Polievre delivers fantastic Canada first speech this flag day, lays out much policy

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The CPC is a party to be very proud of. They're big scandals of the day where that one of their ministers had a $14 glass of orange juice and they tried to force a senator to pay back money to the taxpayers. 

They really do suck at corruption alright, whether trying to get away with it or preventing it.

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If Trudeau said something similar do you still vote for him because he's on your "Team"

No. My team is the Premier Doug Ford team. 

 

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Unfortunately, my  political team has been down graded to the minors, ala Doug Ford. If Ford was willing to run federally, I would vote for the candidate from his party in a heart beat.

Canada is the league. Every team supports the league.

You seem obsessed with lables. When Mr. Poilievre is appointed, he will follow the advice of the same senior public servants Trudeau did. You will note that when Prime Minister Trudeau did not follow their advice (SNC Lavilin, through to defying the Dept. of Finance that sparked the resignation of the Minister of Finance. When his listened to their advice, he was a fairly good PM such as the response to the Covid crisis.

If Pierre wants to be successful, he will sit down with the professionals and listen, then follow, their advice to the letter. That is why they are there. None of this funny money/ crypto crap, no firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada and no destroying the CBC at a critical time of crisis where the government will need the communications infrastructure a national broadcaster can provide.

Or, he will follow the advice of CanFox or Queen Mandy and blow what could have been a long career as Prime Minister. It is his choice.

PS. Perhaps my doubts about Pierre stem from the fact that I was a lot like him when I was an undergrad. 

Then I grew up, which I am not sure Pierre has, but we will see. In a few months, he will be sitting in the big chair

[Queenmandy85]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I know these are tough times for you. The liberal party is disgusting and it's supporters are disgusting and there is zero to be proud of. The NDP is really no better at this point. I can only imagine the utter shame you on the left must feel looking at your circumstances and what you've done

You really haven't quite mastered the concept of British sportsmanship, respect and good manners, have you. I guess you and I are more alike than you want to admit. (Sorry, was that too harsh?) 😘

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I think you're pretty grossly overstating that and many of those were in fact democrat policies.

Huh? Democrats had a policy of Canadian conservatives sucking up to USA? Everything I described was a Reform/Alliance/CPC policy advocating for closer integration and greater subordination to the US. 
 

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It is often been joked for example that canada's conservatives are basically America's Democrats,

It is true that if someone from the Canadian Conservative mainstream wanted to run for election in the US on a CPC platform they would have to run as a Democrat and Republicans would consider him a leftist. It’s also true that if someone friend the Democrat mainstream wanted to run for office in Canada on a Democrat platform they would have to run as a Conservative…at least on economic issues, culture war notwithstanding. 
 

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And going back to reform alliances a little silly. That would be like saying that liberal policies and NDP policies are exactly the same because the NDP supported the liberals.

Its not silly. The Reform-Alliance formed into the CPC when it absorbed the last remnants of the old “Progressive Conservative” party (which was the actual party of John A MacDonald, an Ontario Laurentian elite. But I digress). The CA formed the largest constituency of the newly named CPC. Harper was a Reform/Alliance member and so was Poillievre who worked directly for CA leader Stockwell Day, who co-authored that grovelling letter to Americans in WSJ. By contrast The Liberal Party was not formed by the NDP.

 

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The conservatives have often liked many of the ideas that the republicans also like, they prefer less control over firearms, they prefer supposedly lower taxation although to be honest looking at the deficits in recent years they probably differ a great deal on financial policy in that regard these days. But that is not the same thing in the slightest as having close ties with republicans.

Yes they have long had close ties both formal and informal through networking, sharing right wing think ranks, pundits and influencers, and the “International Democracy Union” a trans-national organization of right wing political parties. Harper had a warm relationship with Bush and a frosty relationship with Obama. 

