Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has died at 84.

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Tories break key election promise on income trusts

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tories-break-key-election-promise-on-income-trusts/article1108637/

They broke a promise against a trust. The irony is spectacular.

Yeah - prime example.  Harper made a promise - got in - was presented new info he didn't have in opposition and realized he woudln't be able to keep his promise.

Got up in front of Canada and said " I promised this - i was wrong - i'm very sorry but i'm going to have to break my word and i'm very unhappy about that but here's the facts and i'll leave it to you to judge me".

And that's entirely fair. Like i said people screw up and new info comes to light.

trudeau (the first) ran against supply management and then brought it in as soon as elected.

Chretien ran on cancelling the gst and free trade - never even batted an eye or appologized once for keeping it.

That's a slime ball

 

Obviously no one expects YOU to notice the difference - you think the slimey stuff the libs do is fine already so you don't see what the fuss is about in  the first place  

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Obviously no one expects YOU to notice the difference - you think the slimey stuff the libs do is fine already so you don't see what the fuss is about in  the first place

Yes well, you can stick your slimey hooey back where the sun don't shine.

By attacking the government for its belated but necessary corrective action on trusts and the NDP’s support of that public policy decision, the Liberals are trying desperately to divert attention from their own responsibility in this matter — something conveniently not reflected in the Liberal/Bloc Report. The Conservative broken promise is only part of the story.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/39-1/FINA/report-14/page-1201

 

The sameness of the Conservative and Liberal parties really stands out when it's contrasted against the NDP.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes well, you can stick your slimey hooey back where the sun don't shine.

 

Well i'd hate to disagree with an expert on 'sunless lubricants' such as yourself

So as we can see - the libs actually out and out lie and never appologize - very different from the cpc.  The libs just keep recycling broken promises.

https://nationalpost.com/news/parliament-returns-liberals-agenda

The NDP promised a comprehensive pharmacare plan 'or the deal was off', and delivered birth control and diabetes meds, both of which are covered in many provinces.

Harper on the other hand delivered on most of his election promises or was in the process of doing so when the elections came.

 

Sowwweeeeee little guy - the libs have a huge and long track record of breaking promises.  Trudeau alone - 'no deficits after 3 years, last first past the post,  more accountability, lower housing and rent costs, and that's just his first term and just his election promises never mind things like the paris targets.

the libs make a career out of lying and deliberately not delivering. 

But i'm sure they appreciate you sticking up for them again mr "i've never voted for  them, honest"   LOL

[herbie]

17 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If we accept that, then aren’t consumption taxes generally more favoured by conservatives than, say, income taxes?

You would think so if they actually were conservatives. It sure would be nice to hear actual policy, but wasn't it Kim Campbell herself who ushered in the new era by declaring "elections are not the time to discuss policies" ?
Now policy seems to be just fling shit at other parties and obstruct everything you can simply because it was't "yours", no matter if it's good for the country.

As anyone can easily see politics has descended into sheer populism with wokeness, trannies and immigration as the main concerns. Regardless that the first two aren't something controlled by govts.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, herbie said:

You would think so if they actually were conservatives. It sure would be nice to hear actual policy, but wasn't it Kim Campbell herself who ushered in the new era by declaring "elections are not the time to discuss policies" ?

Oh you mean the girl conservative voters reduce to 2 seats?  Yeah.  Not sure they agreed with her. 

 

Quote

Now policy seems to be just fling shit at other parties and obstruct everything you can simply because it was't "yours", no matter if it's good for the country.

That is literally justin trudeau's entire playbook.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

And then there was the after-sales work long after the warranty ran out, maintaining NAFTA:

Quote

In the frantic final days of NAFTA renegotiations in September, 2018, a single sticking point threatened to derail more than $1-trillion of continental commerce.

Then-U.S. president Donald Trump’s trade chief wanted to do away with a dispute-resolution system that would enforce the terms of the agreement. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, knowing that without such a system the U.S. could run roughshod over Canada’s much smaller economy, refused to make a deal without one.

