Trudeaumetre - Bravo!

618 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Re: post #549

I was referring to Rex Murphy as a right wing war monger.  That may be unfair, but that was my feeling after watching his comment.

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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...

We're both on the same side against the Cons and their support of US led war kropotkin, but I can't allow you to tell lies to suit your NlDP agenda. Trudeau didn't give unflinching support to C-51. Everybody knows that. I'm assuming that you stand with the link you quoted?

So go back to presenting an honest approach to how the Liberals handled it and I'll be with you in criticizing parts of it. Maybe even parts that Trudeau 'didn't' criticize but you'll have to be specific on that.

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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...

We're both on the same side against the Cons and their support of US led war kropotkin, but I can't allow you to tell lies to suit your NlDP agenda. Trudeau didn't give unflinching support to C-51. Everybody knows that. I'm assuming that you stand with the link you quoted?

So go back to presenting an honest approach to how the Liberals handled it and I'll be with you in criticizing parts of it. Maybe even parts that Trudeau 'didn't' criticize but you'll have to be specific on that.

Monty cut the "we're on the same side shit." We aren't -- There are a few Liberals here but right now you aren't talking to them.

I don't care to hear you mouth words like honest when you are trotting out "bootlicker" accusations.

Yes you are the very definition of a troll. Not even a grey area.

Generally netiquette means you don't come into a place like this and start off like you have and expect much of a welcome.

Oh, and progressives don't tell people to do something like a man. Got it?

jjuares

The new top bureacrat appointed by the Liberals sounds like he would have worked well in a Harper gov. He compared protesting students to Nazis.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/top-bureaucrats-past-comments-on-...

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Monty cut the "we're on the same side shit." We aren't -- There are a few Liberals here but right now you aren't talking to them.

I don't care to hear you mouth words like honest when you are trotting out "bootlicker" accusations.

Yes you are the very definition of a troll. Not even a grey area.

Generally netiquette means you don't come into a place like this and start off like you have and expect much of a welcome.

Oh, and progressives don't tell people to do something like a man. Got it?

You're deluding yourself if you think I need a welcome from anybody. And fwiw, progressives  tell people to act like men as much as Nazis and Conservatives do. the trolll thing, get over it. As for the 'bootlicking' NDPP fully understands how the NDP did that with the Cons just so they could oppose the Liberals. Follow his good example and you'll learn something.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

We're both on the same side against the Cons and their support of US led war kropotkin, but I can't allow you to tell lies to suit your NlDP agenda. Trudeau didn't give unflinching support to C-51. Everybody knows that. I'm assuming that you stand with the link you quoted?

My NDP agenda. LMOAROF You really are new here aren't you.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is another broken promise made by the lying Liberals. Like bringing home the jets they were not equivocal at all. Like the jets they flat out lied.

Quote:

"The prime minister said repeatedly during the election that the process is flawed and must be fixed, but so far we've seen nothing," said Kai Nagata, Dogwood Initiative's Energy & Democracy Director in a statement. "Every day these hearings proceed, more damage is done."

Nagata is right: the fact that these hearings are currently taking place at all contradicts what Trudeau himself said on the campaign trail when asked if the NEB overhaul applies to existing projects like Kinder Morgan's.

"Yes. Yes," he said. "It applies to existing projects, to existing pipelines as well…that process needs to be redone."

Yet even with this new government, the Canadian environmental review process is still the same.

"The problem is that they've promised to overhaul the process, but they're allowing the reviews to go forward and they're promising to fix it at some point in the future," says Cam Fenton, 350.org staff member. "It's kind of like trying to fix a car while it's driving. It's just not going to work."

http://rabble.ca/news/2016/01/kinder-morgan-neb-hearings-continue-withou...

After the Liberals won seats in the Lower Mainland with this falsehood here is how the RCMP is treating peaceful people who want this charade to stop.

Quote:

Three women were arrested over the weekend for allegedly trying to block the entrance to a hearing on Kinder Morgan’s proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/pipeline-protesters-arrested-outside-national-energ...

quizzical

this many drips 3 months in.

lol next 4 years raging river of Justin made problems.....

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

Maybe it is that you don't understand Canadians as well as you think you do and you think you are better than they are which shows.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pretty much you dismiss just about everything that is progressive here. So why not call it a day and call yoursdelf a Liberal.

Then dial back the advice to the NDP -- you are not one of "us" given your responses here. My trouble with the NDP is a fight among progressives. You are clearly not one as far as I can tell.