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When it comes to America harper negotiated vastly superior free trade in lumber deals, to go on the other hand actually got us a week or deal. Mulroney got us a spankingly great free trade deal against Ronald Reagan. A deal that was so good that despite running on canceling it the liberals under cretchen actually kept it in place without change.

I think you would have a hard time actually pointing at policy for any of the conservative governments in the last 30 years that showed any favoritism at all with the republicans.

The Mulroney-Reagan bromance is one of the things Mulroney is most famous for. The two regimes were ideologically aligned and the leaders were personal friends. The friendship between Reagan and Mulroney is often referred to as the high water mark of Canada-US relation in that regard. The deal was not contentious between the two of them and there was virtually no serious policy friction between their regimes. Harper was not known for being tough on Americans either. Softwood lumber is an issue that every PM has to deal with Harper’s turn on that file isn’t any more notable than anyone else’s. And again like Mulroney Harper isn’t known for having stood up to the US on any matter of substance but he is known for protesting Chretien’s rightful refusal to participate in Bush’s Iraq folly and begging Americans’ forgiveness over it. 

Its also been suggested that the reason Canada had such high per-capita casualties in Afghanistan is because Harper was desperate to atone to the Bush administration for not going to Iraq and so expanded the CAF’s role there so aggressively it went beyond what CAF was properly equipped to handle- eg CAF initially lacked sufficient helicopters and MRAPs to protect against mines and IEDs 

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure. Americans went to war and a lot of Canadians felt we should have been beside them as we always have been. Harper was wrong and the liberals called that one correctly, but again you would have a tough time showing that that was because it was a republican in power. Conservatives have been just as eager to go and just as supportive when democrats were the ones starting the wars.

Conservatives have a problem with sucking up to USA in general but it’s only worse when Republicans are in charge.  And Bush’s Iraq folly/fraud was deeply unpopular amongst the overwhelming majority of Canadians   Only those on the right supported it and even among the right it wasn’t popular  

8 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Ah yes the liberals crown jewel " We did not take part in the gulf war" which is a huge lie, we had Canadians soldiers in both Gulf war, sailors in the gulf on armed ships F-18 providing CAP, ground forces a mobile hospital, along with Infantry to guard them...

With all respect to the CAF, In Desert Storm Mulroney/Campbell sent a token force which mostly stayed in the rear well out of harm’s way. CF-18s flew CAP against the non-existent Iraqi airforce that had been obliterated on the ground in the conflicts opening hours long before we showed up.  By chance we got a single opportunity to make a strafing run on a coastal patrol boat with no air defence capability and it still got away from us because we had no air-surface ordinance  And we dropped some “dumb” bombs on an undefended artillery position in the war’s closing days  Similarly our navy ships with no credible air or missile defence were far from danger guarding the rear from the non-existent Iraqi navy  While the Army contingent was Engineers from 1 CER (not infantry) also far from the front. THE CF-18s were based out of Qatar.  But yes from a certain perspective I guess technically it counts the conservatives sent forces to Desert Storm  

But we did not send any forces to Bush’s Jr’s Iraq invasion, period. This is a completely different war more than a decade after the first one don’t mix them up. 

8 hours ago, Army Guy said:

General Hillier was second in command of a US division...we may have not played a huge role but we were there....It was not a feather in Canada' hat, it was a disappointment that when a close allie need our help and support we had said no to the media and yet had sent or given permissions for Canadians to go into battle with US forces...and give up military forces to participate in closely related missions like patrolling the gulf, and providing air combat cover...