Enter Brian Mulroney. As part of a full-court press by the Trudeau government to break the logjam, the former prime minister quietly worked a back channel to the Trump administration. He made clear that dispute resolution had to be part of any pact or Canada would not sign. Finally, the Americans relented.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-mulroney-worked-to-defend-nafta-legacy-long-after-leaving-office/

Of this man it could be said, ‘I have done the state some service, and they know't’.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Of this man it could be said, ‘I have done the state some service, and they know't’.

Please.  "They didn't take away something we already had so i'm a hero".

We already got hosed in the deal and lost much ground - the fact we didn't lose it all is not 'service', it's "slightly less incompetent than he could have been".

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Please.  "They didn't take away something we already had so i'm a hero".

We already got hosed in the deal and lost much ground - the fact we didn't lose it all is not 'service', it's "slightly less incompetent than he could have been".

I was talking about his entire career in the quote there. It is impressive to me that a private citizen nearing 80 mark and long out of a major political post would still be as engaged as this. Fortunately, up here we’ve learned to put our leaders out to grass quite a bit before that. 

Re: NAFTA, like any weaker partner in (effectively) bilateral negotiations we can only do our best to get what we can. That’s how it has always been here, and everywhere else in the world. I think we’ve played a bad hand well. 

Edited March 3 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I was talking about his entire career in the quote there. It is impressive to me that a private citizen nearing 80 mark and long out of a major political post would still be as engaged as this. Fortunately, up here we’ve learned to put our leaders out to grass quite a bit before that.

Well- that's a more defensible position.  I misunderstood where you were going with that. I retract my objection

Quote

Re: NAFTA, like any weaker partner in (effectively) bilateral negotiations we can only do our best to get what we can. That’s how it has always been here, and everywhere else in the world. I think we’ve played a bad hand well. 

No, that presumes there must be a weaker partner.  That is not true.  In fact -we came out MUCH further ahead with mulroney because we were able to position ourselves as having value that they wanted and even tho we benefited more.  We did better but  they really wanted the benefits they got and they didn't lose anything they had so everyone was happy.

Under harper Obama famously said "I want to talk about changing the free trade agreement" (he'd made it clear he felt canada had too sweet a deal) and harper replied "Sure, anytime. We've been wanting to talk to you about what you pay for oil".   It was never brought up again.

harper also won against the incredibly strong and fierce softwood lumber industry and secured a softwood deal that was very advantageous to Canada.  He saw that fight coming - reached across the isle to steal the top lumber person in Canada from the libs, got his other ducks in a row, and even tho we're 'weaker' he won.

You have to think ahead. You have to position  yourself to have strength in key areas even if you're not the strongest over all.

Mulroney did that.  Harper did that.  Justin fell on his face and for the first time since the 80's we significantly lost ground.

Running a first world country is the top job. It's the olympics of civil manageent - it is a job for only the best of the best of the best.  You have to be DAMN talented or at least know how to find and place damned talented people and you need to think 10 steps ahead.

Justin is a prime example of what happens when you let a drama teacher run the show as an entry level job because he has nice hair. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, that presumes there must be a weaker partner.  That is not true. 

It doesn’t assume that but in bilateral relations it is often the case. Us talking to the Americans is not like Belgium doing a deal with the Netherlands because the US is a superpower with an economy that dwarfs ours. 

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It doesn’t assume that but in bilateral relations it is often the case. Us talking to the Americans is not like Belgium doing a deal with the Netherlands because the US is a superpower with an economy that dwarfs ours. 

As i pointed out, that's not really how it works. While the overall us economy is larger than ours that doesnt' mean that in a specific negotiation we don't have the upper hand.  For example as i noted for harper it was oil.

If you plan ahead and play your game well the smaller player can still have the stronger hand.

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

the libs have a huge and long track record of breaking promises.

Well, given the long track record of helplessness in the face of it why wouldn't they?