Again, this is not the NDP website. Anyone who wants to is free to join conversations about the NDP and express opinions. For it to be advice it would have to be directed at the NDP. The NDP isn't here. A few members are, but they don't appear to have a voice within the NDP. You certainly don't so why would anyone bother giving you advice on what the NDP should do?

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

Maybe it is that you don't understand Canadians as well as you think you do and you think you are better than they are which shows.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pretty much you dismiss just about everything that is progressive here. So why not call it a day and call yoursdelf a Liberal.

Then dial back the advice to the NDP -- you are not one of "us" given your responses here. My trouble with the NDP is a fight among progressives. You are clearly not one as far as I can tell.

Again, this is not the NDP website. Anyone who wants to is free to join conversations about the NDP and express opinions. For it to be advice it would have to be directed at the NDP. The NDP isn't here. A few members are, but they don't appear to have a voice within the NDP. You certainly don't so why would anyone bother giving you advice on what the NDP should do?

 

Liberal trolls unite!

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Liberal trolls unite!

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Liberal trolls unite!

What a nice picture! And a few are wearing orange  just to pretend.

quizzical

LaughingInnocent

scott16

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2016/01/canada-to-sign-t...

What was the Lib's promise regarding the TPP?

I assume this is another broken promise.

Pondering

scott16 wrote:

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2016/01/canada-to-sign-t...

What was the Lib's promise regarding the TPP?

I assume this is another broken promise.

That the deal won't be ratified without a full debate and open consultation.

Sean in Ottawa

scott16 wrote:

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2016/01/canada-to-sign-t...

What was the Lib's promise regarding the TPP?

I assume this is another broken promise.

I do not recall a Liberal promise on this. Anyone?

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

scott16 wrote:

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2016/01/canada-to-sign-t...

What was the Lib's promise regarding the TPP?

I assume this is another broken promise.

I do not recall a Liberal promise on this. Anyone?

Pondering has it. Now that we're back to serious.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

scott16 wrote:

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2016/01/canada-to-sign-t...

What was the Lib's promise regarding the TPP?

I assume this is another broken promise.

That the deal won't be ratified without a full debate and open consultation.

Ok so this is not broken as we speak as this is still promised. I am not sure of the wisdom or need to sign a deal prior to the debate and consultaiton. It sends a message that such discussion is a formality. But technically, while I don't like the signing it is not a broken promise.

I would liken the Liberals to respect the spirit rather than just the words of a promise and I don't think signing it is respecting the spirit. Do you know of any reason the signing must be rushed now?

quizzical

there can't be any ratification after the signing ffs.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

there can't be any ratification after the signing ffs.

Actually they are seperate and the second is the legal position.

My point is that while technically the signing is not a broken promise it is in spirit.

It makes a mockery of the debate and discussion the Liberals promised.

I worry that this will be a trend where the Liberal party, loaded with lawyers, keep promises by finding loopholes in them that repudiate the bargain made with the public.

This signing should be a scandal even if it is not a direct by the letter of the law broken promise. This approach to promises insults voters. But then again some of the misleading promises already have doen that... like the middle class tax reduction pledge.

quizzical

they have a majority government ratification after signing is a given.

quizzical

oh ya and forgot about Justin' little speech on "feminists" at Davos.....wtf?

i can't decide whether this is good or bad.

seeing as how i'm not a feminist i'd like to know what self-identified feminist think.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

oh ya and forgot about Justin' little speech on "feminists" at Davos.....wtf?

i can't decide whether this is good or bad.

seeing as how i'm not a feminist i'd like to know what self-identified feminist think.

Sorry I missed that speech what did he say?

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

they have a majority government ratification after signing is a given.

In other words it is not a broken promise but an intent to break a promise.

I agree -- not much comfort and coming before the consultation it is rather insulting. I am curious if anyone can speculate on the rush to sign.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My point is that while technically the signing is not a broken promise it is in spirit.

It makes a mockery of the debate and discussion the Liberals promised.

I worry that this will be a trend where the Liberal party, loaded with lawyers, keep promises by finding loopholes in them that repudiate the bargain made with the public.

I actually don't think Trudeau's advisors had to look hard to find the loopholes because they deliberately crafted them into his speeches. I could hear them during the election but then I have legal training and am hard wired to see the weasel words in an offer.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My point is that while technically the signing is not a broken promise it is in spirit.

It makes a mockery of the debate and discussion the Liberals promised.

I worry that this will be a trend where the Liberal party, loaded with lawyers, keep promises by finding loopholes in them that repudiate the bargain made with the public.

