Trudeaumetre - Bravo!

618 posts / 0 new
Last post
jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Don't worry. Unionist gets mad at times but he does know who is on the same side when it comes to social justice and I am sure it is obvious that you are on that side. He gets mad at me as well. Don't worry about Unionist, you will be fine with him.

Pondering does not matter.

I agree with this completely. Unionist is like me, I get pissed at times with some of my allies but I try never to mistake them for sycophants like Pondering.


Good because I am feeling bad about our dust up.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
So I've no identifiable interest and I should just shut up? Seriously? Well I've never voted Liberal either. Should I shut up there too? The reason this grinds is all the character stacks on Ton and NDP supporters by LPC sycophants. If it had been Tom the protest would never stop. Yeah this doesn't matter a hell of a lot but it still grinds!

If it had been Tom I would not have been able to stop laughing long enough to type this.

Seriously, go watch the video imagining Tom in Sophie's place. It puts hotline bling to shame. I challenge you to keep a straight face.

You're vindictive and nasty Pondering, and you project like crazy! ETA: by the way, I'm still waiting for you to apologize for insulting my wife, Darlene's (blessed be her memory) memory. Why don't you step up and do the right thing?

There is nothing vindictive or nasty about what I have said. Your crass attacks are cartoonish.  I laughed so hard at the image of Tom singing "Smile back at me" with all the hand gestures I literally cried.

I never insulted your wife whom I have never met. It's a ridiculous accusation that deserves to be ridiculed.

 If anyone owes your wife an apology it is you.

Pondering

It's difficult to believe the discussion about me is between adults who claim to be progressives. You make fools of yourselves.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

It's difficult to believe the discussion about me is between adults who claim to be progressives. You make fools of yourselves.

It is charming how you think we care what you think.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's difficult to believe the discussion about me is between adults who claim to be progressives. You make fools of yourselves.

It is charming how you think we care what you think.

The lot of you seem to think your opinions of me are so valuable you are justified in using this forum to air them over and over again ad infinitum in thread after thread.

voice of the damned

jjuares wrote:
Thank you for this. Both these Liberal apologists have used outrageous arguments to jutify their unusual position.

For the record, I am NOT a Liberal apologist. In fact, on a personal level, I dislike Justin far more than I ever disliked Harper(I never quuite bought into Harper-hatred; policies aside, he always just seemed like a nerdy wonk, a backroom boy gone to the front benches, and I don't really care if he greets his son with a handshake or a hug.)

So, no, my purpose here is not to defend Trudeau qua Trudeau. Truth be told, I got a pretty good derisive chuckle out of Sophie's self-absorbed diva moment(as can be seen in my original Tom Wolfe allusion). But, as an issue for the left to pursue without any visible support from the supposedly offended groups? Well, let me ask you this...

In regards to the name of the Washington football team, I would be prepared to keep talking about that until the name is changed, knowing full well that the cause is supported by FN people across the USA and around the world. But...

Assuming that black outrage about Sophie Trudeau remains at its current level of public expression(ie. zero, nil, none, our nada who art in nada), how long are you prepared to go on on making an issue of this?

quizzical

.

mark_alfred

Can people start a different thread if they wanna continue talking about Sophie Grégoire's song?  It's got nothing to do with this thread.  I feel this thread is about keeping tabs on the Liberal government's record of keeping its promises.

ETA:  Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a faux-moderator.  Usually I'm fine with thread drift.  Heck, I suppose if people wanna keep discussing Grégoire's song and how it reflects on her, then by all means go ahead.

jjuares

voice of the damned wrote:
jjuares wrote:
Thank you for this. Both these Liberal apologists have used outrageous arguments to jutify their unusual position.

For the record, I am NOT a Liberal apologist. In fact, on a personal level, I dislike Justin far more than I ever disliked Harper(I never quuite bought into Harper-hatred; policies aside, he always just seemed like a nerdy wonk, a backroom boy gone to the front benches, and I don't really care if he greets his son with a handshake or a hug.)

