Mulroney slams Trudeau as lacking moral fibre


CBC News
#1
Brian Mulroney has stepped back into the public spotlight to promote his memoirs and accuse former archrival Pierre Trudeau of having lacked the moral fibre to lead.
In an interview with CTV on Wednesday, the former Conservative prime minister reached back over 60 years to chide Trudeau for his antiwar activism as a university student, saying his refusal to serve in the Second World War rendered him unfit to provide moral leadership.
Mulroney blamed Trudeau for scuttling the Meech Lake accord, a 1990 pact aimed at securing Quebec's signature on the Constitution. He then launched into a diatribe about what he called a lack of moral fibre shown in Trudeau's opposition to the Second World War.
When he retired in 1993, Mulroney was one of the most reviled prime ministers in Canadian history. The late Trudeau, who retired as Liberal prime minister in 1984, is accorded more respect and admiration than Mulroney by Canadians in opinion polls.

Full Story

Who do you think was the better Prime Minister and why?


More...
 
eh1eh
#2
That's really the pot and kettle personified. Holy Crap!
 
Ten Packs
#3
Mulroney is the sole reason I left the Conservative Party a good 20 years ago... I'd call him an a$$hole, but an a$$hole can be useful at times.

 
lone wolf
#4
Trudeau policies and programs merely annoyed me. Mulroney's cost me family, a business and big time bucks.

Wolf
Last edited by lone wolf; Sep 6th, 2007 at 01:32 PM..
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#5
Ummmm .... lets see ... he's publishing his memoirs .... what can he do to drum up free publicity??????

If this fails to boost book revenue look for him to attack Sir. John A. McDonald.
 
Locutus
#6
The official bilingual crap that arrogant scum laid on the backs on taxpayers (from newfie to yukon) must be the most expensive project this nation has ever paid for (wars included...anyone have numbers for this costly mess?). Rot in hell Pete.

On a brighter note, it's too easy for Brain, err brawn, err chin to pick on his dead foe, so the only logical way to sort this out is to have Ben and Justin going 3 rounds in the octogon. PPV and all proceeds to the greens to help them out a tad.
 
Tonington
#7
I'm too young to remember Mulroney, and only know of some of the dealings for both men, but I guess for me when it comes down to legacies, no matter what you think of both, repatriating the constitution beats the GST hands down.
 
TenPenny
#8
Repatriating the constitution was, I agree, a great and necessary move.

The GST was a huge improvement in logic and efficiency; in fact, I would say the GST was the best move to come from those years. NAFTA was a good move, but it was only possible because of the GST.
 
Tonington
#9
I agree that both were good actually, I didn't mean that the GST was a bad thing, hell I'm kinda ticked that Harper cut it 1 cent, as that 6 Billion could do alot for us. I guess the language I used does kinda leave that impression
 
lone wolf
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Repatriating the constitution was, I agree, a great and necessary move.

The GST was a huge improvement in logic and efficiency; in fact, I would say the GST was the best move to come from those years. NAFTA was a good move, but it was only possible because of the GST.

NAFTA was a great deal - for the US. It kept Americans working. GST was necessary because of NAFTA. Canadian industry paid a Manufacturers Retail Tax. Free Trade allowed those manufacturers to take off out of Canada. Multory had to replace that revenue somehow.

Wolf
 
Kreskin
#11
They both had a high fibre diet.
 
Walter
#12
Voted for Brian as often as I could, then for Preston, then for Stock and now for Steve. Never voted for PET because he was a Liberal.
 
Tonington
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Never voted for PET because he was a Liberal.

In all frankness, that sentence right there is the problem we have here in Canada. Never mind the issues candidates support, never mind that occasionally politicians actually follow through on good ideas, and never mind that they come from all political persuasions, Liberal =bad, no exceptions...sheesh.

Did your family all vote Conservative or something?
 
Walter
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Did your family all vote Conservative or something?

Only the hard-working ones.
 
Tonington
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Only the hard-working ones.

I see.....
 
DaSleeper
#16
Pierre Trudeau brought in wage and price control in '76 just when we had negotiated a good wage increase and had to pay it back, then little Jean with Martin as finance minister cut down capital gains exemption in the '90s just when I did real good in the market and I had to pay tons of taxes, so I'm no fan of the Liberals........but where I live, the neighbour's mutt would get nominated to the Liberal Party and he would get voted in..
 
CDNBear
#17
Mulroney is no winner, and this is a lot like the kettle gokking the pot, but his assesment of Trudeau couldn't have been anymore spot on...

The man was a socilaist hack, a Nazi sympathizer and courted/idolized socialist dictators...

Wow...nothing endearing about that.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#18
Where did Mulroney keep his moral fibre, in his paper lunch bag next to the cornbeef on rye?

No wait, that was the hundreds of thousands he took in kickbacks, Trudeau didn't lead his party into mass suicide the way Mulroney did. Or screw the country over to please an American president who couldn't even remember his name.

PM Muldoon.
 
CDNBear
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Where did Mulroney keep his moral fibre, in his paper lunch bag next to the cornbeef on rye?

Actually...I believe it was in the bran muffin...

Quote:

No wait, that was the hundreds of thousands he took in kickbacks,

I guess when someone is found innocent...they really aren't lest they are a Liberal???

Quote:

Trudeau didn't lead his party into mass suicide the way Mulroney did.

No...You're right, he didn't...He led our nation in to the toilet and now we circle the bowl...
Quote:

Or screw the country over to please an American president who couldn't even remember his name.

Or present the nation with a viable economic future...Oh those nasty hi paying tech jobs that came to Canada...must have been an instant Liberal intiative...


Quote:

PM Muldoon.