I actually don't think Trudeau's advisors had to look hard to find the loopholes because they deliberately crafted them into his speeches. I could hear them during the election but then I have legal training and am hard wired to see the weasel words in an offer.

Me too. And I defiitely heard a lot of this.

To be truthful, I heard some NDP and Conservaitve promises the same way but the Liberals seem to be the most artful. These were promises to be met by deception and broken in spirit such that they can still turn and say they were kept.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mulcair was guilty of those kinds of weasel words in his promises as well. But then like I have been saying for a long time the man is a fucking liberal not a social democrat and he doesn't have an iota of socialist thought in his world view.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
oh ya and forgot about Justin' little speech on "feminists" at Davos.....wtf?

i can't decide whether this is good or bad.

seeing as how i'm not a feminist i'd like to know what self-identified feminist think.

Sorry I missed that speech what did he say?

this is part of it.

i watched the video and it went on and on and on. if you watch the video you'll get the rest of it. interesting in the video is watching how other participants react to his words.....

Quote:
Justin Trudeau talks about raising sons ‘to be a feminist, just like dad’ at World Economic Forum

...“There’s a lot of hard work to do and the first part is recognizing it,” Trudeau said.
Trudeau then said that his wife, Sophie, had pulled him aside a few months ago and told him that it was great he was telling their daughter that she is equal to boys, but he also had to stress his attitudes to their two sons. so they “grow up to be a feminist, just like Dad.”

“We shouldn’t be afraid of the word feminist,” Trudeau said. “Men and women should use it to describe themselves anytime they want.”

i find it lengthy and shallow.

monty1

quizzical wrote:

they have a majority government ratification after signing is a given.

I like that quizzical. It's facing reality because the Canadian people have spoken and Trudeau has a licence to do what the hell he wants for a while. And damn, I trust that he's going to do the right thing!

quizzical

no the Canadian people haven't spoken. 1/3rd of the country's votes doesn't make it so Canadians have spoken in the real non-Liberal world.

i can't believe the arrogance of Liberals in thinking they've got all Canadian votes in their hands.

i don't trust they're going to do the right thing. i know they're NOT or they wouldn't be signing this at all.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

no the Canadian people haven't spoken. 1/3rd of the country's votes doesn't make it so Canadians have spoken in the real non-Liberal world.

i can't believe the arrogance of Liberals in thinking they've got all Canadian votes in their hands.

i don't trust they're going to do the right thing. i know they're NOT or they wouldn't be signing this at all.

Signing it has no legal force. It's diplomacy. No one will ratify it before Obama does. If Obama does ratify it's likely all other countries will as well including Canada which would also be true under Mulcair. If Obama doesn't ratify then neither will anyone else.

Our best bet to stop TPP is to stop CETA. If CETA can be stopped based on the ISDS clause it will be much harder to justify keeping it in TPP.

For Europeans stopping the ISDS in CETA is key to stopping it in TTIP which is driven by the US, the equivalent of our TPP.

If CETA goes through with ISDS included then it is almost inevidable that so will TTIP and TPP.

quizzical

pondering i know nothing about the CETA trade deal or any ISDS clause.

i do know at least European countries practise good human rights and have fair wages.

i don't want partnerships with countries who don't have any human rights and extremely poor wages.

i don't see them as being equal in consideration.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

pondering i know nothing about the CETA trade deal or any ISDS clause.

i do know at least European countries practise good human rights and have fair wages.

i don't want partnerships with countries who don't have any human rights and extremely poor wages.

i don't see them as being equal in consideration.

This is exactly the difference I saw between the two deals without even looking at the text.

quizzical

it's pretty simple logic Sean.

and we already trade with all these countries in question i see no need to sign any agreements. even way out here west in great distance from Europe we've already got frozen fruit and pizzas from Germany. i don't buy them but i've got the choice. 

and what the hell is Germany wanting to export fruit here for anyway? going green or being green means you sell local.

and omg 22 minutes was hilarious tonight!!!

Sophie's new album "the wrong time"

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

it's pretty simple logic Sean.

and we already trade with all these countries in question i see no need to sign any agreements. even way out here west in great distance from Europe we've already got frozen fruit and pizzas from Germany. i don't buy them but i've got the choice. 

and what the hell is Germany wanting to export fruit here for anyway? going green or being green means you sell local.

and omg 22 minutes was hilarious tonight!!!

Sophie's new album "the wrong time"

Actually I do see the reason to sign these agreements and for us, these reasons constitute a massive reason not to.

