Do Conservatives Understand Why They Lost?http://ipolitics.ca/2015/12/03/do-the-conservatives-understand-yet-why-they-lost/
As any recovering addict will tell you, the first step towards getting clean is admitting you have a problem.
By that measure, the Conservative Party of Canada is still deep in the throes of withdrawal — and the addiction to absolute power is the hardest habit of all to kick. Their thrashing on October 19 came about because of what they did with that power — that, and the fact that they allowed their party to become a cult led by a man who diminished them all. The lesson clearly hasn’t sunk in.
How else can one explain the fact that there are still people in and around the party denying the need for change, and doing the revisionist history thing on the Harper years — Steve as a bright star in the Conservative firmament. Or, as Wayne Gretzky described the former PM, “one of the greatest.” Dreck.
The truth — and it’s a hard truth Conservatives are going to have to get past, if they want to get anywhere at all — is that Harper was one of the worst prime ministers this country has ever seen. The main problem with the Harperless Conservatives is that the interim leadership has gone to someone just as unrepentant about the Harper years as Steve is himself.
Rona Ambrose (and almost all of the full-time leadership hopefuls) sat around the cabinet table for every bum decision that was made — from deceiving Canadians about the cost of the F-35 fighter jet to abandoning the environment file. Ambrose does not represent renewal. She represents the same dead-end gang that Canadians rejected with glee.
I know! The economy, jobs, environment, ISIS, crime, refugee crisis, corporate welfare and tax evasion, cannabis legalization....let's ignore those trivial matters and focus on the much more important distinction of job responsibilities between $15/hr housekeepers vs nannies.worst. thread. ever.
See. Each side is happy to play the gotcha game. But I don't fixate. Not on if I can. Sometimes it does piss me off. And Bev Oda was one that did too.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev_Oda
It was $16.
Conservatives really suck at numbers. But you bring up a good point: Bev Oda had a history of gouging taxpayers and living high off the hog (ie, committing fraud against taxpayers) and no one in the ruling Conservative party had a problem with it.
We voted in a man, who has children in the house. What is the issue here ??? Fuk I can't believe I'm reading this BS. Most of you are grasping at straws GROW UP.I don't actually have a problem with taxpayers footing the bill. But after he stated during his campaign that rich families like his and former prime minister Stephen Harper’s didn’t need taxpayers’ help, what does he do? He hires taxpayer funded nannies. That makes him a hypocrite!
That is not true. Many in the party had an issue with it but the problem was overall that she was a competent minister and a female Japanese Canadian which was good optics for the party. But after the Savoy incident they had no choice but to remove her from cabinet. She resigned just ahead of the planned cabinet shuffle.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev_Oda
It was $16.
Conservatives really suck at numbers. But you bring up a good point: Bev Oda had a history of gouging taxpayers and living high off the hog (ie, committing fraud against taxpayers) and no one in the ruling Conservative party had a problem with it.
Yes - that may be true. I don't recall ever saying that these blood sucking parasites are confined only to the Liberal party - it's just that it seems to be the norm for liberals to benefit at the expense of other people.Brian Mulroney classified his nannies as maids during his time in office.
The issue is he makes $330,000 per year base salary plus extensive benefits. He should be paying for his own child care like every other Canadian. He chose the role knowing that it required extensive travel for himself, and occasionally his spouse. That being said I have no problem with subsidizing his nannies when he and Sophie are away on official business representing Canada.We voted in a man, who has children in the house. What is the issue here ??? Fuk I can't believe I'm reading this BS. Most of you are grasping at straws GROW UP.
I know! The economy, jobs, environment, ISIS, crime, refugee crisis, corporate welfare and tax evasion, cannabis legalization....let's ignore those trivial matters and focus on the much more important distinction of job responsibilities between $15/hr housekeepers vs nannies.
Making this an important issue is what's going to turn around the fortunes of both the Conservative party and their propaganda tool Postmedia LOL.
![]()
Imagine what the chart would look like for the CBC (Liberal propaganda tool - if it were a publicly listed company) and it lost it's billion dollar plus taxpayer subsidy. Instead Trudeau II bribes them with a promise of an extra $150 million if he wins the election. It is truly disgusting.exactly my point. cheers!
Douglas I really don't give a shit. Is this the only thing you can up with, to try and destroy this guys reputation. Man, talk about cheap.The issue is he makes $330,000 per year base salary plus extensive benefits. He should be paying for his own child care like every other Canadian. He chose the role knowing that it required extensive travel for himself, and occasionally his spouse. That being said I have no problem with subsidizing his nannies when he and Sophie are away on official business representing Canada.
How many employers cover the cost of two nannies for an employee? It is a fraction of a fraction of 1%. Trudeau II is not a one percenter but a 0.1 percenter.It is an employment benefit. Claiming that the employment benefits of any government employee are tax benefits is stupid beyond belief. Dumber than petrified wood. An employment benefit has nothing to do with tax policy or social programs.
Really you make yourself into a figure of fun: what are we to conclude from this thread, that conservative voters are dumber than fence posts? Can't tell the difference between an employment benefit and a tax benefit???
What reputation? Snowboard instructor or theater teacher? Seriously - you think this guy is qualified to be the Prime Minister of Canada?Douglas I really don't give a shit. Is this the only thing you can up with, to try and destroy this guys reputation. Man, talk about cheap.
A lot better than than greedy lawyers. Don't you think ?What reputation? Snowboard instructor or part time theater teacher?
Lets give him a couple of years at the least. NO? Lets see what happens.What reputation? Snowboard instructor or theater teacher?
You mean like the large number of liers/lawyers in his cabinet and members of parliament?A lot better than than greedy lawyers. Don't you think ?
I believe your paranoid, I'll leave it at that.You mean like the large number of liers in his cabinet and members of parliament?
Or better than his (likely islamist) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs ?
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/12/is-omar-alghabra-of-canadas-liberal-party-an
lol - I'm paranoid for posting a link from Daniel Pipes?I believe your paranoid, I'll leave it at that.![]()
Considering your posts on 9/11 I think this statement is quite laughable.I believe your paranoid, I'll leave it at that.![]()
Funny, I remember people saying the exact same thing about Harper........Lets give him a couple of years at the least. NO? Lets see what happens.