No - My insults are clear or they are funny- The only difference between Harper and Chretien is that harper is better at it.
But I agree with the spending on Party propoganda- a new level - or a new low- but the Libs did the same. Just not as well.
PM complicit in climate, shootings
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
No - My insults are clear or they are funny- The only difference between Harper and Chretien is that harper is better at it.
But I agree with the spending on Party propoganda- a new level - or a new low- but the Libs did the same. Just not as well.
Are you going to take up that challenge? It might introduce a need to think so perhaps your head will not be up to it.
As for the Propaganda, Harper spent $100 million more in his first four years than did Chretien in fake informatio messages to the public. Messages that did nothing more than blow the CPC horn.
That is fifty times as much (nearly) as the Adscam theft by those non members of the Liberal Party. And it comes from your taxes.
As for the Propaganda, Harper spent $100 million more in his first four years than did Chretien in fake informatio messages to the public. Messages that did nothing more than blow the CPC horn.
That is fifty times as much (nearly) as the Adscam theft by those non members of the Liberal Party. And it comes from your taxes.
You are on Glue and have on Fixation in your little life.. And thats to avoid all facts and spout leftist propaganda. Check your first statment on Prorogation.... You are off of your leftist rocker.. All the other points are NDP talking points that have NEVER lined up with the opinions of the Majority o Canadaians...
"Gagging Scientists".... How innane is this statement...
Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament four times during his time as Prime Minister: February 5, 1996; September 18, 1999; September 16, 2002; and November 12, 2003.
* On each occasion, the Liberals killed their own legislation. Several bills ended up dying over and over again due to Liberals proroguing Parliament or calling early elections.
* September 16, 2002 – After a summer of Liberal in-fighting and Jean Chretien being forced to announce his planned retirement date in August, Chretien prorogued Parliament, killing legislation so that he could unveil his legacy agenda.
"Gagging Scientists".... How innane is this statement...
Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament four times during his time as Prime Minister: February 5, 1996; September 18, 1999; September 16, 2002; and November 12, 2003.
* On each occasion, the Liberals killed their own legislation. Several bills ended up dying over and over again due to Liberals proroguing Parliament or calling early elections.
* September 16, 2002 – After a summer of Liberal in-fighting and Jean Chretien being forced to announce his planned retirement date in August, Chretien prorogued Parliament, killing legislation so that he could unveil his legacy agenda.
You really should do a little research instead of taking the talking point message that the CPC sent out. All of your post is untrue. Chretien never once prorogued before the business of a session was concluded. The time that came close was when Martin was to rake over as PM and there were two Bills left over. That was necessary for that reson.
Harper prorogued in September, 2008 to force an election before it became public knowledge that he had created a structural deficit - a large one - and fought a campaign pretending thatthere was no deficit. He prorogued again in December to avoid censure for contempt of Parliament.
He next prorogued to shut down the committe investigating the Afghan detainees question. Only about half of the legislation before Parliament was completed. More than thirty Bills died on the Order paper.
He claimed in the elections that it was necessary because the Liberals were obstructing passage.
And the public, ever asleep, bought his duplicity and lies.
Oh I can think at times - i can also spot Bshxt most of the time-
Main reason why I sat back for the most part and watched you and read your posts and replies.
I noted this:
1 – You head handed to a platter to rest on
2- Then you ass handed as well – need your mouth stuffed like an oinker
Oh yes- The above insults are clear and funny to some.
Next you are a person that thinks Harper is the Devil Incarnate. Guess all of that and your posts would make you an ideologue – and as there was no science in their- no fact – just blather and more blather-
.
They are neither clear or funny. They are infantile and certainly no substitute for substantive disagreement.
Try it! You might like it as it stretches your mind beyond the schoolyard.
Not clear - Not descriptive - Not funny- Sounds like a strait-laced ideologues answer.
Glad you finally realized what your problem is. Now how about seeking help?
The problem I have here is getting even a glimmer of intelligent response from a couple of you. It would not be so bad if there was a modicum of wit or humour, but there is not.
Sometimes it's easier to get responses on a subject if you down play your knowledge of it! :lol:
I was referring to the last few, jlm, who did the kindergarten catcalling. As for my knowledge of these topics, I research them. Why downplay that. I am always looking for well thought out and researched differences.
I don't like the idea that we are going to Hell in a handbasket wrt climate. Or that this government is the horror that I think it is. I would like to be wrong on both counts. But, I do remember the times when whatever Party was in power, you could be sure that it would be progressive: only the pace of improvement differed. Since about 1980 - precisely, 1977, in respect to the economic equality status, there has been decline. Since 1980 in the US and a couple of years later here, social progress has been reversed.