Canada did not send Hillier to Iraq.  He was already on a long-term exchange assignment with the US Army when the war began and he went to Iraq under US orders and on the US dime, not Canadian  Yes we could have pulled him out and the handful others on exchange like him in various places in the us military but we didn’t because their presence was trivial and incidental. Chretien and Canada endured a decent amount of abuse by Bush and Americans for not joining the war because we didn’t  

Yes it is a feather in our cap that we didn’t participate in that completely unjustified war, which was clearly waged under an obviously false and fabricated pretext. Being an ally isn’t a pledge to be a partner in someone’s crime whenever they order you to.  And the US didn’t “need” us for anything in that except to help make their invasion appear legitimate because Canada had a well respected international reputation  For anyone to suggest that Canada should have destroyed that reputation and killed hundreds of our soldiers just to serve Bush’s crooked political agenda simply because we’re “an ally” ought to give their heads a shake  

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

They really do suck at corruption alright, whether trying to get away with it or preventing it.

But they did prevent it as we discussed many times. And the conservatives ever tried to get away with it, the conservatives discovered people who were trying to get away with it and wiped out those people. Conservatives are still around today but those people are gone. 

If they were still around though I'm sure you'd be voting for them  

[Army Guy]

 

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

With all respect to the CAF, In Desert Storm Mulroney/Campbell sent a token force which mostly stayed in the rear well out of harm’s way. CF-18s flew CAP against the non-existent Iraqi airforce that had been obliterated on the ground in the conflicts opening hours long before we showed up.  By chance we got a single opportunity to make a strafing run on a coastal patrol boat with no air defence capability and it still got away from us because we had no air-surface ordinance  And we dropped some “dumb” bombs on an undefended artillery position in the war’s closing days  Similarly our navy ships with no credible air or missile defence were far from danger guarding the rear from the non-existent Iraqi navy  While the Army contingent was Engineers from 1 CER (not infantry) also far from the front. THE CF-18s were based out of Qatar.  But yes from a certain perspective I guess technically it counts the conservatives sent forces to Desert Storm  

But we did not send any forces to Bush’s Jr’s Iraq invasion, period. This is a completely different war more than a decade after the first one don’t mix them up. 

Canada did not send Hillier to Iraq.  He was already on a long-term exchange assignment with the US Army when the war began and he went to Iraq under US orders and on the US dime, not Canadian  Yes we could have pulled him out and the handful others on exchange like him in various places in the us military but we didn’t because their presence was trivial and incidental. Chretien and Canada endured a decent amount of abuse by Bush and Americans for not joining the war because we didn’t  

Yes it is a feather in our cap that we didn’t participate in that completely unjustified war, which was clearly waged under an obviously false and fabricated pretext. Being an ally isn’t a pledge to be a partner in someone’s crime whenever they order you to.  And the US didn’t “need” us for anything in that except to help make their invasion appear legitimate because Canada had a well respected international reputation  For anyone to suggest that Canada should have destroyed that reputation and killed hundreds of our soldiers just to serve Bush’s crooked political agenda simply because we’re “an ally” ought to give their heads a shake  

 

Quote

n 1991, Canada joined an international military coalition to confront Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait. Canada contributed warships and fighter aircraft to the successful campaign to liberate Kuwait. It was the first time Canada sent women to war in combat roles, and it was the first time in decades that Canadian air and naval forces supported each other in a war zone. More than 5,100 Canadian military personnel served in the war, with a peak of about 2,700 in the region at one time. No members of the Canadian armed forces died during the conflict.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/persian-gulf-war-1990-91

5100 troops is hardly a token force, we would be extremely lucky to produce such a sizeable fore today, even during the peak of Afghanistan our force numbers barely reached this level...As for the Airforce capacity we did not have guided weapons at the time, and all we have in inventory was dumb bombs.As for the ships air defence capabilities your right no air defense capabilities except for a few ari defenders and their manpads sent from germany...As for the engineers they had their own mission to clear mines and UXO in Kuwait after the war....It was Infantry from 3 RCR and VANDOO's that guarded the airfield in Qatar, and also with the field hospital was a company of 3 RCR, that were used to accept Iraqi prisoners as the hospital staff were overwhelmed and could not conduct medical operations and look after POW at the same time...