So, no, my purpose here is not to defend Trudeau qua Trudeau. Truth be told, I got a pretty good derisive chuckle out of Sophie's self-absorbed diva moment(as can be seen in my original Tom Wolfe allusion). But, as an issue for the left to pursue without any visible support from the supposedly offended groups? Well, let me ask you this...

In regards to the name of the Washington football team, I would be prepared to keep talking about that until the name is changed, knowing full well that the cause is supported by FN people across the USA and around the world. But...

Assuming that black outrage about Sophie Trudeau remains at its current level of public expression(ie. zero, nil, none, our nada who art in nada), how long are you prepared to go on on making an issue of this?


First, I apologize for calling you a Liberal apologist. I had no intention of continuing to make this an issue. However, this site has become virtually a Liberal appendage. I made the comment that it as inaapropriate and in fact disagreed with someone who said it was racist. But of course on this site if you mention anything mildly critical of the Liberals you are immediately attacked by Liberal syncophants. But I di find your argument that as long as anyone who has identified themselves as black does not complain its alright. First, you simply do not know that to be true. Secondly, it doesn't matter. If it is racism it is everyone's business or no ones.

mark_alfred

Rex Murphy comments that Trudeau's government is probably the first that will actually gain in popularity by breaking some of its key promises.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/rex-murphy-justin-trudeau-s-promises-...

He's a right-wing war monger.  But nonetheless it's an interesting point that people seem so willing to give this government a pass. 

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
  But of course on this site if you mention anything mildly critical of the Liberals you are immediately attacked by Liberal syncophants.

What an interesting comment.  I've never seen an attack on NDPers for supporting the NDP. I see attacks on anyone who disagrees with attacks on Trudeau.

I posted, under CETA 2016, an article about Canada (Trudeau?) objecting to the removal of the investor state dispute mechanism, the most problematic aspect of the deal, as it threatens our sovereignty. Sean at least posted once in it. The TMZ babble crew too busy with important issues like calling Sophie Trudeau racist for singing a song and attacking me for knowing what a ridiculous accusation that is.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
So I've no identifiable interest and I should just shut up? Seriously? Well I've never voted Liberal either. Should I shut up there too? The reason this grinds is all the character stacks on Ton and NDP supporters by LPC sycophants. If it had been Tom the protest would never stop. Yeah this doesn't matter a hell of a lot but it still grinds!

If it had been Tom I would not have been able to stop laughing long enough to type this.

Seriously, go watch the video imagining Tom in Sophie's place. It puts hotline bling to shame. I challenge you to keep a straight face.

You're vindictive and nasty Pondering, and you project like crazy! ETA: by the way, I'm still waiting for you to apologize for insulting my wife, Darlene's (blessed be her memory) memory. Why don't you step up and do the right thing?

There is nothing vindictive or nasty about what I have said. Your crass attacks are cartoonish.  I laughed so hard at the image of Tom singing "Smile back at me" with all the hand gestures I literally cried.

I never insulted your wife whom I have never met. It's a ridiculous accusation that deserves to be ridiculed.

 If anyone owes your wife an apology it is you.

How dare you! You vicious, contemptible, awful human being. You Terri le, terrible, terrible human being! Apologize!

By the way you f****** clown! I know ECACTLY what she would say if she were alive, and she would have loved saying it so nicely politely and throughly destructively of you to her face. You aren't good enough to even breath the air she did, you nasty piece of work!

voice of the damned

jjuares wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:
jjuares wrote:
Thank you for this. Both these Liberal apologists have used outrageous arguments to jutify their unusual position.

For the record, I am NOT a Liberal apologist. In fact, on a personal level, I dislike Justin far more than I ever disliked Harper(I never quuite bought into Harper-hatred; policies aside, he always just seemed like a nerdy wonk, a backroom boy gone to the front benches, and I don't really care if he greets his son with a handshake or a hug.)

