WestCanMan Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 10 minutes ago, paxamericana said: When you have a commodity based economy, it’s subject to supply and demand curve. It’s not like Canada did anything special to boost its own economy. It was a short term commodity demand surging prices that benefited canada. I'm not talking about "only 2014", I'm talking about "life in the Harper era" in general, but I can see how you'd interpret it that way. Not only were things in Canada much better than they are now, Canada was still on a strong trajectory, and Trudeau snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. 1 Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
I am Groot Posted February 14 Author Report Posted February 14 4 hours ago, John Stone said: ....................... Carney facing the existential threats facing Kanada - be grateful it's not Trudeau. I don't see him doing any plugging. I see him flying around the world, enjoying himself, and doing a lot of nothing. 1 Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
CdnFox Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 14 hours ago, John Stone said: My point is that a weak political hack in leadership will continue to result in a weak political hack in opposition. Harper, Sheer, O'Toole Today, the Conservatives have the strongest leader they've fielded in decades. But he does not have the international stature on the international stage. Canada, today, needs the international stage. ya think? Harper? When was he weak in opposition? 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
John Stone Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 15 hours ago, CdnFox said: Harper? When was he weak in opposition? Despite being deeply unpopular, Harper called for the election that defeated him, No doubt believing that he could win easily against what he considered an upstart, Trudeau. His decision, supported by the Party apparatchik, led to Canada being saddled with ‘said’ upstart in what has been described as one of the darkest periods in Canadian political history. The apparatchik, in successive elections, produced candidates in opposition of such mediocre quality that Trudeau was guaranteed successive wins. Suppose it would only be fair to mention how Trudeau got ahead of his skis as well – however the Liberal apparatchik spoke truth to power and convinced him that he was kryptonite politically! PP was a slam-dunk to win against Trudeau. However, reluctantly, Trudeau stepped aside – the door hitting him on the a$$. U know the result. The point is, don’t condemn a political hack for winning ……….. blame the apparatchik for giving the electorate poor choices……….. stupid choices ………… conspiracy choices (Biden, Harris). 1 Quote
John Stone Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 On 2/13/2026 at 7:05 PM, WestCanMan said: Comments as stupid as yours only ever come from leftists. FYI the main problem in this country's leadership isn't "a lack of leadership from the opposition", dingus, it's the complete lack of integrity in our media that resulted in a government that's accountable to no one. In case you hadn't noticed, our country has been swirling down into the porcelain vortex for ten+ years while our MSM has never found fault with anything that the LPoC leadership has done, and yet the MSM always has time to criticize Pierre Poilievre. Why is that? How is it that our country is steadily getting worse and only the oppo-leader for the last few years is to blame? Are all of Canada's recent hardships really Poilievre's fault? What's the matter, is he not coming up with policies for the Libs to steal fast enough? Despite being deeply unpopular, Harper called for the election that defeated him, No doubt believing that he could win easily against what he considered an upstart, Trudeau. His decision, supported by the Party apparatchik, led to Canada being saddled with ‘said’ upstart in what has been described as one of the darkest periods in Canadian political history. The apparatchik, in successive elections, produced candidates in opposition of such mediocre quality that Trudeau was guaranteed successive wins. Suppose it would only be fair to mention how Trudeau got ahead of his skis as well – however the Liberal apparatchik spoke truth to power and convinced him that he was kryptonite politically! PP was a slam-dunk to win against Trudeau. However, reluctantly, Trudeau stepped aside – the door hitting him on the a$$. U know the result. The point is, don’t condemn a political hack for winning ……….. blame the apparatchik for giving the electorate poor choices……….. stupid choices ………… conspiracy choices (Biden, Harris). 1 Quote
eyeball Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 13 minutes ago, John Stone said: ….. blame the apparatchik for giving the electorate poor choices…… I hear a theremin! 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
