Are Women Ready for Real Portfolios?
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Can you define 'liar' for me, then?
I was taught that a liar was a person who lies, who makes a promise one has no intention of keeping.
Perhaps, but the definition is a little flexible when it comes to politicians. All politicians make some promises at election time because that is what people want to hear. If a politician keeps most of his promises, I for one wouldn’t call him a liar. As I said, there is no Gandhi or Jesus in politics.
I see, then would you call Harper a liar? My guess is that you wouldn’t. As soon as he came to office, he broke a big promise about tax breaks for income trusts.
Liberals had changed tax laws, so it was more tax efficient to convert a company into income trusts. I remember BCE, Telus were thinking of converting into income trusts. Conservatives broke their promise of keeping the tax structure the same, they promptly changed it so that it was not as tax efficient to become income trusts any more. Both BCE and Telus dropped their plans to convert into income trust. It was the case of GST promise all over again.
Also, Harper promised not to run a deficit, and is running a huge one. So would you call him a liar? Or does your lie detector work only when applied to Liberals?
NO NO NO NO NO- Politicians should be setting an example for the people they lead and should be held to a higher standard.
yep. Rene Levesque (shrug) Goota love the guy. Good New Brunswick boy, ya know.......lol.
True. Born in Campbelton.
You have unrealistic expectations from politicians, JLM. No politician would come up to that standard.
To me, if a politician keeps most of his promises, does a good job, overall does pretty much what he said he would do, that is good enough. That wouldn’t get him my vote, of course, that would depend upon his policies. But I would consider him a good politician in that case.
Using that criteria, I would say Chrétien was a pretty good politician, and Harper hasn’t really been caught in a major lie either. Sure he has lied, but no more that most politicians.
Now that would be a matter of personal opinion, wouldn't it? In my opinion, both Chretien and Harper have lied within reason, but others may feel differently.
What I have no time for is the partisan political opinion, which claims that it is only Liberal politicians who lie, that Conservative politicians (particularly the Messiah) are pure as driven snow.
I think both Chrétien and Harper are OK as politicians (but of course, Harper would never get my vote), and I can understand the contrary opinion, which says that both were unacceptable politicians. What I have no respect for is the opinion that Chrétien was the devil incarnate, and Harper is the Messiah incarnate.
Last edited:
There's an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Reputable people don't have a reason to lie about things political. Sure if it's your mother and she looks horrible and she's dying of cancer, that's a different story, but it's outside the realm of politics.
In other words, it's okay for a politician to lie, as long as you believe it's okay for the politician to lie.
We all lie outside the realm of politics JLM, from time to time. There is nothing wrong with a little white lie. In politics, sometimes politicians have to say some things in order to get elected.
The examples of GST with Chrétien or income trusts with Harper are typical. Both promised something because that is what people wanted to hear. Neither had any intention of keeping the promise and I suspect people in the know realized that. It would have been plainly insanity to get rid of GST, or to keep the ridiculous tax break for income trusts. But there were no votes in saying so.
So it doesn’t mater how much you get on your high horse and pontificate, politics doesn’t work that way.
"You have unrealistic expectations from politicians, JLM. No politician would come up to that standard."
BEAUTIFUL- One valid reason why I don't like paying taxes.
BEAUTIFUL- One valid reason why I don't like paying taxes.
It doesn’t matter what I believe, politicians are going to lie. Much as you may not like it, there is no politics without lying. When one starts with that premise, then the question becomes how much is a particular politician lying? If he is lying within reason, he is a decent politician, if not, he is a lousy politician.
Last edited:
Why does that surprise you, JLM? I think it is only common sense. Consider the politicians of late. Harper, Martin, Chrétien, Mulroney, Trudeau. Do you think that they all were truthful, that they never lied? Or on American side, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan. Do you think they was even one completely honest politician among them, somebody who never told a lie, somebody who never broke an election promise?
One has to be realistic and not be led astray by what the ideal should be. A politician who never lies does not exist.
You said that it's okay for a politician to lie, within reason, and that 'within reason' is up to the opinion of the individual.
So, you're saying that it's okay for a politician to lie as long as it's within a person's personal opinion of what is okay.
In other words, for you, it's okay for a politician to lie 'within reason', because that's your opinion.
For others, it's not okay, because in their opinion 'within reason' is a very small space and leaves no room.
So you have completely validated JLM's opinion, because for him, 'within reason' doesn't include much, and you have said that 'within reason' is a personal opinion.
It's nice to see you supporting JLM's position.
Mike Harris didn't lie. He just masked his agenda in pretty words. I bet you and he might have got on like two peas in a pod.