I consider the Conservative movements in all the Anglo-Saxon countries since that time to be no better than neoFascism. A movement, not a philosophy that has deliberately widened the social and economic divide and has marginalized major sectors of their societies while stalling economic progress for their economies as a whole with the outdated and disproved theories of the Austrian and Chicago "schools." Plus a phony globalization.
I don't like the idea that we are going to Hell in a handbasket wrt climate. Or that this government is the horror that I think it is. I would like to be wrong on both counts. But, I do remember the times when whatever Party was in power, you could be sure that it would be progressive: only the pace of improvement differed. Since about 1980 - precisely, 1977, in respect to the economic equality status, there has been decline. Since 1980 in the US and a couple of years later here, social progress has been reversed.
I consider the Conservative movements in all the Anglo-Saxon countries since that time to be no better than neoFascism. A movement, not a philosophy that has deliberately widened the social and economic divide and has marginalized major sectors of their societies while stalling economic progress for their economies as a whole with the outdated and disproved theories of the Austrian and Chicago "schools." Plus a phony globalization.
If two people stand 200' apart and look at a mountain, they see different things and that's sort of what it's like with things like economics and politics. We all regard different things as being important and unimportant. We can only attach a certain amount of blame to the politicians, the electorate has the hammer, they are free to vote as they please and spend their money as they please. Actually I think social progress improved starting in the early 80s, the wall came down, the cold war ended and the U.S.S.R. was dismantled. Another good analogy is the three blind men's description of the elephant after each one stroked a different part of the elephant.
I can agree with most of that. Until you get to the improving of social progress. That is what I cannot understand about citizens today and their lack of awareness of the direction of society. Since 1980, the gap between rich and poor has widened to ratios not seen since the 1920s. Minimum wages in Canada are now, right across the country, some 40% lower than in 1977 (in constant dollars). Real incomes declined from then until the late 1990s and are now just a little above the 1980 level - and for that hours of work are longer and far more two family incomes are needed to support a family. Real unemployment has increased dramatically and will never be recovered until there is a sea change in political direction.
Medicare has declined in effectiveness and fairness as funding has not kept pace with need and privatization has crept in. Poverty, which government pledged to eradicate by 2000, has increased. The first food bank in Canada appeared in 1981 and it has become a"growth industry." Recreational opportunites have been reduced for the mass of people who are in the lower income groups.
Economic growth has stalled and has not for several years been high enough to provide employment for the population increase. Taxation policies are designed to increase the divide.
In my life, and I can reasonably go back to the 1940s, I have never known a period of such hopelessness in people and such a disassociation from government. Apathy and ignorance rule. It is, in my opinion, a precursor to the explosion that always follows the excesses of capitalism unchecked. For the first time in generations, polls show that there is no expectation that the next generation will be better off than the present.
I agree, that is a real concern. I guess to even start solving the problem it has to be determined what is the proper spread between rich and poor. When I first entered the work force 50 years ago, the salary/wage at the top of the pyramid was seven times the bottom wage, eg. C.E.O. vs janitor, now it's likely 100 times or more. We know one thing for sure that won't help solve it and that is to keep jacking up the minimum wage, with no increase in responsibility or duties. We (as a society) are no better off today at $30 an hour than we were at $2 an hour. Some may argue we have more possessions, but the main reason for that is easier credit, but what we should be looking at is our equity in those possessions. I think for sure adjustments have to be made to salaries at both ends...........the greedy C.E.O. earning $millions plus another hefty amount in bonuses and the bottom of the line worker who is not performing his/her job, in other words scrutize the value provided by every single employee. Another thing for sure we have to reduce the tax burden and you do that by having people do more for themselves. That way you rid yourself of useless bureaucracy.
SEE YOU ARE WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS. With your chicken little syndrome on climate and your hatred of good government. Things in Canada have vastly improved since Harper got a majority both socially and financially. And I don't even like the guy.
Little by little we will get rid of this sense of entitlement that socialist governments have forced on us.
You really do need to give your head a good saking (unless the rattling disturbs you). I write of good government and show why this is not a good government.
Things have improved so much under Harper (sarcasm is not enough). Right! The country is deeper in debt; it has a structural deficit that was not ther when he arrived. Real unemployment has increased substantially under his watch. At the time of the last election, the divide between the '1% and the 99% had increased by nine percent - it is more now.
I gave a few of the social regressions he is responsible for. And, the political -wnat os a good word for it - I named a few.
Socialist governments! Don't make yourself sound foolish.