John Stone Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 On 2/13/2026 at 7:05 PM, WestCanMan said: Comments as stupid as yours only ever come from leftists. FYI the main problem in this country's leadership isn't "a lack of leadership from the opposition", dingus, it's the complete lack of integrity in our media that resulted in a government that's accountable to no one. In case you hadn't noticed, our country has been swirling down into the porcelain vortex for ten+ years while our MSM has never found fault with anything that the LPoC leadership has done, and yet the MSM always has time to criticize Pierre Poilievre. Why is that? How is it that our country is steadily getting worse and only the oppo-leader for the last few years is to blame? Are all of Canada's recent hardships really Poilievre's fault? What's the matter, is he not coming up with policies for the Libs to steal fast enough? ................. Poilievre is a talented politician - his problem was that he was geared to run against Justin - those arguments don't work against Carney. PP scares the children ........he needs a dwell period to retool to re-fool - give him time. Couldn't believe the statement Carney made in an address on the Plains of Abraham recently - a gaffe, sheer ignorance or a message as p/o a strategy? Bold does not describe it ..........he's basically written off Quebec. So un-Liberal. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 7 hours ago, John Stone said: Despite being deeply unpopular, Harper called for the election that defeated him, He was coming to the end of his mandate. He didn't have much of a choice. He was elected in 2011 for his mandate with a fixed election date (which was all the craze at the time). He had to call the election to be held on no later than 0ctober 19 of that year. What was happening is that PAC groups and others were spending like mad on election campaigns already and he wanted to nip that in the bud and force them to the same spending limits as normal so he started the election early. That's it. Clearly you didn't realize what happened there. It wasn't an 'early election'. it just started early. Quote No doubt believing that he could win easily against what he considered an upstart, Trudeau. I take it you weren't around during that time? Quote His decision, supported by the Party apparatchik, led to Canada being saddled with ‘said’ upstart in what has been described as one of the darkest periods in Canadian political history. No, the decision of the voters left canada being saddled with that particular loser Quote The apparatchik, in successive elections, produced candidates in opposition of such mediocre quality that Trudeau was guaranteed successive wins. no that's not really true. The problem is people do not realize how hard it is or how long it takes to prepare a good Campaign. You could argue that she are screwed up his campaign was absolutely Dreadful. But O'Toole actually had the liberals on the ropes for the first half of his campaign till they made a mistake, and unfortunately he just did not have anything planned for the second half of the campaign and the media turned on him and squashed him. But this is what tends to happen when you have minorities. In some ways minorities are actually better for the incumbent than a majority when it comes to re-election. It takes about a year to pick a new leader. It takes about 2 years for a new leader after elected to assemble a team, prepare a strategy, and begin to sell that strategy to Canadians. Most people don't realize that, they think someone can come up with a campaign in 15 minutes. You'll notice that the liberals also lost their elections until harper got a majorit Quote Suppose it would only be fair to mention how Trudeau got ahead of his skis as well – however the Liberal apparatchik spoke truth to power and convinced him that he was kryptonite politically! I don't think he ever cared about whether or not he could run the country Quote PP was a slam-dunk to win against Trudeau. However, reluctantly, Trudeau stepped aside – the door hitting him on the a$$. Yep. It is now being said that pierre was the most successful opposition leader in the history of Canada. He wanted to get rid of Trudeau and he did. He wanted to get rid of jaggers and he did. He wanted to get rid of the GST and he did. Etc etc Unfortunately all of his success cost him an election Quote The point is, don’t condemn a political hack for winning ……….. blame the apparatchik for giving the electorate poor choices……….. stupid choices ………… conspiracy choices (Biden, Harris). Then your point is not valid Well the truth is it is different in the states, in Canada literally anyone can run for a party with a reasonable chance of success if they have any talent at all. Leslan Lewis came out of the blue with absolutely no political history or training, unable to speak french, and still damn near when the conservative nomination if you actually look at the votes. That would never have been possible in the united states in a million years Winning an election is actually an extreme skill especially in Canada and the truly sad fact of the matter is that the people that have the skills to run the country are very often not the people with the skills to win an election. Harper was the best prime minister we ever had and he was absolutely terrible at campaigning. He ran one good election in the rest were kind of crap Our problem is that the electorate it's not sufficiently educated on what its job is. His job is not to pick the most charismatic person, his job is not to pick the guy with the coolest socks or the firmest handshake or the nicest smile. But oftentimes that's who gets elected. Because that's what people think is important. Trudeau got elected and cannot and could not run the country. But he was so cool. Carney got elected but he cannot run the country either. But he was so refined. Harper squeaked by winning an election and ran the country better than most. And despite having an almost miraculous track record was fired in favor of a guy with cool socks. That is our problem, 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