So, no, my purpose here is not to defend Trudeau qua Trudeau. Truth be told, I got a pretty good derisive chuckle out of Sophie's self-absorbed diva moment(as can be seen in my original Tom Wolfe allusion). But, as an issue for the left to pursue without any visible support from the supposedly offended groups? Well, let me ask you this...

In regards to the name of the Washington football team, I would be prepared to keep talking about that until the name is changed, knowing full well that the cause is supported by FN people across the USA and around the world. But...

Assuming that black outrage about Sophie Trudeau remains at its current level of public expression(ie. zero, nil, none, our nada who art in nada), how long are you prepared to go on on making an issue of this?


First, I apologize for calling you a Liberal apologist. I had no intention of continuing to make this an issue. However, this site has become virtually a Liberal appendage. I made the comment that it as inaapropriate and in fact disagreed with someone who said it was racist. But of course on this site if you mention anything mildly critical of the Liberals you are immediately attacked by Liberal syncophants. But I di find your argument that as long as anyone who has identified themselves as black does not complain its alright. First, you simply do not know that to be true. Secondly, it doesn't matter. If it is racism it is everyone's business or no ones.

Thanks. And I apologize for suggesting a few posts back that everyone complaining about this on babble is white, since I really don't know.

That said, I stand by my overall view that there is little point in pursuing a racism-related issue unless there has been some public pushback from the groups most directly affected.

Here are some comments I remember being published in the original source. Sorry I can't find it...

""Between the two of them, I benefit from 10,000 years of Chinese women's wisdom," he said."

Now I had a bit of a "WTF" moment when I read that, as it seemed rooted in orientalist notions of Chinese "wisdom", somehow distinct from the boring old common sense possessed by the rest of humanity. And had the quote come up on babble at the time, I may very well have expressed my distaste for the underlying sentiments.

Of course, it's possible that my interpretation of the comments is off-base. But even if they're spot-on, if after a few days in the public sphere, they fail to garner any noticable opposition from people or groups representing Chinese Canadians, I'm not gonna carry on with the desk-pounding for more than a couple of posts. After that, the only useful option open to me, would be to convicne Chinese Canadians that they SHOULD be upset about it, and align myself with any subsequent actions on their part. Maybe I'd have some luck with that, maybe not.

[url=http://www.westindiesforum.com/under-the-baobab-tree/very-sad-day-rip-ja...

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering wrote:
If anyone owes your wife an apology it is you.

How dare you!

Agreed.  Totally inappropriate comment from Pondering, IMO.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
  How dare you! You vicious, contemptible, awful human being. You Terri le, terrible, terrible human being! Apologize! By the way you f****** clown! I know ECACTLY what she would say if she were alive, and she would have loved saying it so nicely politely and throughly destructively of you to her face. You aren't good enough to even breath the air she did, you nasty piece of work!

My late husband would be charitable so I will take a page from his book and pity you the ugly thoughts in your mind. I'm grateful that I can remember him that way and that it is a trait he passed on to our daughter so I am often reminded of how kind he was.

monty1

The NDP party, Mulcair, and the LIberal party, are all going to come together and speak out in support of Trudeau following through with his promise to bring the 6 bombers home. I know it's going to happen soon! 

The Liberals are going to have thoughts of Chretien keeping us out of the 2003 Iraq war!

The NDP are going to think about Tommy Douglas and that will melt Mulcair's heart and the hearts of all his members! 

Choose your sides now Babble posters. Have faith because your faith will show your support! 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering wrote:
If anyone owes your wife an apology it is you.

How dare you!

Agreed.  Totally inappropriate comment from Pondering, IMO.

What's inappropriate is that this is the second time AC has raised the memory of his late wife to attack me. I lost my own husband through cancer when he was only 44 so I know how painful it is to watch someone die that way and how dearly I cherish his memory so I am biting my tongue on what I think about what AC is doing.

