasn't an ounce of deception there. All figures and how they were arrived at were made fully public. Some people thought that the pilots should have been included in the cost but the gov't did point out we're going to need pilots for ANY plane they buy and didn't consider it plane specific  BUT - you could see clearly what they did and didn't include.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what a lie actually is? Are you sure you're not a liberal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure  sure - provide your source which shows that was his intent. He went through it at the time, until you actually have the books in front of you it's often not possible to see the full effect and everyone accepted that at the time. And he still stood up and explained it and said this is why we screwed up.  So no lie there.

They had access to all the books they needed, especially as the official opposition.  They had access to economists, lawyers and corporate accountants across the country.  The big telecom companies were already planning to convert to income trusts before the election, so the numbers weren't surprises that came out of nowhere.  The idea that this was just a careless "oopsy" mistake is exactly the sort of limp partisan coping I was referring to when I originally responded...to Army Guy.  ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 4:27 PM, Moonbox said:

Same way that Conservative voters can continue to vote for lies and deceit, and how Republicans in the US can keep voting for lies and deceit, and how Democrats do the same.  

Some people are just hopelessly partisan and only ever vote for one party no matter what ?.  

So your saying a pathological lair like Justin is, just normal behavior,  we have all lied at one time, so we should not trust anyone with anything...or are you saying the PP went out of the way to deceive Canadians or lied to cover something up... please give us an example that would put them in the same plane as Justin..

Edited by Army Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

They had access to all the books they needed, especially as the official opposition. 

Of course they don't.  That's why he created the office of the parlimentary budget officer to overlook such things and produce reports and do cost estimating during elections. Opposition parties never have full access to the books.

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 

They had access to economists, lawyers and corporate accountants across the country. 

many of whom said it should be do-able. OF course they didnt' have access either

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 

The big telecom companies were already planning to convert to income trusts before the election, so the numbers weren't surprises that came out of nowhere. 

Sure they are. They don't stand in isolation you know. He thought he could make it work. He opened up the books, saw where things really were, and they realized it wasn't going to work. Part of that was the 'creative' liberal accounting he'd based his numbers on that didn't quite line up when he could see the actual books.

Which is why the libs shut up and voted for it to make sure it passed.

And like i said - he stood up, owned it, and let the public know why he was wrong and put it to a vote in the house. No lie there.

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 

The idea that this was just a careless "oopsy" mistake is exactly the sort of limp partisan coping I was referring to when I originally responded...to Army Guy.  ?

Your inability to make your case and attempt to blow it off as "Sure i'm right because unsubstantiated reason!" is the kind of weak minded childish low brow thinking that frequently leads to dismissing facts as 'limp partisan' crap.

Virtually everything you offered was wrong.  And that isn't much - considering you couldn't come up with a single example of harper lying to the public. Which was your whole thing, harper is this notorious liar. And you can't get an example. I can give many for trudeau.  He  hasn't even been in as long as harper.

So there you go. Harper was far from perfect. But he didn't lie to or decieve the public the way that the liberals have. There was no money under the table at restaurants, there was no chinese breifings that he lied about not getting only for it to be revealed that he did.

Swing and a miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

So your saying a pathological lair like Justin is, just normal behavior,  we have all lied at one time, so we should not trust anyone with anything...

I think I was pretty clear in what I said.  Partisans exaggerate the lies of their team's opponents, and downplay the lies of their team.  

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

or are you saying the PP went out of the way to deceive Canadians

Oh absolutely yes.  Pierre Poilievre is a rampant liar and bullshit artist.  

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

or lied to cover something up... please give us an example that would put them in the same plane as Justin..

Since he's not governing much of anything he doesn't have a whole lot to cover up.  Even if he did have a record to run on beyond being a career politician (just like Justin), you'd make excuses for him while holding Justin up as the anti-Christ.  It's how the tribes function (whatever side you're on) and how guys like Justin get elected.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

First off - YOUR experts? So...  you're a member of the liberal party or what?

