What the .... slogan?

 Pierre Poilievre has repeatedly said Carney has nothing but slogans. Really PP? You want to go that route? 

Here are some of the slogans PP has used and is using:

Canada Is Broken (This was his key phrase before switching to Canada First.)

Canada First (A slogan that has been adopted by a Proud Boys group. And sounds eerily like Trump's America First slogan. )

Axe The Tax (He was still spouting this slogan AFTER Carney axed the consumer side of the carbon tax.)

Build The Homes

Fix The Budget

Stop the Crime

Bring It Home

Stop The Drugs (Which was his response to Trump's BS about fentanyl going into the US from Canada.)

You get the idea. If Carney has nothing but slogans what does PP and the Conservative Party of Canada have? PP is slow to adapt to the changing political environment which is not a good thing. A lot of slogans, and not much else to show for it. 

Maple Maga

 Why is Pierre Poilievre often called Maple Maga or Trump Lite? A lot of what he says mirrors, if not directly parrots, shit Trump says and does.

Now PP and the CPC uses the "Canada First" slogan. Before that he went on about how broken Canada is. Sound familiar? America First?

When Donald started his BS with Canada, calling us the 51st State and disparaging our PM by calling him Governor, PP was fairly quiet. Mind you he did use Trumpian slogans at his rallies. While Trump was using the fake excuse of drugs coming into the US from Canada the slogan in front of the podium every time PP spoke was "Stop The Drugs".  While everyone else in Canada (except the twit in Alberta) was preparing to deal with Trump, PP was still focusing on other things, using Trumpian slogans.

He uses "woke" as an all-purpose pejorative and says he is on the side of "common sense." 

He is not a fan of the media. The CBC is a huge target of his and he wants to defund them. Even when dealing with the press at rallies and events he restricts them. Only approved media are allowed. Only 4 reporters can ask questions, and they only have 1 they can ask with no follow up. The questions are submitted beforehand. 

He embraced the so called "Freedom Convoy" morons who occupied Ottawa. PP showed up with coffee and donuts for them and marched in solidarity with them.

He uses "woke" as an all-purpose pejorative and says he is on the side of "common sense."

He has vowed to defeat the "gatekeepers" who are apparently standing in the way of Canadians prospering. 

Instead of making laws that would pass Constitutional muster he has vowed to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override judicial rulings against his attempts to impose harsher sentences on those convicted of committing crimes. Who needs Due Process and oversight?

He previously promised to withhold federal funding from universities that do not adequately uphold freedom of speech. HIS definition of freedom of speech.

PP talked about his big beautiful income tax cuts during a rally the other day. Trump has his big beautiful bill he wants to pass to make his tax cuts permanent. Tax cuts for the wealthy.

I don't know about you but I do see more than a little Trump and MAGA in Poilievre.

What the ... Laurierism?!?!?!?

A friend shared something on Facebook from some mook named Rob East. Actually it was something he shared, of something a friend shared, that a friend shared, that Rob East made available. Oh what a tangled web we weave ... but I am getting ahead of myself.

Mr. East posted a photo of a quote to Wilfred Laurier in 2015. All it took was reading the first sentence, Mr. East's opening and only comment, for me to call bullshit on it. He wrote;

"I AM CANADIAN ... maybe we should remember the words of our founding fathers." 

Canadian? Really? Ok, we do have our share of fuckwits in Canada and a lot of morons. He could be Canadian and a prime example of either of those. Or maybe he is an American.

Founding fathers?!?!?!? Really?!?!? THAT sounds like something an American would say. Not a Canadian. In Canada we have The Fathers of Confederation. NOT founding fathers. On top of that, Laurier was NOT one of them.

He then went on to post the statement attributed to Laurier. A statement which had a huge glaring error in it. Can you pick out the error?

Did you see it? In the last half of the statement? Yeah, this one.

"We have room for only one flag, the Canadian flag."

BAARRRRRRRRRRP! Canadian Flag? In 1907? The Canadian flag was NOT adopted until 1965! Until then we flew the Union Jack aka The United Kingdom Union Flag.

The whole statement sounds more like something an American would say. Thanks to the miracle of the internet and a handy site called Snopes it was easy to find out who this statement belongs to. In it's original form and not what Mr. East bastardized it into (or someone else did and Mr. East didn't bother attributing it to them) it was made by ... Theodore Roosevelt. A search on Snopes using Laurier showed that.

A google search then showed that this piece of BS, the quote not Mr. East, has been around the internet since at least 2012. Maybe longer. Which means Mr. East was just passing on the BS without showing where he found it.

Good try Mr. East but I smelled the bullshit from the start.

Then you have the twat waffles in the comment section.

The fucking moron who said she AGREES "n"  does so without prejudice. Which is codespeak for I am a fucking racist.  Nice try asshole.