 

 

mark_alfred

My condolences regarding your husband.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering wrote:
If anyone owes your wife an apology it is you.

How dare you!

Agreed.  Totally inappropriate comment from Pondering, IMO.

What's inappropriate is that this is the second time AC has raised the memory of his late wife to attack me. I lost my own husband through cancer when he was only 44 so I know how painful it is to watch someone die that way and how dearly I cherish his memory so I am biting my tongue on what I think about what AC is doing.

 

 

Mine as well.

However, I do think you walked into responses to Arthur that are part of your problem with him now and you seem unfortinately unwilling to take responsibility for your part in that. You were not some innocent victim here -- no matter how you try to make people believe that now. Perhaps you can use your own udnerstanding to come to a more compassionate response to Arthur in light of what you said to him which was beyond the pale.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering wrote:
If anyone owes your wife an apology it is you.

How dare you!

Agreed.  Totally inappropriate comment from Pondering, IMO.

What's inappropriate is that this is the second time AC has raised the memory of his late wife to attack me. I lost my own husband through cancer when he was only 44 so I know how painful it is to watch someone die that way and how dearly I cherish his memory so I am biting my tongue on what I think about what AC is doing.

Mine as well.

However, I do think you walked into responses to Arthur that are part of your problem with him now and you seem unfortinately unwilling to take responsibility for your part in that. You were not some innocent victim here -- no matter how you try to make people believe that now. Perhaps you can use your own udnerstanding to come to a more compassionate response to Arthur in light of what you said to him which was beyond the pale.

If I have said anything to invite his attacks in this thread or any other do point it out with a quote.

People form their own opinions for good or ill based on what they see of us. Rather than repeating over and over that I am not some innocent victim why don't you expose my crimes for all to see.

Seriously, prepare a crime sheet so every time you attack me you can just throw it up to justify your behavior.

Thank-you for your later comment Mark.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

My late husband would be charitable so I will take a page from his book and pity you the ugly thoughts in your mind. I'm grateful that I can remember him that way and that it is a trait he passed on to our daughter so I am often reminded of how kind he was.

Pondering

Nothing passive about it. I notice you conveniently left out what I was responding to, post 512, but it doesn't matter because it is from this thread.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

There was nothing convenient about it. I had to deliberately delete the other part of your post.

monty1

Where are the moderators? These two have taken this thread completely off-topic. And once the cute pictures start thenl this board is going to become no better than the others that have the children doing same to insult each other.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

Where are the moderators? These two have taken this thread completely off-topic. And once the cute pictures start thenl this board is going to become no better than the others that have the children doing same to insult each other.

I wonder why this site has a specific button that anyone can use to post images? I thought it was meant to be used but of course now that you are posting here it should be disabled because you don't like them.

PM me if you need a tutorial on how the icon of the tree works.  It helps if you change the size to fit the page better but other than that it is really easy to post images.

You have been here less than two week and you are demanding that threads follow your ideas and not have thread drift. Sorry thread drift has always been a major part of Babble but then I would know that since I have been posting here for just a ittle bit longer than you. I sometimes complain of thread drift but then I am rightly told by other posters, "sorry its part of the culture."

 

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

There was nothing convenient about it. I had to deliberately delete the other part of your post.

The part of 515 you deleted was not part of my post, it is what I was responding to but it doesn't bear repeating.

Monty, there are more than two people involved and it went off topic when they decided to label Sophie a racist which has nothing to do with this thread. My objecting to that is what led to the tiresome personal attacks against me which the mods are fine with.

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Where are the moderators? These two have taken this thread completely off-topic. And once the cute pictures start thenl this board is going to become no better than the others that have the children doing same to insult each other.

I wonder why this site has a specific button that anyone can use to post images? I thought it was meant to be used but of course now that you are posting here it should be disabled because you don't like them.

PM me if you need a tutorial on how the icon of the tree works.  It helps if you change the size to fit the page better but other than that it is really easy to post images.