The reason the US wants this agreement is imperialistic and aggressive. It is an attempt to encircle and exclude China. If you have a philosophy of world peace and anti-imperialism you have to reject these deals for these reasons as well.

These deals are not about trade, as you correctly point out, there is no need for such deals from a trade point of view. This is geopolitical hardball designed to exclude an East Asian nation from participating fully with its neighbours. Yes, I know there are issues with China. But to participate in this deal is to participate in a global ecconomic war being waged on China by the US.

Let's consider what these kinds of economic encirclement produce. Usually that is war. Without excusing what Japan did to China in the second world war, the US entry into that war was in large part the result of an attempt to encircle Japan economically and Japan's response. Germany also moved to the Nazis and extremes also in part due to the economic hopelessness imposed on them. China is still a developing country with a population that has a very low income. I am aware of the substantial inequity within China but cutting off a country that remains overall a low income country from access to trade arrangements with its neighbours will not end well.

This pacific deal is a screw China deal and Canada would be well advised not to participate.

Another point: China is confronting environmental concerns now becuase it has no choice. Some of the other Asian countries have more time to ignore the environment than China does and these deals may also make the environment worse. Ideally we should be engaging China in arrangments that provide economic, social, and environmental benefits to China in exchange for benefits for us. We ahve to find interest in China for more than our petroleum and that is a problem but the Pacific deal is not the answer either.

mark_alfred

It often happens that important issues are drowned out in inane clutter.  But it bears repeating that the Liberals did promise to overhaul the environmental assessment process of the Conservatives (both future and currently happening), and are now backing away from this on projects like Kinder Morgan, and instead are going ahead with the Conservative's assessments.

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Here is another broken promise made by the lying Liberals. Like bringing home the jets they were not equivocal at all. Like the jets they flat out lied.

Quote:

"The prime minister said repeatedly during the election that the process is flawed and must be fixed, but so far we've seen nothing," said Kai Nagata, Dogwood Initiative's Energy & Democracy Director in a statement. "Every day these hearings proceed, more damage is done."

Nagata is right: the fact that these hearings are currently taking place at all contradicts what Trudeau himself said on the campaign trail when asked if the NEB overhaul applies to existing projects like Kinder Morgan's.

"Yes. Yes," he said. "It applies to existing projects, to existing pipelines as well…that process needs to be redone."

Yet even with this new government, the Canadian environmental review process is still the same.

"The problem is that they've promised to overhaul the process, but they're allowing the reviews to go forward and they're promising to fix it at some point in the future," says Cam Fenton, 350.org staff member. "It's kind of like trying to fix a car while it's driving. It's just not going to work."

http://rabble.ca/news/2016/01/kinder-morgan-neb-hearings-continue-withou...

After the Liberals won seats in the Lower Mainland with this falsehood here is how the RCMP is treating peaceful people who want this charade to stop.

Quote:

Three women were arrested over the weekend for allegedly trying to block the entrance to a hearing on Kinder Morgan’s proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/pipeline-protesters-arrested-outside-national-energ...

quizzical

mine was much more succinct Sean......

they have to wage war on China. China holds the main bulk of US debt. or should i say capitalists of the world can't control the Chinese market?

quizzical

tsk tsk tsk.....mark it's not up to you to decide what's ane and inane......;)

Pondering

Then you are very uninformed and have no idea what the most serious threats are from these trade deals.

I know that other people here do understand how they threaten our sovereignty no matter who we sign the deals with.

I find it really discouraging that someone like quizzical who spends so much time here still doesn't understand the threat posed by the ISDS chapter in all the latest trade deals.

I see that as a huge failure on the part of babble.

quizzical

why???? it's my choice what threads and posts i want to read.

i grew up listening to my mom carry on about NAFTA. we're still here. the sky didn't fall. and now i just tune it out. maybe wrongly but it's my choice.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Then you are very uninformed and have no idea what the most serious threats are from these trade deals.

I know that other people here do understand how they threaten our sovereignty no matter who we sign the deals with.

I find it really discouraging that someone like quizzical who spends so much time here still doesn't understand the threat posed by the ISDS chapter in all the latest trade deals.

I see that as a huge failure on the part of babble.

I cannot speak for Quizzical but I perhaps can suggest a posible reason. She has other reasons to reject the deal and already is against. There are times when I might not bother with more information when I have enough, with enough certainty, to know where I stand. Quizzical has outlined enough reasons to reject the deal and perhaps she wants to spend time learning about other things. That said I agree that these issues should be more understood. The ISDS provisions are a clear, definite, and hard to reverse, step towards a post nation-state domination of the world by corprate interests.