And sorry but if you have dedicated experts then YOU are being JUST as selective as he is.

In any case many neutral experts did say it should be possible.

But that's not really the issue. The point is YOU claimed he did NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!   Which is in fact a lie. He did try and he tried hard. So.. of the two points you tried to make we can agree that one was completely fake news.

If you have to lie to make a point - you don't have a very good point.

Uhhh no, he just refused to name any. I thought you knew about this?

You haven't come up with a single fact yet kiddo. In fact  if anything you've been shown to be wrong

So lets cut through the remaining drivel.  You got caught lying and now you're just  resorting to insults and stupidity.

Both your stated 'reasons' were wrong. Harper did make a very serious attempt at change without opening the constitution, which is what he promised, and he absolutely did give more autonomy to the provinces and funded their activites so you were dishonest there again.

Which suggests you're just a liberal shill who's furious that his attempt to smear harper went sideways on him.  You should have asked "your" experts about it first :)

After you write something like that, do  you think you have won something or made your point? Is it how you see yourself?

"should be possible". It could be possible IF AND ONLY IF the prime minister of Canada is asking, by its own initiative, the provinces to provide a list of names. Nothing prevents a PM to do that if it what it wants. But you are misreading his "experts". You think it could be translated to, it is possible to force the next PM to proceed that way without changing the rules.

When I said nothing, I meant nothing intelligent. I should have been more precise. So I told you, I give you that, he did something... something stupid but, he did. Once he has been told that no, this is not how to do things. He should have did it to proper way. Then he did not even tried. He did not have the balls to reopen the constitution. That's the most important point and my point from the start is, he did not do the necessary to make his promise happens.

More pathetic, he did not give the example and he was choosing senators among his "friends". No matter how hard you try, you cannot escape that reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Benz said:

After you write something like that, do  you think you have won something or made your point? Is it how you see yourself?

Awwww muffin. Are you projecting? So what you're saying is you feel you lost?  I'm sorry that the facts make you feel bad.

1 minute ago, Benz said:

"should be possible". It could be possible IF AND ONLY IF the prime minister of Canada is asking, by its own initiative, the provinces to provide a list of names. Nothing prevents a PM to do that if it what it wants. But you are misreading his "experts". You think it could be translated to, it is possible to force the next PM to proceed that way without changing the rules.

No. He proposed a non binding solution, Any future prime minister could choose not to pick from the selection of the province. It would be more of a 'recommendation'.  The courts had issue with the selection process of the recommendation, saying that by holding an election even of RECOMMENDED candidates it was stepping outside of the charter. By even setting that process up EVEN THO THE PM WAS NOT BOUND TO IT - the court said you're still essentially changing how things are done and some provinces may not want to elect their own senators so you need constitutional buy in before you can make ANY changes at all to how the process is done.  

So you obviously don't even understand what was proposed. So you've just been talking out of your ass the whole time. Well - there you go. No wonder you feel like a loser. Next time do some research.

1 minute ago, Benz said:

When I said nothing, I meant nothing intelligent.

LOL - well if that's the criteria for 'something'  then you've said nothing  :)

It was actually a pretty clever idea and i think the court was wrong to strike it down. It would have solved a lot of problems without binding anyone to anything. Any province could have chosen not to elect it's 'recommended list' and those who wanted to could choose to do so. Term limits would have to have been by choice with the persons agreeing to it.

But seeing as you obviously don't know anything about it theres no surprise you didn't get that :)

1 minute ago, Benz said:

 So I told you, I give you that, he did something... something stupid but, he did.

So you lied.  Or you just forgot about it. And now you've been shown to be wrong and you're trying to re-write what you said retroactively.  While i appreicate your extensive efforts in retcon nobody buys it.

So - we agree harper did do something, Something he thought would work, something many experts thought would work, and something that had it been allowed would actually have been pretty clever and made things better for most canadians.

So your first claim that it is "Unforgiveable" that he did nothing is something we both agree now is false.