You have been here less than two week and you are demanding that threads follow your ideas and not have thread drift. Sorry thread drift has always been a major part of Babble but then I would know that since I have been posting here for just a ittle bit longer than you. I sometimes complain of thread drift but then I am rightly told by other posters, "sorry its part of the culture."

I'm glad to hear that you are with me in not wanting too much thread drift. The cute pictures to insult another poster is something I can do without. It usually results in the insulted person coming back with another one that's just as childish. However, there's little doubt that you have seniority on this board and so I guess that means I have to respect your opinion. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

There was nothing convenient about it. I had to deliberately delete the other part of your post.

The part of 515 you deleted was not part of my post, it is what I was responding to but it doesn't bear repeating.

Monty, there are more than two people involved and it went off topic when they decided to label Sophie a racist which has nothing to do with this thread. My objecting to that is what led to the tiresome personal attacks against me which the mods are fine with.

Oh you playing the innocent victim again. Now THAT is tiresome.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

I'm glad to hear that you are with me in not wanting too much thread drift. The cute pictures to insult another poster is something I can do without. It usually results in the insulted person coming back with another one that's just as childish. However, there's little doubt that you have seniority on this board and so I guess that means I have to respect your opinion. 

You don't need to respect MY OPINON you only need to understand that images are part of this board and in fact have often been used by many people not just me.

Frankly I think Pondering is a troll but that is not how the moderators see her behaviour and they get the final say. It makes no matter whether I think she often engages in what I believe is mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling"). Many threads are derailed on this board by fights between Pondering and a long, long list of other posters who think she is deliberate in her NDP baiting. I find her whining about being attacked passive agressive behaviour. You are free to disagree on that point.

terrytowel

monty1 wrote:

Where are the moderators? These two have taken this thread completely off-topic. And once the cute pictures start thenl this board is going to become no better than the others that have the children doing same to insult each other.

Boy you really are new here at rabble aren't you?

monty1

terrytowel wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Where are the moderators? These two have taken this thread completely off-topic. And once the cute pictures start thenl this board is going to become no better than the others that have the children doing same to insult each other.

Boy you really are new here at rabble aren't you?

Have you been posting on other boards terry? If not then have a look in to 'debate politics' or 'political hotwire' or a number of other ones that are US based. And do appreciate that the US based ones are satisfying in respect to just how rabid and frothing at the mouth those Americans can be. Everybody should know that because we could be on the verge of seeing another Hitler rise to power in that country.

I found this board a breathe of fresh air, at least for a while, but it's starting to fade now. Still, there's NDPP who keeps me interested with his intelligent comments and Paladin from the other perspective.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Frankly I think Pondering is a troll but that is not how the moderators see her behaviour and they get the final say. It makes no matter whether I think she often engages in what I believe is mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling"). Many threads are derailed on this board by fights between Pondering and a long, long list of other posters who think she is deliberate in her NDP baiting.

Not such a long list. 3 primary attackers that ALWAYS attack first and a couple that trail along.

Much of what I have said about the NDP has recently been said by Sean. You call my criticism of the NDP "trolling" and "baiting" because I supported Trudeau for 2015. Ever since Trudeau took the leadership you have been angry at my confidence that the Liberals would win this election, even when Mulcair was leading in the polls.

In the CETA thread, I am against Trudeau, so that thread is dying. Must be because calling Sophie a racist for singing a song and attacking me for saying it isn't is so much more important.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ceta-2016

 

 

mark_alfred

 Clips from the Sunday Scrum panel discussing whether Trudeau's Liberals are simply Harper Lite.  They seem convinced that they are (and Ibbitson naturally is pleased as punch):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QriSW0jeJuU

quizzical

i wish i could grow flakely bored with something in only a week.....

Sophie's behaviour reeks of privilege and lack of sensitivity to anything but herself and her desires.

maybe she's not a racist in the true sense of the word, and maybe she is. if she isn't then imv she's definitely showing strong narcissistic tendancies.

