BS: Wild Canadian Politics

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:00 PM

Well put, Peter. Those were different times indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:01 PM

I hope 'does not count' means doesn't count as a Yank. Because I know for a fact that I can count at least to twenty (if I have my shoes off)...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:50 PM

CC... CD... yer cool, darlin. Yer more Canuck than some Canucks.

Gordy said what he said because he believed it. He did not need an excuse. That is the way it WAS. Don't impose the future on the past.

Why can't you let go of the future? Because you have seen it? Gordy didn't. Why blame him for that?

BTW, if youse can see the future past, guess what finger Gordy is holding up at ye.

I wish I had never posted that. Maybe we could stay on track now?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM

One day, gnu, you will actually read someone else's post.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 11:10 PM

Gordon Sinclair had no excuses to make Peter. He was a great Canadian

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:10 AM

At least the Canuckians had enough sense to kick Bill Ayres back across the border.

Right on Chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:41 PM

I don't know that he was a great Canadian, but he was an amusing son-of-a-bitch. I once spent an evening in his company -- a windbag, but, as I say, amusing. They don't make Canadians like him anymore. Certainly journalism is now way, way more boring.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM

Have you ever spent an evening in Don Cherry's company, Peter?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:05 PM

"Hey, Champ, I hear you went out to dinner with Don Cherry and Blue his dog."

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:07 PM

snigger snigger

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:12 PM

It wouldn't really be complete without the dog, would it?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:07 AM

No, I never had the slightest interest in hockey. I was way too artsy.

People forget that there was a time in Canada when the CBC was just about everything, and Toronto was essentially CFRB and CHUM.   If you wanted news or music that was it. People like Gordon Sinclair were gods.

Actually, I revise my earlier remark. There is still one crazy recalcitrant storytelling Canadian character out there -- Farley Mowat.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:13 PM

I can well remember that time ("when the CBC was just about everything", etc) but boy, is that time ever gone! I think it began to fade out in the early 70s.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:27 PM

Peter T... "One day, gnu, you will actually read someone else's post."

I do... it's just that I don't read anything into them. I take them at face value. If mine are ambiguous, point it out, please. I certainly offer such courtesey for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:40 PM

I repeat... "BTW, for you Canucks that underatsand (this wouldn't play in modern day UAS) and remember, here's a BLAST from the past."

I would expect some flak from some of the UASers about that post, but, from Canucks? Perhaps youse should have read what EYE posted in the first place.

As for 2020 hindsight and your foresight... gnightgnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 09:15 AM

Whoa ..... I thought I'd never say I could agree with Harper on anythng ... but is right on with this:

harper cbc

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 11:34 AM

sIx.... this on top of the way he performed when Obama came calling... d'ya suppose that kick in the ass by the coalition woke him up? Whatever happened, I like it.

I still wouldn't trust him any further than I can throw him, but I like what I am (now) seeing.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: number 6
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 11:57 AM

I've been thinking the same thing gnu ... "about the kick in the ass by the coalition"

Hell .... if there was an election tomorrow I might even vote for ... hang on there slapping myself on the head ... it's been one long harsh winter.

Yes, I agree ... I do like what I'm seeing.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 17 Apr 09 - 09:33 PM

Liberals take lead in new poll
Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:20am EDT

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - The main opposition Liberals have pulled ahead of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives in voter support, according to a poll released on Thursday.

But the Ekos/CBC survey also found that nearly half of those polled do not want to have another federal election for four years. Canadians went to the polls last October, giving the Conservatives another minority government.

The new poll found 36.7 percent of those surveyed would vote for the Liberals under new leader Michael Ignatieff if an election were held today. That compares with 30.2 percent for the Conservatives and 15.5 percent for the New Democratic Party.

The results showed a major shift from a January Ekos survey that showed the Conservatives with 36.2 percent support, compared with 32.6 percent for the Liberals and 14.3 percent for the NDP.

The new poll surveyed 1,587 people between April 8 and 13 and has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, Ekos said.