We sent what we could because the Iraqis were better armed than we were, their ground equipment were a lot newer than our M113's and Leo1A4...like you mentioned already our naval ships had very little air defence capabilities, our F-18 had no guided weapons, nor did we have the right comms to talk to other Allied aircraft...the CF was going through the decade of darkness at the time and was nothing but skin and bones at that time....Hardly something to be proud about...

Well over 300 Canadians were imbedded in US forces and each one of them had to have permission to attend this conflict by our government . Which makes the liberals statement we did not take part in that war false. Each one of those people were getting paid by the canadian government along with all the bonuses they were entitled to...I did not mix them up...was their presence incidental or trivial, being second in command of a complete division certainly not trivial by no means...

Having Canadian troops on the ground in Iraq during the 2 and Gulf war, is a fact what role they played is a moot point . They wore the Canadian uniform, had the canadian flag on their shoulders, were paid by our country to take the fight to the Iraqis...The liberal myth of we refused to take part is based on lies, something they boost about to say they stood up to the US and it's false war...

There is some truth that we really had nothing to offer, nothing had really changed for gulf war I, our equipment was out of date, no sign of any thing modern in sight...although we did now have CF-18 that had guided weapons, even could talk to other nations over comms....our naval ships had added the sea whizz, our army well that was a work in progress... 

As for the entire reason we have a military is to defend the nation, and our other defensive pacts, Why was this operation any different than say the NATO mission in Germany or any other NATO commitment.....to say our military was not fit and hundreds would die, should have been the red flag people should have asked why....but they didn't, becasue nobody cared.....

So the excuse of we did not want to have them killed in Battle is a non starter, i mean it would be OK to die on a NATO mission just not gulf war II ....why even have a military if your not going to equip them right...is it so politicians can get photo ops, ,to be part of the NATO club, sit down with other world leaders and play a game of risk...Not much has changed today, we are still far behind our allies, in regards to equipment and training....

[SpankyMcFarland]

If I were employed by the Tories, I think I’d be looking for a somewhat different tone from Poilievre in these extraordinary times. The immediate threat is external whereas pipelines will take years to build and trade barriers seem to be as persistent as death and taxes in this country. Ease up on the partisan stuff for now and build your image as a leader for all Canadians. Emphasize warmth, humility, humour and an ability to work with others. He has those things as well as a good personal story to tell. 

Edited February 17 by SpankyMcFarland

[herbie]

OMG the guy doesn't even understand basic economics, just continues with sloganism and mimicking Trump's stumping speeches!

A - an East-West pipeling? That hasn't been built as it's more expensive than importing foreign oil on the East Coast and would require building refineries and converting the existing ones to use heavier oil and bitumen.

B - deregulating resource companies and abandoning environmental standards would consume our resources faster, make more money and nothing for Canadian workers. And rest assured a lot of the workers if they do that won't be Canadians!

Oh Mr Bossman we're so thankful to make and be taxed on $20 an hour while you make billions... the usual Tory 'promise'

[CouchPotato]

On 2/16/2025 at 4:17 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Mr. Poilievre's comment, "I'm not aware of any other genders than man and woman," nailed it for me.

Could you tell us how many others there are?

[CdnFox]

On 2/17/2025 at 1:05 PM, herbie said:

OMG the guy doesn't even understand basic economics, just continues with sloganism and mimicking Trump's stumping speeches!

A - an East-West pipeling? That hasn't been built as it's more expensive than importing foreign oil on the East Coast and would require building refineries and converting the existing ones to use heavier oil and bitumen.

B - deregulating resource companies and abandoning environmental standards would consume our resources faster, make more money and nothing for Canadian workers. And rest assured a lot of the workers if they do that won't be Canadians!

Oh Mr Bossman we're so thankful to make and be taxed on $20 an hour while you make billions... the usual Tory 'promise'

The guy is top of the league when it comes to economics. He's proven that plenty of times. I get that you're bitter and angry that your side has already destroyed our economy in our country.  but lying about it won't change anything