Can you trust Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

But the point is that I don't think, in general, they are dishonest and corrupt. Sure you will always have a few bad apples who disgrace the party by playing fast and loose with the rules... but I don't think that applies to Stephen Harper.... unlike one former PM that I won't name.

Stephen Harper may have many faults (he's an autocrat, totalitarian, rules his party with an iron fist, somewhat inflexible, comes off as a bit smug at times, isn't particularly charismatic, takes full advantage of the parliamentary system and the advantages that a majority gives him) but I don't believe that dishonesty and untrustworthiness are two of them.

You do realize these are all the hallmarks of a dishonest, untrustworthy politician right? You simply have chosen to put your flag in the Conservative camp and have no intentions of removing it because the other parties must be more evil and corrupt than the Conservatives. If you're choosing a party on the basis of least bad, you're still choosing a bad option! Be independent, not beholden to a party for God knows what reason (and it ain't honestly and trustworthiness, cause they ain't that).

[Senator Clay Davis]

Speaking of those Saintly Conservatives...

“Honourable Thomas Lukaszuk, Deputy Premier of Alberta will be in Ottawa on Thursday, June 21st, 2012 and is requesting a lunch or dinner with caucus,” says the email written by Calkins’ legislative assistant at 4:57 p.m. “Mr. Calkins will not be able to host this event as he has prior commitments, but would like to see if there is any caucus member who would be willing to host this event for the Deputy Premier.”

Kenney shot back a response just five minutes later, but instead of sending it only to Calkins’ office, he inadvertently sent it to everyone in the 26-member federal Alberta caucus, plus assistants: “I say a definite ‘no’ to Lukaszyk. I don’t think it makes sense to create a precedent to do a special caucus meeting for every visiting minister from the provincial government. Plus he is a complete and utter a$$####.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06...lberta-tories/

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You do realize these are all the hallmarks of a dishonest, untrustworthy politician right? You simply have chosen to put your flag in the Conservative camp and have no intentions of removing it because the other parties must be more evil and corrupt than the Conservatives. If you're choosing a party on the basis of least bad, you're still choosing a bad option! Be independent, not beholden to a party for God knows what reason (and it ain't honestly and trustworthiness, cause they ain't that).

Seriously? There are a great many businessmen who have exactly those attributes... and you are saying because they run their businesses in that manner they are dishonest and untrustworthy?
I have no problem with a politician that runs the country like he would a Fortune 500 company. Thats why out of all the Liberal PM's my favorite was Paul Martin and least favorite was Chretien.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Seriously? There are a great many businessmen who have exactly those attributes... and you are saying because they run their businesses in that manner they are dishonest and untrustworthy?
I have no problem with a politician that runs the country like he would a Fortune 500 company. Thats why out of all the Liberal PM's my favorite was Paul Martin and least favorite was Chretien.

Bit of a difference between a corporate exective whose goal is to maximize profitablity and shareholder value and a politician who can implement laws that have serious negative consequences. Unless I'm a stakeholder in said company, dishonest untrustworth executives don't affect me directly in any way. Enron, Worldcom, Bre-X, none of them have had much of an impact on my life.

Every decision made by dishonest, untrustworthy politicians, on the other hand, has a direct affect on all Canadians. Crime Bill is a perfect example. To 95% of the population, it appears to have no affect on them. And then you remember to jail more prisoners, you need more guards, more prisons and, you know, more prisoners themselves to house. Taxpayers gotta pay for that, and will be paying dearly for it until it is repealed. And like the America prison system, which Harper aspires to have, it has so many indirect consequences (mostly social) beyond just the gigantic waste of money it is.

[Flash Walken]

For Profit Government.

I feel like i've stumbled into Calgaryborn's future imperfect.

[Rerun]

Lets face it... the government of Canada is a business... a billion dollar business in fact. You can either run it in a fiscally responsible manner where expenditures don't exceed revenues or you can run it irresponsibly where vast sums of money are spent recklessly and inprudently on every social program out there and you end up like most European countries.

I'd rather have a businessman, who understands economics, running this country, than a socialist who only understands that the taxpayer can always cough up more money, if necessary, to finance a welfare state.

As for the prison issue, I'm kind of on the fence about this. On one hand I want rapists, murderers, child molester, etc (generally the scum of society) kept in prison as long as possible, but I do understand that with this attitude incarceration costs will increase, and of course I hate to see this... but sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and pay the piper to see justice done.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For Profit Government.

I feel like i've stumbled into Calgaryborn's future imperfect.

Not for profit... just not in the red. (pun not intended)

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Translation : Better to be governed by corrupt politicians who can be bought than an honest autocrat who believes he's doing whats best for Canada?

Do you support this Rerun:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...k.html?cmp=rss

Replying to an email from federal Conservative MP Blaine Calkins, the Alberta caucus chair, Kenney said he didn't want to host a caucus lunch or dinner for Lukaszuk when he visits Ottawa on Thursday, the Edmonton Journal reported.