And why do you keep making excuses for that? It's almost like you approve.

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Harper on the other hand delivered on most of his election promises or was in the process of doing so when the elections came.

And the broken promise about income trusts never happened?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well, given the long track record of helplessness in the face of it why wouldn't they?

 

That didn't even make sense.  A long record of 'helplessness in the face of it" ?  What does that even mean. how are the liberal helpless?  

Quote

And why do you keep making excuses for that? It's almost like you approve.

Didn't make excuses for anything.

Your brain has melted again. C'mon man at least try to make it through the day before you crack.

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

A long record of 'helplessness in the face of it" ?  What does that even mean.

Same thing I always mean, Conservatives suck at doing anything about improving transparency and accountability and so they leave the door wide open for further abuse.

Why is obvious enough, Conservatives need to avail themselves of the same opportunity when they're in power 

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Same thing I always mean,

So it means you're an 1diot?

Quote

Conservatives suck at doing anything about improving transparency and accountability

Ohhh right - i forgot that you always say that trudeau's corruption is harper's fault  

Your hypocrisy is amazing.  Just stop voting for the libs or dips and you won't have these problems.

[herbie]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That is literally justin trudeau's entire playbook.

Oh FFS every single thing anyone posts you claim is the opposite to what it is.

[taxme]

On 3/1/2024 at 10:48 PM, eyeball said:

U

The mainstream moves too and often faster than the leader can keep up with. Mulroney left the country so divided half the west was poised to leave or reform everything in sight and Quebec was primed to leave as well.

Politics is like a river that snakes back and forth over a floodplain. Sometimes following old channels sometimes carving out new ones and sometimes jumping the banks altogether until the mainstream gets kinda lost in the resulting flood.

And sometimes it all goes dry. The water holes get smaller and the animals get meaner.

 

Bulroney was a liberal in conservative clothing. He gave us the GST because he said that he would use the GST money to help pay down our national debt. It did not. Instead, the GST tax went into general revenue or for blowing. Bulroney was a Quebecker and that says it all. More taxes and more government. 

The problem with Canada today is that there has been way too many french liberal socialists from Quebec running and than ruining this country. Canada has had more PM's from Quebec than we can shake a stick at. Canada would be in a lot better shape today if Quebec had separated from the rest of Canada decades ago. It came very close to separate from Canada but the referendum saved Quebec from leaving Canada just by a few percentage points. A sad day for English Canada.

The french socialists from Quebec gave us bilingualism, multiculturalism, massive 3rd world immigration and metric. Nobody in Canada ever asked for any of those things mentioned above. They were just forced on the rest of English Canada by Quebec liberal socialists. Now, Canada today looks more like a third world soon to be hell hole and divided rather than looking like a British/European country like it once looked. I lost my country back in 1980. 

When will the rest of Canada finally admit that Quebec still is and has always been the real problem for the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada needs to kick out the french liberal socialists in Ottawa and send them packing back to Quebec. What Canada needs today is more conservative like English speaking politicians and less french speaking ones governing this once great nation😬. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS every single thing anyone posts you claim is the opposite to what it is.

No, i don't.  I call out your constant lies for what they are but that's not the same.

Sorry but you're a petulant child who simply blurts out whatever nonsense he thinks makes his tribe look good and the 'entemy' tribe look bad and it's usually complete bullshit.  When an adult comes along and corrects you then you get upset.

When do you start preschool again?

[Moonbox]

On 3/3/2024 at 7:45 PM, CdnFox said:

No, i don't.  I call out your constant lies for what they are but that's not the same.

No, you're too stupid to argue actual points people are making (or maybe you don't understand them) so you make up something ridiculous to argue against  instead.  We should keep a tally of how many different members (both old and new) have pointed this out to you.  

Nobody argues with themself like CdnFox can.  Nobody wins as many arguments against themself than him.  🤣

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, you're too stupid to argue actual points people are making (or maybe you don't understand them) so you make up something ridiculous to argue against  instead.  We should keep a tally of how many different members (both old and new) have pointed this out to you.  