Or The last commenter who really doesn't know anything about Laurier. She was right he is a Canadian through and through but if she believes this piece of tripe was really him she has NO idea what a Canadian is, let alone who Laurier was.

Morons do seem to attract morons.

What the ... stand in?!?!?!?

Just when you think Harper and his people can't be any more moronic they manage to surprise.

On Tuesday, Irving Shipyard in Halifax started production of the 1st Offshore Arctic Patrol Ship the Harry DeWolf. The Harperites decided he should share in the news so made up a video of him promoting the program and his party. They shot one of him talking with a bridge in the background. What could the problem be?

The background is the problem. The idiots try to make you think it is Halifax when it is really Johnstown, Ontario. There is a bridge there that looks similar to the Halifax bridges, depending on the view used.

Hell, the guy who likes to wrap himself in the Canadian flag isn't even using a Canadian bridge in the background! It is actually the Ogdensburg–Prescott International Bridge, a U.S.-owned suspension bridge over the St. Lawrence river that connects Ogdensburg, New York to Johnstown, Ontario. Way to go Harper!

What a bunch of fucktards. Sure, it isn't always possible to do your video from where you want but why try faking it?!?!?!? Just do it in front of Parliament. In your office. At the PM's residence.

Why be honest when you can try and fake it. After all it was Harper who said;

“You’re a journalist, and we all know journalists make bad politicians. Politicians know how to stick to a message. That’s how they are successful. Journalists think they always have to tell the truth.”

Why bother with the truth when you have a message to get out.

Vote anything but Conservative! Lets kick this lying ass and his party out of power!

Shit Morons Say ... about cause and effect. 2

"The root cause of terrorism is terrorists."

This was said by Pierre Poilievre, a conservative mouth piece, speaking the party line on CBC Newsworlds Power and Politics tonight.

What a simplistic talking head he is. He makes Ralph Wiggam look like an Einstein.

Shit Morons Say ... about cause and effect. 1

"I think, though, this is not a time to commit sociology, if I can use an expression,"

P.M. Stephen Harper commenting on terror arrests while sniping at Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau was asked as the Boston bombing news was unfolding, by Peter Mansbridge, what he would do if he were P.M. of Canada at this time. He’d offer his condolences along with practical help. But he wouldn’t jump to conclusions. “Over the coming days,” he told Mansbridge, we should look for “root causes. We don’t know if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, at war with innocents.”

At the time he was ... right. We had NO IDEA if it was one person or a group. If it was Al Qaeda or a home grown (US) group. At THAT time we knew nothing and the authourities didn't know much more. Over the next few days more info came to light and in the end they id'd the pieces of shit that did the bombing. Killed one and caught the other.

Harper sounded a lot like ... George W. Bush and his cronies. I would rather have someone who doesn't jump to conclusions in charge instead of a moron.

Even the use of the phrase "this is not a time to commit sociology" smacks of the stupidity that used to come from the mouth of G.W. Bush. It makes me wonder if Harper has hired some of Bush's speech writers. Which shouldn't be surprising considering some of the BS that has come out of the Harper Government.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to find out the root causes of why people do things. Sometimes you will find something you can understand. Something you will find out you just can't understand them. It is looking for a reason for why things happen, not making an excuse.

Royal Bank of Canada screws Canadians over.

After reading this article on CBC I am glad I chose to dump the Royal Bank of Canada as my bank of choice last year. 

It definitely looks like RBC has broken the rules on using foreign workers. Will the government do anything about it? Considering the tone the Conservatives take towards immigration you would think so. I doubt it though. As Bill Maher said 

"If you have a gun you can rob a bank but if you have a bank you can rob everyone."

Odds are RBC will get away with this. Please prove me wrong Harper Government.

What the ... fraudster?!?!?

Mike Duffy. Former CTV  Political reporter. Opinion man. Now a Senator for Prince Edward Island. And of course a liar who has defrauded the Government of over $40,000.

How? Well, Senators who live away from their home are allowed $21,000 a year to defray their living expenses in Ottawa. Even though Mikey lived in Ontario for decades before he was appointed a Senator for PEI. He has claimed his cottage in PEI as his home. However, that is just one of the many problems with his residency claim.

1) He lived in the Ottawa area for DECADES BEFORE he was appointed as a Senator for PEI. In fact, he lived in his current home there long before he was appointed.

2) He has NO health card for PEI. After being told to produce proof of residency he had a staffer contact the relevant PEI Minister's office to try and get the process to APPLY for a health card fast tracked. APPLY for one, NOT get one renewed!

3) He isn't even registered as a voter in PEI. Elections Canada confirmed he is on the rolls for where he lives in Ontario.

4) His driver's license ... Ontario.

