Jump to content

      













Photo

Justin Trudeau


  • Please log in to reply
393 replies to this topic

#1 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:08 AM

http://news.national...trudeau-boxing/

Justin Trudeau scores major upset in Fight for the Cure boxing match over Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau



<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#2 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,176 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:14 AM

Good for Justin. It's not like he's got a massive ego with delusions of grandeur that he couldn't possibly live up to, or something like this just might go to his head.

#3 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:29 AM

Good for Justin. It's not like he's got a massive ego with delusions of grandeur that he couldn't possibly live up to, or something like this just might go to his head.


Ha!

Ya, I think it's alright though. They raised some money.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#4 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,278 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:51 AM

Was hoping that they would knock each other out.

#5 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,812 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:05 AM

Perhaps this is how the next Federal election should be decided. Harper (and his ego) could take on all 4 of the opposition leaders. I am almost certain Elizabeth May could take him all on her own though.

#6 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:34 AM

So it looks like Trudeau has won this thing, Garneau dropped out today.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#7 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:30 AM

He stands to lead the Liberals in a defeat against the Conservatives. Therefore he's alright in my books.

#8 drt

drt
  • Member
  • 128 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:41 AM

So it looks like Trudeau has won this thing, Garneau dropped out today.


What?! I'm blown away. I figured Garneau and Trudeau would be the only ones to make it to the end.

#9 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:21 AM

Perhaps clearing the way for a 'coronation' of sorts? No matter and no thank you - one Trudeau was more than enough for one lifetime. Next.....

#10 Lorenzo

Lorenzo
  • Member
  • 348 posts
  • LocationWest Shore

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:21 PM

Perhaps clearing the way for a 'coronation' of sorts? No matter and no thank you - one Trudeau was more than enough for one lifetime. Next.....


Agreed.......:mad:

#11 Kikadee

Kikadee
  • Member
  • 235 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:48 PM

Okay, I was alive when Pierre was prime minister, but not old enough to register anything about his time in office except for the Charter, and oh, I remember him flipping the bird. What did he do that was so awful, exactly?

#12 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:09 PM

Look up the National Energy Policy, to name likely the most divisive issue during his time. Actually in some ways my main disappointment re: PET was the squandered opportunity of what could have been - intellectually and academically he was very, very smart. With regard to his peers on the international stage (*cough, cough, Richard, cough, Nixon), he could run circles around most in terms of 'smarts'.

He also stood up to the FLQ in 1970: of all parties the Liberals actually called in the Army when they implemented the War Measures Act. He was no doubt a staunch Federalist and quite willing to duke it out with the PQ.

Kind of ironic however relying on the Army though given their almost complete lack of support for the Canadian Armed Forces for 30+ years. Starting before Trudeau but certainly accelerating under his watch the Libs almost singlehandedly emasculated the Canadian Armed Forces, which continued of course under the leadership of Trudeau's good buddy, Jean Cretin. Nope can't spend money on the folks who work in harm's way to protect the rest of us when you are too focused on kissing Quebec's bum....

However in spite of that great intellect by his own admission economics "were boring" - which makes it kind of awkward to effectively govern a major world economy. Also - regardless of who is PM and which party is in power - personally I want any Canadian leader to exhibit at least some decorum and act accordingly on the world stage. Sliding down a bannister and making silly faces and pirouetting in circles behind the Queen (I am not a monarchist, but come on...) and above all flying the bird to the people of BC while the camers click away are acts hardly symbolizing a true leader IMO. Tons of potential and excitement ("Trudeaumania" anyone?) when first elected but, overall, at best uneven results when all was said and done.

#13 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:35 PM

Look up the National Energy Policy, to name likely the most divisive issue during his time. Actually in some ways my main disappointment re: PET was the squandered opportunity of what could have been - intellectually and academically he was very, very smart. With regard to his peers on the international stage (*cough, cough, Richard, cough, Nixon), he could run circles around most in terms of 'smarts'.

He also stood up to the FLQ in 1970: of all parties the Liberals actually called in the Army when they implemented the War Measures Act. He was no doubt a staunch Federalist and quite willing to duke it out with the PQ.

Kind of ironic however relying on the Army though given their almost complete lack of support for the Canadian Armed Forces for 30+ years. Starting before Trudeau but certainly accelerating under his watch the Libs almost singlehandedly emasculated the Canadian Armed Forces, which continued of course under the leadership of Trudeau's good buddy, Jean Cretin. Nope can't spend money on the folks who work in harm's way to protect the rest of us when you are too focused on kissing Quebec's bum....

However in spite of that great intellect by his own admission economics "were boring" - which makes it kind of awkward to effectively govern a major world economy. Also - regardless of who is PM and which party is in power - personally I want any Canadian leader to exhibit at least some decorum and act accordingly on the world stage. Sliding down a bannister and making silly faces and pirouetting in circles behind the Queen (I am not a monarchist, but come on...) and above all flying the bird to the people of BC while the camers click away are acts hardly symbolizing a true leader IMO. Tons of potential and excitement ("Trudeaumania" anyone?) when first elected but, overall, at best uneven results when all was said and done.