John Stone Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 9 hours ago, CdnFox said: He was coming to the end of his mandate. He didn't have much of a choice. He was elected in 2011 for his mandate with a fixed election date (which was all the craze at the time). He had to call the election to be held on no later than 0ctober 19 of that year. What was happening is that PAC groups and others were spending like mad on election campaigns already and he wanted to nip that in the bud and force them to the same spending limits as normal so he started the election early. That's it. Clearly you didn't realize what happened there. It wasn't an 'early election'. it just started early. I take it you weren't around during that time? No, the decision of the voters left canada being saddled with that particular loser no that's not really true. The problem is people do not realize how hard it is or how long it takes to prepare a good Campaign. You could argue that she are screwed up his campaign was absolutely Dreadful. But O'Toole actually had the liberals on the ropes for the first half of his campaign till they made a mistake, and unfortunately he just did not have anything planned for the second half of the campaign and the media turned on him and squashed him. But this is what tends to happen when you have minorities. In some ways minorities are actually better for the incumbent than a majority when it comes to re-election. It takes about a year to pick a new leader. It takes about 2 years for a new leader after elected to assemble a team, prepare a strategy, and begin to sell that strategy to Canadians. Most people don't realize that, they think someone can come up with a campaign in 15 minutes. You'll notice that the liberals also lost their elections until harper got a majorit I don't think he ever cared about whether or not he could run the country Yep. It is now being said that pierre was the most successful opposition leader in the history of Canada. He wanted to get rid of Trudeau and he did. He wanted to get rid of jaggers and he did. He wanted to get rid of the GST and he did. Etc etc Unfortunately all of his success cost him an election Then your point is not valid Well the truth is it is different in the states, in Canada literally anyone can run for a party with a reasonable chance of success if they have any talent at all. Leslan Lewis came out of the blue with absolutely no political history or training, unable to speak french, and still damn near when the conservative nomination if you actually look at the votes. That would never have been possible in the united states in a million years Winning an election is actually an extreme skill especially in Canada and the truly sad fact of the matter is that the people that have the skills to run the country are very often not the people with the skills to win an election. Harper was the best prime minister we ever had and he was absolutely terrible at campaigning. He ran one good election in the rest were kind of crap Our problem is that the electorate it's not sufficiently educated on what its job is. His job is not to pick the most charismatic person, his job is not to pick the guy with the coolest socks or the firmest handshake or the nicest smile. But oftentimes that's who gets elected. Because that's what people think is important. Trudeau got elected and cannot and could not run the country. But he was so cool. Carney got elected but he cannot run the country either. But he was so refined. Harper squeaked by winning an election and ran the country better than most. And despite having an almost miraculous track record was fired in favor of a guy with cool socks. That is our problem, ...............bullshit can baffle brains is an idiom most identified with political hacks. ...... Bye the bye, Baba's campaign did a reversal when the unwashed discovered he was 'cool' playing the Sax! 1 Quote
WestCanMan Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 9 hours ago, John Stone said: Despite being deeply unpopular, Harper called for the election that defeated him, No doubt believing that he could win easily against what he considered an upstart, Trudeau. His decision, supported by the Party apparatchik, led to Canada being saddled with ‘said’ upstart in what has been described as one of the darkest periods in Canadian political history. The apparatchik, in successive elections, produced candidates in opposition of such mediocre quality that Trudeau was guaranteed successive wins. Suppose it would only be fair to mention how Trudeau got ahead of his skis as well – however the Liberal apparatchik spoke truth to power and convinced him that he was kryptonite politically! PP was a slam-dunk to win against Trudeau. However, reluctantly, Trudeau stepped aside – the door hitting him on the a$$. U know the result. The point is, don’t condemn a political hack for winning ……….. blame the apparatchik for giving the electorate poor choices……….. stupid choices ………… conspiracy choices (Biden, Harris). Thanks for the revisionist history lesson... Harper was unpopular with the CBC, because Trudeau was offering them big money. He gave them $675M within 2 months of being elected. The LPOC have paid CBC and other media outlets over $2B for the last 4 elections. Taxpayer money. You might not have liked Scheer or Harper, but our gov't was a disaster. One of the very first things that Trudeau did after he gave CBC all that money was kill investment our energy sector. 