1 minute ago, Benz said:

Once he has been told that no, this is not how to do things. He should have did it to proper way. Then he did not even tried.

Actually you're wrong again. He did indeed speak to the premiers, who have to agree to open the books to constitutional change.  But they were quite clear there was no concensus on how it should be done. Some provinces wanted full on elections directly to the senate position, others wanted it to be a 'recommendation' like he'd proposed, quebec didn't want it at all but would consider it if they got a bunch of constitutional concessions.....

No chance of proceeding. So having seen how this went with meech and charolettown he said he couldn't proceed.

But - once again you pretend none of that happened.
 

Sorry kiddo - your lack of historic knowledge and obvious liberal bias (your experts! Snicker!) has let you down.

1 minute ago, Benz said:

More pathetic, he did not give the example and he was choosing senators among his "friends". No matter how hard you try, you cannot escape that reality.

He didn't choose ANY senators for a very long time and many positions were still unfilled when Trudeau took over.

So - again, you just don't get it.

So again - your first 'unforgivable sin'  is a complete fabrication. Harper did make a serious attempt, and it was exactly what he campaigned on. He specifically campaigned on attempting senate reform without constitutional changes. And he did try and got shot down.

Boy - if you felt like a loser before, i can only imagine what you feel like now :)   Did you want to discuss your second 'unforgivable sin' as well, Or are you done looking like an uneducated buffoon for now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I think I was pretty clear in what I said.  Partisans exaggerate the lies of their team's opponents, and downplay the lies of their team.  

Oh absolutely yes.  Pierre Poilievre is a rampant liar and bullshit artist.  

Since he's not governing much of anything he doesn't have a whole lot to cover up.  Even if he did have a record to run on beyond being a career politician (just like Justin), you'd make excuses for him while holding Justin up as the anti-Christ.  It's how the tribes function (whatever side you're on) and how guys like Justin get elected.  

This is not about partisans it is about ALL politicians lie, so it is normal behavior, and is excepted...i did ask for a couple of examples of PP lying as the leader of the opposition..

So lets be clear then PP has no real lies or cover ups and well Justin has hundreds but some how they are both the same.

The difference i see is this Justin Lies straight to the media, and Canadians on PURPOSE to decieve us all into thinking he is tell the truth ,,,,No i was not briefed by CSIS on any Chinese collusion. For days this was his lie, now he is appointing a special rapporteur, the truth will come out and once again it will be discovered he lied...

Justin is the anti Christ... I've made that clear... but to be honest i have given him kudos when he has deserved it...not many but some, and if your comfortable to throw your vote to him , thats on you, not me... and if you don't vote again thats your choice one i took last election, i did not vote becasue flip flopper was not worth my vote...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

This is not about partisans it is about ALL politicians lie, so it is normal behavior, and is excepted...i did ask for a couple of examples of PP lying as the leader of the opposition..

We've already talked about examples of his lying and deception.  His whole bullshit narrative about Justinflation, the Bank of Canada, and Bitcoin were farces, and he's been around too long and he's too smart to have believed it.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe he's actually retarded.  He spends enough time on twitter and talking to bitcoin influencers that maybe he's actually drinking the Kool-Aid.  That'd be even more worrying though. 

More realistically, he was just telling the donkeys what they wanted to hear, as he did when he called the vaccine mandates for truckers "unscientific and malicious".  

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

So lets be clear then PP has no real lies or cover ups and well Justin has hundreds but some how they are both the same.

Hundreds of lies or coverups, huh?  ?

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

The difference i see is this Justin Lies straight to the media, and Canadians on PURPOSE to decieve us all into thinking he is tell the truth ,,,,No i was not briefed by CSIS on any Chinese collusion.

It's "No I wasn't briefed about any candidates getting election funding from the Chinese," which technically might not be a lie at all, but that's not the point, is it?  The technicalities and the probable deniability doesn't excuse dishonesty (unless you're a partisan robot following your programming).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...