Nobody argues with themself like CdnFox can.  Nobody wins as many arguments against themself than him.  🤣

ROFLMAO - back to following me around and trying to make your shattered ego feel better about getting your ass kicked i see lolol!!!

and this from a guy who argued for months that 100-50 didnt' equal 50 - then went  on to post proof that he was entirely wrong and i was entirely right and then cried about it

Sorry kiddo - your problem is that you try to go after me not because you have a valid argument but because you want to try to look smarter than me - and because you're coming at it from that point of view you always wind up looking stupid

I'll stop there - we both know you can only read so much before you have to take pain medication  

[cannuck]

I have dealt with Mulroney on the campaign trail, and strongly disagreed with much of his politics.   He was not what I consider a conservative, just another opportunistic, corrupt, Quebec Liberal lawyer - as his whole end game with Airbus revealed.  Maybe a great Quebecer, but NOT a great Canadian.

Edited March 7 by cannuck

[blackbird]

On 3/3/2024 at 3:06 PM, taxme said:

What Canada needs today is more conservative like English speaking politicians and less french speaking ones governing this once great nation

I agree but it's not going to happen as long as Quebec remains part of Canada.  Mulroney tried to change the Constitution to give Quebec special status in the Meech Lake Accord and then the Charlottetown Accord but failed on both.  Thankfully two provinces (strangely including Quebec) voted against it.  It would have given Quebec special status but they probably realized they already have special status and they don't need to sign on to the Constitution.  A referendum was held on the Charlottetown Accord and the people of Canada voted against it, thankfully.  However it appears Quebec has been able to achieve special status anyway as they seem to be able to operate as an independent country with a lot of control over most things.  Even so they also benefit by getting equalization payment from mainly western Canada while they oppose things that would benefit western Canada like an Energy East pipeline project that was rejected by Quebec.   We can expect ongoing trouble from Liberals from Quebec as they try to shut down the energy industry in western Canada also.  Trudeau put a Greenpeace radical in a key cabinet position to hammer Alberta.

[taxme]

On 3/6/2024 at 7:02 PM, blackbird said:

I agree but it's not going to happen as long as Quebec remains part of Canada.  Mulroney tried to change the Constitution to give Quebec special status in the Meech Lake Accord and then the Charlottetown Accord but failed on both.  Thankfully two provinces (strangely including Quebec) voted against it.  It would have given Quebec special status but they probably realized they already have special status and they don't need to sign on to the Constitution.  A referendum was held on the Charlottetown Accord and the people of Canada voted against it, thankfully.  However it appears Quebec has been able to achieve special status anyway as they seem to be able to operate as an independent country with a lot of control over most things.  Even so they also benefit by getting equalization payment from mainly western Canada while they oppose things that would benefit western Canada like an Energy East pipeline project that was rejected by Quebec.   We can expect ongoing trouble from Liberals from Quebec as they try to shut down the energy industry in western Canada also.  Trudeau put a Greenpeace radical in a key cabinet position to hammer Alberta.

This whole country has been pretty much destroyed by the french liberal Laurentian elite communists from Quebec. Why is the Bloc communist separatists being allowed to be in parliament anyway? Would a western separatist party from some province in Canada be allowed to be in parliament? No bloody way. The Anglophone media would run them out of Ottawa. And if they want to separate, why do they stay in Ottawa? Go separate, for phk sakes. Of course, why not stay in Ottawa? The pampered pooches from french Quebec gets to run and ruin the rest of English Canada and seems to enjoy it. 

What is sad about the whole thing is that every English speaking premier in Canada goes along with this extortion that keeps going on from Quebec. The Anglophone people can be such wimpy and cowardly buffoons. Aw well, what more can be said. 🤮

[-TSS-]

So if the 1995-referendum had gone just a bit the other way round there would be a totally alternative history?