BS: Wild Canadian Politics

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

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: 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: 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: 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: Bob the Postman
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:37 PM

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

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 08:11 PM

Farley? Mowhat?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 30 Jan 09 - 09:12 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:00 PM

Well put, Peter. Those were different times indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:53 PM

Yes, Gordon is long dead. He was part of an era that thought, wrongly, that Canadian culture was always going to be strong enough to withstand the winds of Americana, so he could afford to be generous.   He was in the ebbtide of the British empire, and in the aftermath of the extraordinary contribution of Canada to World War II, so he had some excuse.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM

"Nothing eluded Gordy." Naw, naw...that's Don Cherry you're thinking of! ;-) Nothing eludes Don Cherry.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:01 PM

Ahhhh... scuse me? It was a blast from the past. Nothing eluded Gordy. If you are gonna take it out of the context of history, as I alluded to in my post, well, you are a Canuck that doesn't understand.

Odd that nobody has crapped on me for changing the name of our neighbours. Maybe there are no Yanks reading this thread, which might be a good thing.

Oh.... CC (CD??? hehehe) is an honourary Canuck and does not count... in the CONTEXT of my de-allusions.

Where is JimLad? His take is always soooo, interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:49 PM

Exactly. And that is the aspect that seems to have eluded Gordon Sinclair... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:19 AM

We are like Gaul or some minor but essential province in the Roman empire. That is why this Obama thing to me is like sitting around wondering whether Claudius is going to be better than Caligula. Well, yes, but does it change the underlying dynamic -- no. Under Obama, the Americans are still invading other countries whenever they feel like it (ask the Pakistanis what they think about the last week). They still think they are morally superior to everyone, and therefore have a right to do what they please.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 12:05 AM

I think the general perception in the world is that the USA is already big enough and strong enough to adequately help itself in an emergency, whereas that is not the case with more impoverished countries. Wouldn't that be normal? That's the part of the point I was making when I said that others did not rush in to help Imperial Rome...or the British at their height of power...or Napoleon at his height of power...because of the same perception that "they are big enough to take care of it themselves".

The normal assumption is that impoverished countries or countries that have just been devastated by a lost war or that simply don't have the monetary or material resources required to handle a disaster...those are the countries where the most aid is sent by other countries.

And is that surprising? We provide shelters in our cities for the homeless and unemployed poor. We do not provide shelters to house temporarily homeless millionaires, because they can already afford to rent a hotel room!

***

What Gordon Sinclair was drawing attention to (while overstating his case) was that some people simply use the USA as their fulltime whipping boy, and in so doing they are merely indulging themselves in the self-righteous joy of their favorite prejudice...anti-Americanism. Fine. Some people do that, for sure, and it's often unfair to the USA when they do. It does not, however, mean that everybody should keep their mouths shut when the USA flaunts international law and wages unjustifiable wars of aggression and occupation...as they did in Vietnam and as they have done more recently in Iraq.

He was drawing attention to someone else's prejudice...but mainly just because it was a different prejudice than his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:06 PM

So then out side of Canada and maybe Mexico, has any other country helped the United States in times of disasters? Gordon Sinclair's film clip maybe out of touch but is he correct in saying that really no body has helped the U.S.?
I can't think of any. I'm probably wrong. I'm sure Russia, England, France and others have offered. But have they?
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:26 PM

A lot of things were different in the US and in the world in 1973, when Gordon made that rant. Although at that time a lot of the criticism leveled at the US from other countries had to do with our illegal war of aggression in Vietnam, and it was well deserved criticism, in my opinion, we also still looked like we were the most altruistic country to a lot of people. But at that point in time, most people didn't know about our many (often violent) interferences in other countries' democracies, and the other self-serving things we have done around the world that have harmed a lot of people and a lot of societies. Now that we know about those kinds of things, it does kind of make Gordon's rant look a little ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:17 PM

You know, the Romans once went all over Europe and the entire Mediterranean world also spending vast amounts of their money to build new roads, aqueducts, urban projects, baths, coliseums for gladiatorial combats, theatres, and all kinds of wonderful stuff like that.....but when something went wrong in Rome nobody else in the empire sent aid to the Romans (unless they had no choice about it)! Ask yourself why.

For one thing: They figured the Romans were filthy rich already off the spoils of the ancient world which they had gained through their military prowess by conquering everybody or forcing them to become client states in the empire.

For another: they Romans just weren't all that well liked. They were respected for their ability, but not liked. Ask yourself why.

The world didn't send aid to Britain either when Great Britain was running the biggest and wealthiest empire the world had ever seen...nor did the world send aid to Napoleon when he was successfully conquering most of Europe.

Ask yourself why.

However, Canada has sent aid to the USA in recent disasters such as the New England ice storms and the hurricane in New Orleans. So I think Gordon Sinclair's exuberant indignation over no one "sending aid to the USA" and everyone criticizing the USA despite all the USA has done, is both misleading and off the mark, and it has nothing to do with legitimate criticism of US foreign policy when that criticism is deserved. I think he doth protest too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM

Good find Gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:26 PM

My goodness! He should've gone down to the USA and got a key job there. He talks their line of propaganda better than anyone except for maybe Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:52 PM

All is going according to plan. Thank goodness! Maybe some of us who depend on moving money will get a sniff.

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

I dunno if it's germain to this thread, but, maybe... in a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:47 PM

gelding, perhaps.

yours,

Peter T.