5) PEI lists him as a non-resident making him ineligible for the Resident Tax Credit there.

On top of that he has claimed over $147,000 in travel expenses, allegedly to and from PEI, since September of 2010. Yet he isn't there enough during the span of a year to be considered a resident.

What a piece of shit. A Senate appointment is a ticket to the gravy train. You hold it for life. This liar then uses it to bilk more money out of the government. Any wonder why people have low opinions of politicians?

P.E.T. on Nationalism

... nationalism was logically untenable since every group that considered itself a "nation" contained even smaller ethnic minorities that could themselves claim independence. If the nationalist trend were followed to its logical conclusion, human societies would become hopelessly fragmented . The solution lay in broader, not narrower, definitions of community.

- from Trudeau and Our Times, page 82-83

I started reading the book this week and that comment stayed with me. It reminded me of the debate over Quebec possibly separating from Canada. The Separatists tried to take the view that Canada is divisible but Quebec isn't. All of Quebec would be forced to leave Canada even though large parts of it wouldn't want to. They wanted the right to leave Canada but were unwilling to accord the same right to those who didn't want a part of their new Quebec.

Feeling Green?

So ... the "consortium" that runs the leader debates said that they couldn't possibly make any changes in relation to the debates because there just isn't time. Then they find out that the Montreal Canadiens will be playing their 1st game of the 1st round of the playoffs on the same night as the French Language debate. Now all of a sudden the unchangeable debates became ... changeable. They switched it to a night that wouldn't conflict with the Canadien's game.

If it is too late to change and allow the leader of the Green Party into the debate, a party that is running ACROSS Canada and NOT in just one province, why wasn't it too late to change the night of the debate? Did the "consortium" lie in court when they said nothing about the debates could be changed? If so, should they really be in charge of running the debates any more?

I am not a Green Party supporter but I find it incredible that a party that runs candidates across Canada is kept out while the party that wants to destroy Canada and only runs in ONE province is allowed into the debate. If the Green party is kept out then maybe the BQ should be kept out because it doesn't represent Canada, just one province?

You don't know how to google?

Ok, piss on the Tories all you want for their ineptitude but at least they can google and check Facebook (albeit for the wrong reasons). The Liberals let some racist piece of shit from Quebec on their ticket as a candidate. If they had simply googled him they would have seen some of the bile he has spouted. Damn.

Seriously, you don't google potential candidates?!?!?!? Most employers will at least google potentially employees. A woman in England lost her job because the bank she works for checks Facebook comments and saw she had criticised the huge amount of money the bank is paying a foreigner. The Libs can't at least google people they want to help them lead a government? or an opposition? That is sad.

Stephen Harper aka Boy in a Bubble

So, Haper's people kicked university students out of his rallies. Great move to win over the youth vote.

One was a woman who had a picture of herself with Ignatieff and another with Layton on her Facebook page. Yes, Harper's people check the FB page of people coming to their rallies. The asshats that kicked her out actually tore up her guest pass when they ejected her.

Another participated in a non-political rally to get students to vote. When he went to the Tory rally afterwards he was kicked out.

What can I say, considering the contempt the Harper Tories seem to have for Parliament, democracy, and Canadians in general that they would do this is no surprise. Harper's response when asked about the ejections today was surprising.

He started off by refusing to answer questions about Carson. Carson is the staffer with a criminal record who was given access to Secret documents and worked for Harper. Harper previously said he knew of the older convicitons but not the newer ones. One would think that the previous ones alone would have precluded his hiring.

Then he was asked about the students who were kicked out. After saying he couldn't comment on it he said;

"... it is better when you are turning people away than when you can't get people to come."

What an out of touch moron. He actually equates people being ejected with people being turned away because there is no room for them. Maybe he really is living in a bubble that keeps him out of touch with reality.

Coalitions

When is a coalition not a coalition? When it the Harper Government trying to set one up.

Harper has castigated the Liberals, and more directly Ignatieff, for trying to form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. He points to the 2008 coalition attempt as well as talking about what is going on currently. Here is some of what Haprer has had to say about coalitions.

The opposition has every right to defeat the government but Stéphane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election.

-Prime Minister Stephen Harper gives the nation a lesson in parliamentary democracy from the foyer of the House of Commons (November 28, 2008)

"I think he's about to play the biggest political game in Canadian history," the Prime Minister said, adding that he would not want to have to govern the country in hard times while being beholden to socialists and separatists, referring to the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

Harper claiming the Liberals were playing political games.

Harper has argued a coalition is not a legitimate or principled way to form government, and he's pointed to the Bloc in particular, arguing Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff shouldn't consider relying on the support of separatists.

The 1st day of the 2011 election.