But I would not fault Quizzical for not examining, so far, a detail that would only reconfirm the position she is already at. I am more concerned about those who support the deals without understanding these issues.

As well, it is worth pointing out that these ISDS provisions are a subject of controversy in Europe and s Quizzical has suggested, their people are opposing the deal on this. I don't think we will see such a movement coming from the Pacific countries. In this sense Quizzical is right that we are safer with arrangements with countries like the European partners in that truly bad things are more likely to get addressed there than in the Pacific deal.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

why???? it's my choice what threads and posts i want to read.

i grew up listening to my mom carry on about NAFTA. we're still here. the sky didn't fall. and now i just tune it out. maybe wrongly but it's my choice.

Of course it is your choice. But the deals give corporations power that sets them above elected governments. I have to aggree that it worth knowng this even if you are against a deal. These deals are one of the most significant threats to democracy. We can debate all we want about FPTP and PR etc -- in the end what does it matter if the state is bound by agreements that trump whatever the population wants to vote for?

When the deals offer short term jobs we must realize that we are selling out long term democracy in a grand systemic way in exchange for those jobs. In the end, the corporate interests which seek to minimize labour for profit will shortly take away any of those jobs as they lock down markets and build global monopoly chaining nation states to their bidding.

While I do think that the European deal is categorically worse that the Pacific deal, I am aware for the provisions in both that seek to replace national and state power with boardroom power. We should all be worried about that.

quizzical

i do know about it Sean and how it impacts us and how bad it is for us. i just see it all as another pile of shit like NAFTA.

moms generation couldn't stop it and they were way more activist inclined than my gen or my daughters. i don't piss into the wind by choice.

i focus local. and maybe one day i may move to Cape Breton and do some actist work there. but the only thing i do is argue againt it simplistically in my social networks.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

i do know about it Sean and how it impacts us and how bad it is for us. i just see it all as another pile of shit like NAFTA.

moms generation couldn't stop it and they were way more activist inclined than my gen or my daughters. i don't piss into the wind by choice.

i focus local. and maybe one day i may move to Cape Breton and do some actist work there. but the only thing i do is argue againt it simplistically in my social networks.

 

Fair enough - I was also one of those people maybe a little younger than your mother but close and involved in that time.

monty1

quizzical wrote:

no the Canadian people haven't spoken. 1/3rd of the country's votes doesn't make it so Canadians have spoken in the real non-Liberal world.

i can't believe the arrogance of Liberals in thinking they've got all Canadian votes in their hands.

i don't trust they're going to do the right thing. i know they're NOT or they wouldn't be signing this at all.

Trudeau has about 70%. The left has united but there's no doubt it's going to be a difficult marriage. But then everybody knows that we can't always remain ourselves totally in a marriage. We must become more tolerant of the other party's views. Personally, I won't find any problems with the NDP's ideosyncracies as I've known them for years. 

quizzical

the Liberals did not get 70% of the vote.

the left hasn't united and we don't have to tolerate the lying lies of the Liberals.

monty1

quizzical wrote:

the Liberals did not get 70% of the vote.

the left hasn't united and we don't have to tolerate the lying lies of the Liberals.

Sorry but I didn't say that TRudeau got 70% of the vote, did I. 

 

quizzical

then what  is the 70%, the honeymoon polling stats? lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is a Liberal liar before he went to meet his new bosses, the same as the old bosses. He won with 36% of the vote and after this flip flop on the most important issue in the riding during the campaign I'll bet that the Liberal support for him and Trudeau the Hair is not as high today and certainly is not double what he received in October.

Quote:

Terry Beech, the newly elected Liberal in Burnaby North-Seymour, told the NOW there will be no decision on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion in January.

“We are going to redo the National Energy Board process. We’re going to broaden the scope. We’re going to make sure it’s objective, fair and based on science. We’re going to make sure proponents of any major energy projects, including Kinder Morgan, have to work towards getting community support and support from partner First Nations,” he said, reiterating pre-election promises. “We’ve already said there will be no decision on Kinder Morgan in January. Kinder Morgan will have to go through a new, revised process.”

http://www.burnabynow.com/news/burnaby-s-newest-mp-says-liberals-will-re...

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

then what  is the 70%, the honeymoon polling stats? lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

And the honeymoon stats are not averaging 70% either. That was a lie -- perhaps to wind you up.

Pages

Topic locked