 

 

monty1

quizzical wrote:

i wish i could grow flakely bored with something in only a week.....

Sophie's behaviour reeks of privilege and lack of sensitivity to anything but herself and her desires.

maybe she's not a racist in the true sense of the word, and maybe she is. if she isn't then imv she's definitely showing strong narcissistic tendancies.

As long as the attacks on Trudeau and his wife are on that level of ignorance then Trudeau has nothing to worry about. And they likely will  because nobody listens to the rabid right frothing at the mouth anymore and the Liberals stole the NDP's agenda. 

quizzical

lololol on what level? the truth level?  did you just call the Liberals fakes and thieves? good on ya!!!!!

things in Canada are already wearing thin for Harper lite Justin didn't you click the link above in post 533?

and the Liberal Party trying to spin his words in Davos differently back home is another bungling error upon errors of the truely shallow.

Quote:
On Wednesday, Trudeau said "My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness."

But in the text released by the Prime Minister's Office, the remark is slightly different.

"Canada was mostly known for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness," it reads.

 

Pondering

LOL, I'm sure it will be of the utmost importance to Canadians that Trudeau adlibed a bit and stuck in a jibe at Harper.

jjuares

quizzical wrote:

lololol on what level? the truth level?  did you just call the Liberals fakes and thieves? good on ya!!!!!

things in Canada are already wearing thin for Harper lite Justin didn't you click the link above in post 533?

and the Liberal Party trying to spin his words in Davos differently back home is another bungling error upon errors of the truely shallow.

Quote:
On Wednesday, Trudeau said "My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness."

But in the text released by the Prime Minister's Office, the remark is slightly different.

"Canada was mostly known for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness," it reads.

 


Both statements are correct but I did notice that on social media the Liberals were called out for being less than honest. It was a very small but really stupid error.

mark_alfred

The Liberals were facing some criticism about it in the mainstream media.  Apparently attacking your predecessor in an international environment is usually just not done, so I believe that prompted them to change it.

quizzical

it's the "really stupid"  part which is a problem and a worry.

Justin showed how truley shallow and high school he is. there's no class act there.

they're tag teaming it....lmao

 

 

mark_alfred

The House is back in session. CBC had an article on the upcoming plans of the government:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hall-parliament-returns-liberals-commons...

Quote:

Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc says the primary focus for the Liberals remains the economy, in particular moving ahead with infrastructure spending and the tax cut.

So the economy will be the priority. But government sources suggest it won't be the sole preoccupation in the first two weeks as the new government looks to put a positive stamp on these early days in power.

Among the measures expected to be dealt with through new legislation:

  • Repealing the Conservative's Bill C-24, which allows the government to strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism-related offences.
  • Repealing two other Conservative laws that the Liberals argue weaken the rights of trade unions. They are Bill C-377, which requires unions to disclose how they spend members' dues, as well as Bill C-525, which makes it harder for unions to organize in federally-regulated workplaces.
  • Introducing parliamentary oversight for Canada's national security agencies, though the commitment to repeal parts of the previous government's anti-terrorism law, Bill C-51, is expected to come later.

So, some good stuff there to monitor.  But, no mention of childcare, despite the Liberal promise of meeting with the provinces within the first 100 days to work out arrangements for an extensive child care plan (time is running out).  Fortunately the NDP have promised to keep on the government about this.

quizzical

so let me get this straight, one of their priorities is to give the rich a tax break and cost the poorer millions to do it?????

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

so let me get this straight, one of their priorities is to give the rich a tax break and cost the poorer millions to do it?????

Yes, and for some reason it is extremely popular. I am rather surpirsed that either so many are okay with it or they still do not understand who is getting the money. But recent polls say it is a hugely popular item.