So, according to Harper a coalition is wrong because it is not legitimate and to form a coalition with the Socialists (NDP) and Separtists (BQ) is just wrong.

That is now ... but in 2004 and 2005 Harper was singing another tune.

He formed a coalition with the NDP and BQ to bring down the Liberal government. He even went so far as to send a letter to the Governor General at the time and talk about forming a coalition government without having another election. This was done just 3 months after the Liberals formed a minority government. The letter said

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

The very first signature on the letter belongs to Mr. Harper.

That was then and this is now. Harper claims it wasn't a coalition. The parties would just work together but only Tories would be in the cabinet. It was kind of funny to read what one conservative blogger had to say about the coalition Harper made and why it was right.

The governing Liberals had just been implicated in the perhaps the greatest scandal in Canadian history

So you see, my dear Liberal friends, in that context, it was the RESPONSIBILITY of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to work together to remove a potentially corrupt Government from office

In that context, Mr. Harper's comments are not only defensible, THEY'RE COMMENDABLE, for having gone beyond Party rhetoric to defend the Canadian people.

Well, considering the scandals and controversy, including Harper's obvious contempt for Parliament and the Canadian people, that would make any coalition against him legitimate, defensible, and COMMENDABLE using the logic of my dear Conservative friend.

Sorry Stevie, you can spin it any way and call it roses but it still smells like shit. You are an opportunistic hypocrite.

The discussion continued

Just as we were finishing getting the leader talk out of the way H made a commentt you hear a lot. "All politicians are crooks."

I don't agree with that. They aren't all crooks but I do find that they all get co-opted by the system. It doesn't seem to matter how principled they are when they start out eventually they all give in to the temptations of the office. Especially when they get into power.

I was active in politics back in the ,ate 80's and early 90's. I was a Provincial youth riding President and Federal youth riding VP. It was by being that active that I got turned off. I saw just how two faced and hypocritical all politicians or all stripes could be.

Our Federal MP back then was a great guy. Even if it meant going against the party he would do what was right. Until his party became the governing party and he wanted a position of some sort, especially a cabinet seat. Then doing what was right became doing what was politically expedient.

Provincially, around the saw time, you saw the knives out for the party leader. At a closed door meeting of the youth you saw senior party members and MLA's going table to table basically telling the youth to shut up. Don't talk about the leadership problem. It is none of your concern. It was pretty disheartening.

After I mentioned some of this H started going on about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. He didn't like when I started laughing at him. He is supporting Harper and complaining about the rich getting richer. That is, pun intended, rich. :)

I asked him why he was surprised there were so many tax loopholes and legal loopholes for people, especially "the rich", to exploit. He had no answer. So I asked him how many of our politicians were lawyers. A lot of them. What do they do when they get out of politics, even if they get jobs within the party? Most go back to practicing law, even if they are just a figurehead position at a company for a healthy pay check.

Most of our politicians are professional politicians, lawyers, doctors, and the like. They aren't your average everyday person who actually has to live life in the real world. One of my problems with Iggy is that he has lived his life within the hallowed halls of academia and hasn't had to face the real world. Christ, once a professor gets tenure they can't be fired unless they do something very heinous. Compare that to someone who can be downsized at a whim. you tend to look at things from a more realistic angle when you can go from working to unemployed that easily.

And you know what? If they were your average person no one would vote for them! We have become indoctrinated that we need the "elite" governing us when often the "non-elite" have more common sense and honesty.

And when I use elite I am not trying to separate people by class. It is just how we look at politicians. Your average working person doesn't "look like" a politician and people would hold that against them. Face it people are THAT judgemental. (I still remember talking with someone who started going on about a lawyer. The lawyer is question was fat so theh person went on and on about how they couldn't possibly be a good lawyer because they were fat. They didn't LOOK like a lawyer. The persons skill never came into the equation it was all appearance.) Add to that the fact that it isn't easy to run for office unless you have money. But I digress.

After we got past H's irrational hatred of Iggy it made for an interesting discussion.

Latest Tory Attack Ad

According to the latest Conservative Party attack ad we should not trust Michael Ignatieff because he came back to Canada to become Prime Minister. Hmmm ... he isn't trustworthy because he wanted to be PM? He is an opportunist because he came back to become PM?

It is kind of funny to hear the Tories prattle on about someone coming back to Canada to be PM being bad. Aren't the Tories the party that brought Lucien Bouchard back to Canada so he would get into politics? Lucien Bouchard, the man who STARTED the Bloc Quebecois party. The separtist party that Harper now rails about. Why did they bring Bouchard into federal politics? They wanted to get votes in Quebec.

One party had a man come back to Canada because he wanted to lead the party and the country. The other party brought back a man because they wanted votes in Quebec. A man who would then dedicate himself to trying to tear the country apart. Who is the opportunist we should beware of again?