4 projects that had already been approved, totalling over $135B, were scrapped within 6 months. Danielle Smith estimated that the Libs scared away half a trillion dollars. Now that "Twumpo is r enimee" Libs suddenly want all those projects started, ten years too late. FYI that's called "a lack of foresight" and it's the exact opposite of what you want in a political leader. Your PP vs Trudeau and then PP vs Carney story is a fantasy, straight from central polling "data" that follows the tried and true fake election polling trajectory.... Trudeau Vs Scheer, Trudeau Vs O'Toole, Trudeau Vs PP, Trump Vs Hillary, Trump Vs Biden and Trump Vs Kamala all had the exact same polling trajectory for the last month: 28 days of "leftist candidate up by 7%", followed by "an inexplicable bump down to only +1.5%" on the last weekend. In ALL of the last 6 elections in NA, the polls have shifted by +5% for the Cons/GOP on the last weekend for no apparent reason. It happened 6x in a row now. At what point doe that EXACT pattern become suspicious to you? Never? Can it happen a million times in a row? The whole "PP up by a billion percent" narrative was just another narrative, that was basically a setup for "OMG, CARNEY IS UP BY 7% NOW!!!! IT'S A WHOLE NEW LPOC!!!!! CARNEY HAS SO MUCH MOMENTUM! NO ONE LIKES PP!!!" See that 7% there??? And then guess what? For no reason, the deeply unpopular PP suddenly went from "down by 7%" to "only down by 1.5%" on the last weekend, for no reason. Literally nothing changed in the last two weeks before the election to cause a 5% bump. But that's how the polling always goes. FYI the point of fake polling data is this: The CBC can't say "We love Carney", but they can cite fake polling data that says "Canadians love Carney " all day, every day. The formula for the MSM citing fake polling data = "The leftist candidate said "________", and LOOK HE'S UP BY 7.1% now! Everyone loved it!" "The conservative candidate said "________", and he went down 0.1% in the polls!! No one believed it! They think he's too negative!" Reset the polls to 7% overnight, and then cite fake upswings and downswings as needed to create the impression of popularity. Cultists LOVE it. 1 Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
CdnFox Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 10 hours ago, John Stone said: ...............bullshit can baffle brains is an idiom most identified with political hacks. ..... Now now. I've never thought of you as a political hack and you shouldn't be that hard on yourself (couldn't resist!) 10 hours ago, John Stone said: Bye the bye, Baba's campaign did a reversal when the unwashed discovered he was 'cool' playing the Sax! ?????? Are you talking about clinton? (only sax playing politician i can think of). Use your words..... 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
John Stone Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 13 hours ago, CdnFox said: Now now. I've never thought of you as a political hack and you shouldn't be that hard on yourself (couldn't resist!) ?????? Are you talking about clinton? (only sax playing politician i can think of). Use your words..... I have a tendency to respect more those who embrace themselves, flaws, warts and all .......... I'm sure you'd agree that more respect is gained for those being identified as political hacks rather than those identified as politically ignorant Partisan acolytes? Clinton was aka Bubba / Baba. Def threat to National Security (Political Security). 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 3 hours ago, John Stone said: I have a tendency to respect more those who embrace themselves, flaws, warts and all .......... I'm sure you'd agree that more respect is gained for those being identified as political hacks rather than those identified as politically ignorant Partisan acolytes? I guess that depends on how you're defining political hack and what exactly you mean by acolyte. But if the essence of your comment is that people who speak on politics that claim to be knowledgeable about politics are more respectable than those who have no knowledge of politics yet have strong opinions anyway then... i guess so? 3 hours ago, John Stone said: Clinton was aka Bubba / Baba. I have never heard of Clinton referred to as Baba That's a word for 'daddy' isn't it? 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
I am Groot Posted February 24 Author Report Posted February 24 The population of Pennsylvania is 13 million. Canada's official population is 41 million, but is likely higher with all the foreign workers and illegals.. Why does Pennsylvania, a not particularly wealthy state, have more MRIs than Canada? California is closer to our population. It has 3200 MRIs. It isn't just the US, of course. Most European countries have two to three times more MRIs per capita as we do. Canada has 2.5 hospital beds per 1000 people. Albania has 2.9. Yes, ALBANIA! Most of Europe have between 4-7, with five about average. Canada has 2.8 doctors per 1000. Most of Europe has over 4. The same story for nurses, for Xray and CT scans, for just about everything related to healthcare. Except for spending. We spend about the average. No government in Canada wants to spend more. And no government in Canada seems to believe improving any of these statistics is much of a priority. Because Canadians know our healthcare system is in a mess but don't know who to blame and don't know what to do, so just shrug and carry on. "Eh, whatayagonnado?" As long as we could pretend our system was better than the US, Canadians seem happy. But only the dedicated Liberals believe that anymore, or say they do. But it's become impossible to say it truthfully. Our system is much worse than the US, despite their runaway costs; at least most people can get treatment in a reasonably timely manner. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
Army Guy Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 On 2/14/2026 at 11:40 AM, John Stone said: ....................... Carney facing the existential threats facing Kanada - be grateful it's not Trudeau. And yet liberal voters voted him in 3 times, think about that for a moment, 3 times fully knowing the damage he was doing....and somehow we have to trust liberal voters for picking the right guy once again... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
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.