Does not reflect well on how well Canadians are informed or their critical thinking. Perhaps they just hear the words middle class tax cut and tune out without hearing that it does not go to the middle class so much as the upperclass.

I wonder how long before people wake up -- if ever.

 

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

The House is back in session. CBC had an article on the upcoming plans of the government:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hall-parliament-returns-liberals-commons...

Quote:

Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc says the primary focus for the Liberals remains the economy, in particular moving ahead with infrastructure spending and the tax cut.

So the economy will be the priority. But government sources suggest it won't be the sole preoccupation in the first two weeks as the new government looks to put a positive stamp on these early days in power.

Among the measures expected to be dealt with through new legislation:

  • Repealing the Conservative's Bill C-24, which allows the government to strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism-related offences.
  • Repealing two other Conservative laws that the Liberals argue weaken the rights of trade unions. They are Bill C-377, which requires unions to disclose how they spend members' dues, as well as Bill C-525, which makes it harder for unions to organize in federally-regulated workplaces.
  • Introducing parliamentary oversight for Canada's national security agencies, though the commitment to repeal parts of the previous government's anti-terrorism law, Bill C-51, is expected to come later.

So, some good stuff there to monitor.  But, no mention of childcare, despite the Liberal promise of meeting with the provinces within the first 100 days to work out arrangements for an extensive child care plan (time is running out).  Fortunately the NDP have promised to keep on the government about this.

Support all that good stuff and stay on the government on child care too. By doing that the NDP will be showing that they are at least worth something in parliament. But can they really depart from their old stance of Conservative bootlicking in order to hurt the Liberals? For their own sake, they bloody well better learn how pretty quickly! 

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

The House is back in session. CBC had an article on the upcoming plans of the government:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hall-parliament-returns-liberals-commons...

Quote:

Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc says the primary focus for the Liberals remains the economy, in particular moving ahead with infrastructure spending and the tax cut.

So the economy will be the priority. But government sources suggest it won't be the sole preoccupation in the first two weeks as the new government looks to put a positive stamp on these early days in power.

Among the measures expected to be dealt with through new legislation:

  • Repealing the Conservative's Bill C-24, which allows the government to strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism-related offences.
  • Repealing two other Conservative laws that the Liberals argue weaken the rights of trade unions. They are Bill C-377, which requires unions to disclose how they spend members' dues, as well as Bill C-525, which makes it harder for unions to organize in federally-regulated workplaces.
  • Introducing parliamentary oversight for Canada's national security agencies, though the commitment to repeal parts of the previous government's anti-terrorism law, Bill C-51, is expected to come later.

So, some good stuff there to monitor.  But, no mention of childcare, despite the Liberal promise of meeting with the provinces within the first 100 days to work out arrangements for an extensive child care plan (time is running out).  Fortunately the NDP have promised to keep on the government about this.

Support all that good stuff and stay on the government on child care too. By doing that the NDP will be showing that they are at least worth something in parliament. But can they really depart from their old stance of Conservative bootlicking in order to hurt the Liberals? For their own sake, they bloody well better learn how pretty quickly! 

You have not been here long and already you are acting a bit troll-like. Dial back the idea that the NDP has an "old stance" of conservative bootlicking. That is bullshit and won't fly here -- Especially given the steady support Harper got from the Liberal party which you seem to hold in high regard.

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

You have not been here long and already you are acting a bit troll-like. Dial back the idea that the NDP has an "old stance" of conservative bootlicking. That is bullshit and won't fly here -- Especially given the steady support Harper got from the Liberal party which you seem to hold in high regard.

Stop telling me how long I've been here. And don't bother with the troll bullshit because I know the lame purpose it's supposed to serve. It's an attempt to demonize others who don't agree with your agenda and it's because the attacker can't come up with anything intelligent and a legitimate attack that is on topic with the discussion. Or plain and simple, fuck off it's that's all you are.

As I've already said, all the NDP'ers freely admit that their party were Conservative bootlickers. But now I see you're the exception.