I was a bit young when he was in power, but I seem to recall in reading about and hearing about him, that he defended Canada much better than PMs after him when it came to the US.

Its not just kissing the Quebec butt, but also kissing the US butt as well that annoys me.

#14 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:09 PM

I was a bit young when he was in power, but I seem to recall in reading about and hearing about him, that he defended Canada much better than PMs after him when it came to the US.

Its not just kissing the Quebec butt, but also kissing the US butt as well that annoys me.


Defending Canada against what? Why is everyone so anti-US, when we send them 90% of our exports. We are kinda lucky to have them nearby.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#15 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,846 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:56 PM

^Exactly, and remember it was Mulroney who brought in NAFTA which has benefited Canada immensely. Trudeau V1.5, no thanks, but at least he will replace Mulcair as opposition leader.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#16 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:28 PM

Defending Canada against what? Why is everyone so anti-US, when we send them 90% of our exports. We are kinda lucky to have them nearby.


I was just going to say - its pretty easy to be an armchair quarterback sitting at a keyboard in pokey little Victoria. However if you were the PM what - exactly - are you defending against re: the US? I get that you feel we are inundated with and by American popular culture (we are, no question), however....

Consider if you were the PM that if you wanted to extricate yourself out from under US influence, your economy is utterly, completely and irrefutably dependent upon US exports and imports simply to function. Your standard of living and way of life as you know and understand it are dependent on what the US does or does not do in terms of cross border trade.

Further you are bolted at the hip in a plethora of binding, bi-lateral international treaty obligations including key sectors like trade and defence.

Remember with regard to the latter because this country is either too obstinate or stupid to adequately fund either Defence or S&R, consider in the instance of the latter if you go into the drink on either coast there is an excellent chance it will be the US Coast Guard that bails you out. Our poor little CCG fleet is of little use other than to simply get out of the way in the event of any serious incident. In fact such an episode just happened recently off Nova Scotia where the USCG had to rescue some maritime fishermen - which they do time and again with no complaint whatsoever: imagine, off our own coast within hailing distance of our largest naval base at Halifax, we had to call in American S&R units because poor little Canada can't even muster basic S&R capability to provide coverage within our own borders. A few years ago not long after 9/11 an unidentified aircraft barrelled in over this coast heading directly toward Vancouver. Ottawa had to request US Air National guard fighters from Whidbey Island fly into our airspace merely to ID the aircraft. IOW our third largest city was completely dependent on the US because our closest fighters sit uselessly in Cold Lake AB.

Point being while its easy to pee in the other guy's pool, the fact is without him essentially you/we don't exist. Unless of course you think North Korea or Cuba are going to take up the slack and be our new best buddies.

#17 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,416 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:49 PM

Consider if you were the PM that if you wanted to extricate yourself out from under US influence, your economy is utterly, completely and irrefutably dependent upon US exports and imports simply to function. Your standard of living and way of life as you know and understand it are dependent on what the US does or does not do in terms of cross border trade.


That's the problem. We would be better off if we had done more to improve trade with other countries besides the US. Also, free trade agreements need to respect environmental and labour standards, instead of the reverse.

#18 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:04 PM

That's the problem. We would be better off if we had done more to improve trade with other countries besides the US. Also, free trade agreements need to respect environmental and labour standards, instead of the reverse.


Agreed especially in an ideal world, however that does not materially change the fact that US influence is pervasive. Old PET himself more than adequately covered off the nature of our bilateral relationship with his famous Elephant and Mouse analogy. He in fact recognized that Canada needed to look at markets alternative to the US, i.e. Europe, with some limited success. In the end however Canadians, no matter how ambivalent our perceptions of the US may be, remain addicted to American cars, music, TV, popular culture, you name it. As does much of the rest of the world so no surprise there. For better or worse they remain the primary game in town folks....

#19 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,416 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:10 PM

He in fact recognized that Canada needed to look at markets alternative to the US, i.e. Europe, with some limited success.



Yah, that's another problem right there: the fed's ignorance of things west of Ontario. We wasted decades of opportunity to develop trade with the far east.

#20 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:28 PM

Yah, that's another problem right there: the fed's ignorance of things west of Ontario. We wasted decades of opportunity to develop trade with the far east.


Problem there - in defence of PET for a moment - who are you going to trade with at that time? China? Nope. Remember that was Mao's China - Monolithic Communism don't ya know, so "run along you running dog capitalist oppressor of the people!" The US (let alone Canada) barely managed to make a dent in Sino relations and when they did it involved sending a ping pong team there. Vietnam? Nope. Until 1975 there was this thing called the Vietnam War going on, and then 20 years of recovery thereafter. India? Allied more closely with the Soviet Union at the time than the West. Japan? Nu-uh. One of the most protectioninst nations in the world - any product destined for there from here would be subject to huge tariffs. Not to mention how do you address that ridiculous trade imbalance? They send us cars, stereos, all manner of finished manufactured, industrial and electronics goods, and we send them...smoked salmon? Not so easy as you think especially 35-40 years ago.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users