Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
Pondering wrote:Aristotleded24 wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:I felt Mulcair's quip about "trickle down economics" was funny. It was just a cute quip directed to the Conservatives. I didn't see anything mean about it.
Yeah, really the excuse that "he's a labourer and they tend to make unconventional choices," I'm sorry, but no. Parents teach their children by the age of 5 how to properly use a bathroom, and that behaviour is simply inexcusable. If that's the best one can do to demonstrate an "angry Tom," it's pretty weak.
What he did was wrong and disgusting but it's not like the cup would have been used without being washed. It was gross but the man's career maybe ruined, not just politically. He's been humiliated. I think he has paid the price for what he did.
If this man wasn't a candidate for political office and just a contract worker caught in a hidden camera sting, would anybody here show sympathy for him or his career being ruined?
This only became news because he is running for office. This wouldn't be happening to a regular worker. I am not saying he should continue to run for office. Political parties really need to improve their research skills. There is a good chance his handyman business is heavily damaged if it can survive at all. Just saying that is sufficient punishment for the crime of peeing into a coffee mug.
Seems I have to turn on your posts to see what is going on in some threads.
But what an absolute joke this post is like so many of yours -- This should go in a hall of fame for being completely goofy.
The pee in a cup story WAS a national story. When I saw the story was him I remembered seeing the original episode a couple years ago. Marketplace is one of the most popular CBC programs and in fact this story, if I remember correctly, was teased on the national news becuae it was so shocking that a contractor would do this. Marketplace is not just news it is national news on one of the most popular investigative news programs in the country on the national broadcaster.
To say that this could be a non-story if the person was not running for office is truly goofy because it already was exactly that -- when he was a nobody.
To say that it should not be a second news story -- worthy of comment and ridicule -- when this idiot who made a national news story becuase he was so crude and stupid decided to run for public office thinking nobody would remember his last 5-minutes of fame -- is also goofy.
Let's just say urinating on camera in a customer's kitchen in their mug is not a good political career move. I think it is safe to say that nobody (with any judgement) would be expected to consider that such a person could make a move to politics. And only the clueless would think that trying for a political career after that would not be news.
The fact that he thought he could win an election after doing that is perhaps a bigger story even than the fact he actually did it in the first place. This we can see by the fact that urinating in a cup was national news in Canada but running for office after was international news:
USA: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canadian-candidate-urinate...
UK: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/canada-conservative-party-u...
Ireland: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/video-canadian-conservative-candidate-c...
Reuters: http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAKCN0R71YJ20150907
There is no kicking him when he was down factor here -- the story is already international news. To make a joke at the Conservative party's expense and connect it to other stories would be expected in an election campaign that he was running. It is hardly a low blow.
Pondering's very, very silly partisan crap is usually just annoying but this time it is a laugh riot. I am so glad I did not miss this one.
We're not seeing either of these stands from the Liberals in this Trudeau campaign.
Fair enough, but I don't really care about the Liberal party. I do care about the NDP.
I think it's slightly more balanced because they didn't ditch Andrew Leslie for denouncing Israeli military action in Gaza.
I appreciated Trudeau's rapid response to the soccer hijab ban and the Charter of Values neither of which has anything to do with Palestine but does suggest a more balanced approach and more concern for minority rights than Mulcair's to me. That's just my personal sense of them from the little we know. It's opinion not fact.
You're posting in the wrong thread then.
For the second time Justin Trudeau says "you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"
With a platform that is more left than the NDP, that is a direct appeal to NDP voters.
Wonder how long before Shirley Douglas enters the campaign to slam Trudeau remarks. Surprised she hasn't done so already.
"you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"
That's a killer line. Ouch. I wonder how long until the NDP aristocrats start grumbling publicly.
But Justin will have to be careful if he keeps saying that, as in reality he's the one keeping most of Harper's stuff in place. The NDP isn't going to run a deficit, but they're going to get rid of a lot of the Harper stuff too. (But, in reality, noneof this matters. It is all about perception and the Liberals are killing it.)
Leslie wasn't condemning it from a Palestian human rights perspective. Rather, he was viewing it from a soldier's perspective (he even referenced the book "Art of War" by Sun Tzu). It's almost as if he saw it as a PR failing of the Israeli army. From his statements, it appears he doesn't give a rats ass about Palestian Human Rights.
By shooting at civilians, Israel made a tactical error in their righteous war, according to Leslie. They did what the "enemy wants you to do." He's scorning them for losing a PR battle.
Regarding that incident, here's what Trudeau had to say,
He doesn't even mention Israel's massive ground operation. Balanced? I think not.
To my knowledge there are no revenue increases in Trudeau's proposals, meaning he cannot be progressive according to his own logic.
Of course the actual substance of the proposals is a sham. But what matters is the messaging.
Trudeau - stimulus
Harper - stay the course
NDP - ??????
He said he was going to tax the rich (the 1%) which is another past NDP policy the Libs have poached.
But reduce taxes in the middle.
But that's not to increase revenue for government programming. That's to provide a tax cut to upper middle income people. It's revenue neutral. So, there's no increase in government revenue. Thus, according to Trudeau's own logic, he cannot be progressive.
Curses. Another friggin double post, though I think I have now figured out how to avoid them.
I'm having trouble following that logic, Mark. I am no economist but as far as I understand the arithmetic:
Spending Capacity = Revenues + Debt Financing
If Trudeau is the only leader agreeing to allow a deficit, then he will have the second part (debt) with which to pay for program spending (along with the same revenue increase from economic growth that all parties can rely upon). I know that increased debt will reduce revenues over time as interest rates rise due to the bigger demand for debt but in the near term, deficit-financing some spending allows for a freer hand than a balanced budget commitment.
That means that Tom Mulcair has to rely only on increased revenues from growth, like the others, plus what he can get out of corporate tax increases, having ruled out personal tax increases (unless I have missed something). Corporate Income Tax is big but at $40 billion, is eclipsed by Personal Income Tax at $150 billion, so there is probably some upper limit on CIT, especially in the first year or two, during which he has promised a balanced budget.
To my knowledge there are no revenue increases in Trudeau's proposals, meaning he cannot be progressive according to his own logic.