You name the support the Cons got from the Liberals and I'll be the first to condemn them for it. I'm not pretending anything. You shouldn't be either.

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post #546

I'll refrain from taking the flame-bait, monty1.  Instead I'll agree that it's important for the NDP to support the Liberals on the progressive aspects of their platform.  If the Liberals fail to live up to the progressive promises that they made, then it is important for the NDP to expose this and push the Liberals to live up to their progressive commitments.  Also, it is important to oppose actions that are detrimental to a progressive Canada, such as the seeming intention of the Liberals to sign the TPP even before it's debated in the House (as indicated by Minister Freeland).  Mulcair was questioning that just now in the House.

You were the flame baiter but let's lay that aside. I think I have reached you with my logic. We'll work on it. 

mark_alfred

Re: post #546

I'll refrain from taking the flame-bait, monty1.  Instead I'll agree that it's important for the NDP to support the Liberals on the progressive aspects of their platform.  If the Liberals fail to live up to the progressive promises that they made, then it is important for the NDP to expose this and push the Liberals to live up to their progressive commitments.  Also, it is important to oppose actions that are detrimental to a progressive Canada, such as the seeming intention of the Liberals to sign the TPP even before it's debated in the House (as indicated by Minister Freeland).  Mulcair was questioning that just now in the House.

ETA:  question period is currently happening now (3PM Jan 25, 2016)  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/follow-the-house-of-commons-question-per...

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

Rex Murphy comments that Trudeau's government is probably the first that will actually gain in popularity by breaking some of its key promises.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/rex-murphy-justin-trudeau-s-promises-...

He's a right-wing war monger.  But nonetheless it's an interesting point that people seem so willing to give this government a pass. 

What's that supposed to mean in the context of what Rex Murphy said? Rex contends that "everybody" wants Trudeau to leave the 6 bombers in the US led war. ERERYBODY! But the date for withdrawal hasn't come yet and NOBODY could have given Trudeau any passes. So we'll see won't we! 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

You name the support the Cons got from the Liberals and I'll be the first to condemn them for it. I'm not pretending anything. You shouldn't be either.

Here are a number of ways the Liberals supported the Conservatives in the last parliament. Let the condemnation begin, hair shirts are optional.

Quote:

Trudeau’s unflinching support of Harper’s Bill C-51

The Liberals unnecessarily voted for Harper’s draconian Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, which became law in the summer. The “secret policeman bill” is a direct assault on “the world’s most-emulated constitutional document,” the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It grants Canada’s spy and policing agencies unchecked powers to suppress legitimate dissent in the name of combating threats to national security.

In a recent constitutional challenge, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Journalists for Free Expression argued that key sections of C-51 violate the Charter “in a manner that is not justified in a free and democratic society”. For celebrated author Margaret Atwood and 200 other notable Canadian writers and artists, C-51 “directly attacks the creative arts and free expression in this country.”

Trudeau said the following regarding his support C-51: “Perhaps it was naive.” And then he labeled labelled C-51 opponents “detractors” who are employing ”a similar approach to Mr. Harper’s politics of fear.” Meanwhile, he’s promised to give the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s most secretive spy agency, more powers to spy on Canadians.

Trudeau’s support of Harper’s “Zero Tolerance” Bill S-7

Trudeau and 29 other Liberals voted YES to the Conservatives’ Bill S-7, titled “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act”. In March, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said: “The title is truly unbelievable. It does not belong on a piece of legislation.”

S-7 is written in the language of violence. It appeals to white supremacism and proposes “zero tolerance” for the Other’s perceived “barbarism”.

Meanwhile, the Liberal leader skipped the final vote on Bill C-24, the “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act”, Harper’s “anti-immigrant, anti-Canadian, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional” law. C-24 creates a discriminatory “two-tier citizenship regime” that relegates “over one million Canadians to second-class status”.

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2015/10/19/a-canadian-progressiv...

Pages

Topic locked