...
Ya that somehow negates it all...
I was just answering your question but if you say so, sure.
...
Ya that somehow negates it all...
Wait a day, lmao.By the way Bear, that's one hell of a list, though you couldn't make it an even 200?:cheers:
Of course they don't juan, you won't turn on the light and take a close objective view in their collective closet.
Hey, no wonder, the bulbs burnt out, lemme get that for ya...
No doubt there is a lot of scandal in that list but if you read every line, there is a lot more innuendo and speculation.
The HRDC "boondoggle" as the list calls it, was a lot of small job creation grants all over the country. The auditor general said that most of the money could be accounted for. The minister responsible was fired.
Liberals trying to buy off Conservative MPs with offers of patronage positions: I seem to remember a guy called Emerson who got a cabinet position from the Conservatives.
Liberals handling of tainted water at Kashechewan First Nation: . The Kashechewan First Nations could have handled their own water problems. They certainly get enough money.
Out of curiosity, When do you think Mulroney's debt will be paid off?
You won't be voting anytime soon. I know that, as do you, that is why I poke all of them, unlike some.CDN bear:
Basically, put it like this... You find me a politician anywhere who isn't corrupt, and i'll vote for him/her
Of course it is juan, if that is what you have to tell yourself to get a good night sleep, so be it.No doubt there is a lot of scandal in that list but if you read every line, there is a lot more innuendo and speculation.
Ya that makes it all better now. Yet you harp inceesently on about the money the Natives get and waste, what was I saying about selective outrage and hypocracy?The HRDC "boondoggle" as the list calls it, was a lot of small job creation grants all over the country. The auditor general said that most of the money could be accounted for. The minister responsible was fired.
No arguement here, that was just ridiculous and hypocritical, you are right about that.Liberals trying to buy off Conservative MPs with offers of patronage positions: I seem to remember a guy called Emerson who got a cabinet position from the Conservatives.
Liberals handling of tainted water at Kashechewan First Nation: . The Kashechewan First Nations could have handled their own water problems. They certainly get enough money.
:sleepy4:Out of curiosity, When do you think Mulroney's debt will be paid off?
I used to vote Liberal, hell I got into a fist fight with my Dad over my "liberal" views and my support of the Liberal party, then they sold me down the river, stretched my hoop, stole my wallet and then not even a kiss, just lies and no phone call either.i'm not entirely sure but i think i still retain the right to vote in the UK
I believe it was a Provincial contract handed out to a firm of their choosing, but I will hold out on trying to rub that in anyones face, until I confirm it. The only thing resembling 'poppycock' is your reading of that part of the list, it says the handling of the issue. Are you going to tell me that you think they handled it correctly?Poppycock! It is somehow the Liberal's fault that the natives dug a toilet upstream of the water intake.
No, but they sure as hell perfected it!!!The Liberals sure as hell didn't invent corruption.
What? And ignore all the glorious benefits of the Liberal Empire? No way, I like the way they look in the light, stuck to the coackroack sticky paper.If you had edited that list down to things that were reasonable, it would have been a quarter as long,
:sleepy4: What did I tell you about throwing empty pistols at me. Just because you do it everytime someone brings up the waste and corruption throughout the Liberal regime, doesn't make the Liberals any better. This and bitwhys silly lil number, hardly compares to the unrepentant corruption of the Liberal regime. If we were only talking numbers, ya, I'ld have to agree somewhat, but the Liberals bear some responsiblity too, read on.and Mulroney's debt still isn't paid off, and it has cost Canada close to $500 billion in interest with much more to come.
I would agree. But bulrooney was forced to create it. The Liberal regime that flung open the doors of immagration, without the infrastructure in place to deal with it, bears some of the responsiblity, don't you think?What is hypocritical, is ignoring that debt.
I would agree. But bulrooney was forced to create it. The Liberal regime that flung open the doors of immagration, without the infrastructure in place to deal with it, bears some of the responsiblity, don't you think?
Calm down man, you'll blow an 'o'ring or something.Baloney!
Mulroney wasn't forced to do anything. He and his finance minister made up the budgets for each of the nine years he was in office, and every year they wrote up a budget with about a $50 billion dollar deficit. Kim Cambell handed Chretien a $46 billion dollar deficit. Whatever his faults, Chretien had a balanced budget in three years. Mulroney could have done that but he chose not to. We have been paying for his stupidity every since.
...I would agree. But bulrooney was forced to create it. The Liberal regime that flung open the doors of immagration, without the infrastructure in place to deal with it, bears some of the responsiblity, don't you think?
Are you really that pompous that you will abridge a post so drastically as to cut half the context off into oblivion?Are you really trying to blame the Federal debt on immigration?
Are you really that pompous that you will abridge a post so drastically as to cut half the context off into oblivion?
Apperantly you are.
Look I know your ways, you're a poster of hysterical nonsense, based more on your opinion then based in fact. You're one of the "I see a hidden agenda" crowd. Blowing minor inconsistancies into fulfledge scandals. You're tilting at wind mills Don. You and I have been down this road before. I really have no need to play with your head until you get mad and run away again.are you really that arrogant you think people can't figure out the paragraph stands on its own?
Prove it wrong or get over it.make your case first.
what did I leave out that would have changed the meaning?