"I say a definite 'no' to Lukaszyk. I don't think it makes sense to create a precedent to do a special caucus meeting for every visiting minister from the provincial government. Plus he is a complete and utter #######," Kenney wrote in the email, spelling Lukaszuk's name incorrectly.

The email also went to the staff of the 26 Conservative MPs from Alberta.

Another demonstration of the arrogance and lack of respect the CPC shows individuals it considers unfriendly.

The CPC, raising the level of political discourse in Canada.

(Oops. Beaten to the punch by SCD)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Lets face it... the government of Canada is a business...

Government is just about the direct opposite of business.

[MarchHare]

Lets face it... the government of Canada is a business

No, it really isn't.

Businesses exist to generate shareholder value. The government exists to maintain order and provide services to the citizens. If you really want to use an analogy, the government could best be described as a non-profit organization, but even that isn't entirely accurate.

That's not to say governments shouldn't be run in a fiscally-responsible manner. Absolutely they should. But it's not a business.

[longsuffering]

Waiting for Rerun to explain how he is right and everyone else is wrong.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Lets face it... the government of Canada is a business... a billion dollar business in fact. You can either run it in a fiscally responsible manner where expenditures don't exceed revenues or you can run it irresponsibly where vast sums of money are spent recklessly and inprudently on every social program out there and you end up like most European countries.

I'd rather have a businessman, who understands economics, running this country, than a socialist who only understands that the taxpayer can always cough up more money, if necessary, to finance a welfare state.

As for the prison issue, I'm kind of on the fence about this. On one hand I want rapists, murderers, child molester, etc (generally the scum of society) kept in prison as long as possible, but I do understand that with this attitude incarceration costs will increase, and of course I hate to see this... but sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and pay the piper to see justice done.

The first paragraph and a bit is pretty hilarious. Yes you run a government like a business, but like a not-for-profit. The goal should always be balanced budgets, which the Conservatives have not and likely will not be able to achieve in their reign. You say you don't like wasting for social programs, but a prison system is a social program, its just one with mostly costly social and economic consequences. Being $10 billion off on a projection (which is only a 66% misstep...whoops) for a fighter jet suggests to me they aren't going to manage finances very well.

I'm all for punishing the worst offenders as much as possible. The crime bill isn't doing that though. Its mostly creating new punishments for low level crimes that will increase the current prison population, hence why we need new jails, new guards etc. It's a catastrophic waste of money if you know anything about the American system (i.e. it doesn't work)

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Do you support this Rerun:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...k.html?cmp=rss



Another demonstration of the arrogance and lack of respect the CPC shows individuals it considers unfriendly.

The CPC, raising the level of political discourse in Canada.

(Oops. Beaten to the punch by SCD)

Maybe he is an a-hole? Kenny, just like everybody else, is entitled to his opinion. His error was to mistakenly hit the wrong "reply to all" key. He's not the first politician to call someone an a-hole and I doubt he will be the last. The press is making a mountain out of a mole hill on this. I say fuddle duddle to you and everyone else who is getting bent out of shape about this.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Waiting for Rerun to explain how he is right and everyone else is wrong.

In your eyes, anyone who supports the Conservative Party of Canada will always be wrong... so why even bother trying.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Government is just about the direct opposite of business.

Anytime you are dealing with billions of dollars, its a business. To deny otherwise is to end up like Canada in the '80s and '90s, Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.. etc. ... the list goes on.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Rerun

In your eyes, anyone who supports the Conservative Party of Canada will always be wrong... so why even bother trying.

That's untrue. Several of my friends support the CPC.

Unlike you however, they are capable of critical thinking and don't support the Party blindly. Try it sometime.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Rerun

To deny otherwise is to end up like Canada in the ''90s

You mean when the Liberals balanced the budget and reduced the deficit?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No, it really isn't.

Businesses exist to generate shareholder value. The government exists to maintain order and provide services to the citizens. If you really want to use an analogy, the government could best be described as a non-profit organization, but even that isn't entirely accurate.

That's not to say governments shouldn't be run in a fiscally-responsible manner. Absolutely they should. But it's not a business.

Ok... point taken... its a Not-for-Profit Corporation.... Which still doesn't mean its ok to run in the red. Not-for-Profit does not equal Run-at -a- Loss.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Anytime you are dealing with billions of dollars, its a business. To deny otherwise is to end up like Canada in the '80s and '90s, Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.. etc. ... the list goes on.

Who is John Galt?

[Senator Clay Davis]

You know as I look back at Kenney's adventure, his biggest sin was spelling Lukaszuk wrong. If you're going to insult a guy, at least get his name right. Like me saying "Jasin Kinneey is a lazy arrogant prick who can only win elections because he's in Alberta", it just doesn't work as well if I can't get his name right.