The survey also found 49 percent of those polled felt the Conservative government was moving in the wrong direction, compared with 38 percent who felt it was going the right direction.

Fifty-four percent said they disapproved of Harper's leadership, compared with 38 percent who approved. Ignatieff's leadership approval rating was 50 percent, compared with 28 percent who disapproved.

Both leaders, however, were walloped by U.S. President Barack Obama's approval rating: a hefty 82 percent support among Canadians, according to the survey.

Obama's plans to revive the economy were also favored over those of Harper's Conservative government, with 54 percent saying the U.S. plans were viewed as sound, compared with only 31 percent for Canada's.

(Reporting Allan Dowd, editing by Rob Wilson)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 07:58 PM

Farley! I heard that he called two of his dogs "Goddamit" and "You Little Bastard" for so long that that is the only thing they would respond to(or only names he could remember)!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 08:11 PM

Farley? Mowhat?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:31 PM

Gerald Durrell's family acquired two very young dogs on Corfu when he was a boy. They were soon appropriately and somewhat cynically named Widdle and Puke. There's literary humour in an eccentric British family for you...

Farley Mowat's approach strikes me as quite similar.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:40 AM

If I ever have another dog I shall call it Dammit. It will make training easier. "Sit, Dammit!" or "Heel, Dammit" or "Get OFF of that, Dammit."

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 07:26 AM

When I lived in Vancouver I ended up with a kitten to keep my Dobey/Lab company. One day I asked the dog "Where's your stick"? She returned with the kitten! It was king of funny until the cat decided it no longer wanted to play or be "stick"!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:36 PM

I am upset, yet again, by Lyin Brian.

I absolutely detest the man and his policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:40 PM

He was on the evening news, too. "Inappropriate..."??? WTF? If I didn't declare income, The Canada Revenue Agency (thanks to that asshole, we have a number of "agencies") would crawl up my audit and use my blood to write up the law suit to put me in jail and extract the taxes and the fine.

I am SO pissed off!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:00 PM

I agree with you gnu, the man is oleaginous in the extreme, he makes me want to ban lawyers from holding public office.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:13 PM

Well, he says there were really two Karl-Heinz Schreibers, one a well-respected businessman, the other a sleazy fugitive from German justice. But he doesn't actually specify which of the two he thought was giving him the brown paper bags full of used fifty dollar bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:24 PM

Yes he does! The nice guy! I suppose he was nice! Envelopes full of cash? No receipts? Nice guy!

Imagine the blatant audacity it takes to sit in front of a camera and say he took CASH in a hotel room from a foreign arms dealer and never reported it as income for six years and he wants me to feel sorry for him? Fuckin thief! Fuckin trash! He sullies all Canucks with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:31 PM

And he wants us to believe that the only mistake he made was to not ask for a cheque.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:26 PM

And, we are asked to believe that the RCMP made an improper "accusation" by mistake during the Airbus affair which negated a proper execution of justice and Bri got $2.1M as a result... ooooo... my head hurts.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:37 PM

". . . when Irish eyes are smirking . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 13 May 09 - 07:18 PM

There's a tear in your eye and I'm wondering why
For it never should be there at all

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 22 May 09 - 05:51 PM

SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLARS? That what we paid for this crap?

And he is gonna walk away with another $2M?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 22 May 09 - 06:25 PM

Nice work if you can get it, eh? Fuck me! Well, fuck every taxpayer in the village!

And, while we are at it, $10M for the lobster industry? To be divided up between Atlantic Canada and La Belle Province???? Quebec? Why in fuck does Quebec get a share in the lobster money? Or does Mulroney and the reast of the sonsabitches from Uppity Canada....

ooooo... gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 23 May 09 - 09:20 AM

Quebec gets lobster money because the four maritime provinces are PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Gaspe.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 23 May 09 - 10:19 AM

Yeah, I suppose the Gaspe fishermen are hurting too. Just seems like Quebec has and gets so much... and $10M is a drop in the pot. They spent more on Mulroney. ooooo