Peirre Elliot Traitor...
 
Locutus
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

The official bilingual crap that arrogant scum laid on the backs on taxpayers (from newfie to yukon) must be the most expensive project this nation has ever paid for (wars included...anyone have numbers for this costly mess?). Rot in hell Pete.

On a brighter note, it's too easy for Brain, err brawn, err chin to pick on his dead foe, so the only logical way to sort this out is to have Ben and Justin going 3 rounds in the octogon. PPV and all proceeds to the greens to help them out a tad.



I know, self-quoting is rather fromage, er cheesy, but it's done to refer to my rant on trudeau's french for everybody policy.

Here's a few bits and pieces concerning the obscene cost to Canadians in order to fund a national bilingual policy. The social activists looking for money should consider this when they're told there's no cash to go around.

This is just for the city of Ottawa:
http://www.languagefairness.org/City...gual_Costs.php


Some figure it's on the order of 4-10 billion a year.
http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/20102000/c2.htm

Others estimate $60 billion since 1968:
http://www.writersblock.ca/spring2002/busword.htm


But apparently, according to the government, the 'people' say it's a great idea! Spin, spin, spin...
 
karrie
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

This is just for the city of Ottawa:
http://www.languagefairness.org/City...gual_Costs.php


Some figure it's on the order of 4-10 billion a year.
http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/20102000/c2.htm

Others estimate $60 billion since 1968:
http://www.writersblock.ca/spring2002/busword.htm


But apparently, according to the government, the 'people' say it's a great idea! Spin, spin, spin...

I always wonder when I hear the complaints about cost... what would the alternative have cost?

The fighting with the Quebecois, possible separation, loss of tax funds from one of our msot populous provinces, what would that have cost, when all is factored in?
 
Tonington
#22
I don't think you can put a price on an intact Canada. Some out there might think it inconsequential if Quebec separated, not me.
 
karrie
#23
I'm with you on that Tonington. Having so much Franco background though probably highly influences my viewpoint. I come from a very French area of Alberta, where most people don't begrudge the rights of their fellow countrymen to have access to the government and to schooling.
 
Locutus
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I always wonder when I hear the complaints about cost... what would the alternative have cost?

The fighting with the Quebecois, possible separation, loss of tax funds from one of our msot populous provinces, what would that have cost, when all is factored in?

How long do you keep paying a kidnapper (or blackmailer for that matter) after the first payment is made and the victim is still alive? We allow ourselves to be held hostage by quebec. Why do we allow and finance, a federal party who's sole purpose is to separate? Gimme a break. Trudeaumaniacs began paying the ransom and we're too afraid to stop it.
 
CDNBear
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

How long do you keep paying a kidnapper (or blackmailer for that matter) after the first payment is made and the victim is still alive? We allow ourselves to be held hostage by quebec. Why do we allow and finance, a federal party who's sole purpose is to separate? Gimme a break. Trudeaumaniacs began paying the ransom and we're too afraid to stop it.

Well said!!!
 
Tonington
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

How long do you keep paying a kidnapper (or blackmailer for that matter) after the first payment is made and the victim is still alive? We allow ourselves to be held hostage by quebec. Why do we allow and finance, a federal party who's sole purpose is to separate? Gimme a break. Trudeaumaniacs began paying the ransom and we're too afraid to stop it.

Maybe it's me, but I don't equate funds spent on French Canadians as ransom. There are francophones in other provinces, we have quite a few here in the Maritimes.

Why do we allow our elected officials to continue giving to Quebec for votes. Harper gave them a nice fat cheque this year. Mulroney gave a substantial aircraft deal to Quebec even though Manitoba's bid was lower and the company better rated.

Perhaps if Harper used leverage for what Quebec wants, by true electoral reform, ie. Ontario and Quebec lose seats, we wouldn't have PM's continually giving fat cheques to Quebec for votes which are very expensive.
 
lone wolf
#27
Quebec won't separate. They have too much to lose if they did. Aside from the public purse, the Cree Nation have already warned where they stand - and that includes all the James Bay Power Project lands. Quebec can try to nationalize things and make money from tenant operations on roads and railways through the province/nation. With billions invested in the St Lawrence Seaway, how long do you suppose Uncle Sam is going to tolerate a French thumb on its throat? To become a state? Quebec will be so pleased the first time Bill 101 is challenged as unconstitutional.

Wolf
 
CDNBear
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Quebec won't separate. They have too much to lose if they did. Aside from the public purse, the Cree Nation have already warned where they stand - and that includes all the James Bay Power Project lands.

Wolf

I've warned these people of this very fact...numerous times...and lets not forget the Mohawk Nations along the Seaway...
 
JoeSchmoe
#29
Harper is attempting to bribe Quebec every bit as much as any Liberal ever did.... same crap, different smell. They are practically the same party with very little difference between their policies. Both have show great capacity for coruption.

Canadians seem too stupid to vote for anyone else.... except in Quebec.... so we are blessed with this 2-party (1 party?) rule.
 
Unforgiven
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by JoeSchmoe View Post

Harper is attempting to bribe Quebec every bit as much as any Liberal ever did.... same crap, different smell. They are practically the same party with very little difference between their policies. Both have show great capacity for coruption.

Canadians seem too stupid to vote for anyone else.... except in Quebec.... so we are blessed with this 2-party (1 party?) rule.

Doesn't it seem to be the end game for all parties? Like Animal Farm. No matter who it is, they devolve to oinkers.
 

Similar Threads

3
Moral and Noble
by Jersay | Jun 19th, 2006
0
Bush's Iraq blueprint, lacking clarity
by Sven Eriksen | May 25th, 2004