He didn’t just avoid them - he took pains to control all access, and hide from the press wherever possible. And he kept that up right to the end:
Why do you call her a lard bucket? Is it because she is overweight?
And why do you call her ignorant?
I am reminded of how enthusiastic Americans were when Obama was first elected.
I sure do hope things work out better for you.
Harper is out of power, Euphonious Polemic. He cannot bother you any more; let him rest in peace.
Otherwise, those of us old enough to remember might have to bring up the Salmon Arm Salute, where Liberal PM Pierre Eliott Trudeau gave an entire western province the finger (I believe Justin, as a child, was with him at the time). When Liberal PM PET declared martial law in the province of Quebec in 1970, suspending civil rights that are now guaranteed under the Charter. When Liberal PM PET brought in “6-and-5,” better known as wage and price controls, when the majority of Canadians did not want them; and when he told Canadians, “I’m right and you’re wrong,” he only pissed us off more. In other words, being a Liberal PM does not guarantee infallibility. Or sainthood, as your posts imply.
Harper is not Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot rolled into one; and neither is Justin the modern embodiment of Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Moses combined. Stop fawning over Justin, and stop pillorying Harper. Canada will move forward, under Justin now. He will have his successes, and he will have his failures, and we Canadians will see how we feel about him in about four years. But facrissakes, stop bitching about Harper, who can’t hurt you any more!
Yeah, but it’s not pre-1965 any more. The better argument is that those are RCAF colours, but if Harper is going to tart up his personal airplane on the basis that it should convey a national identity on his foreign travels, it’s not the air force that should be celebrated, it’s the nation. Our national colours are red and white. The worst of it is that blue dominates the colour scheme – the red is just an accent. One would almost expect the wording on the fuselage to read The Harper Government™, so blatant does the partisanship seem to me.
I disagree, I think we do. The US has the White House, the UK has 10 Downing Street which is actually a far bigger and grander building than it seems from most of the usual pictures. I’m fine with taxpayer money going to major renos to 24 Sussex, but I’d be even happier with a national competition for a residence that would be a national showcase.
Already discussed here, though I had forgotten to include the original cite. I called her ignorant because those comments were ignorant, and if she didn’t really believe what she was saying, then she shouldn’t have said it. I was just totally fed up with Harper’s consistent anti-science agenda and his iron-clad control of the political messaging even when it’s flat-out lies. And it’s even worse when an environment minister is making those kinds of comments. And worse still when it’s an Inuk representing the people of Nunavut, many of whom are Inuit like herself, who are a people and a geography that are being hit especially hard by climate change. Shameful. The contrast between her and Catherine McKenna is night and day.
I agree, both of those pictures seem to say a lot. The Justin Trudeau one is the same picture I linked in the OP and it was actually that image that inspired the thread – but your pic is higher resolution, thanks.
Thanks. I don’t think Obama has worked out all the badly, all the more so with the latest courageous decision to cancel Keystone XL. He’s very much a pragmatic centrist though, certainly not a prototypical “liberal”. I suspect there will be disappointments with Trudeau but I remain an optimist.
You think Americans care whether it’s pre-1959?
Thye redesigned their flag then, to accomodate the admission of Alaska and Hawaii. Didn’t change the US as we know it. They still thought the world of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, still had their constitution, still held the Stars and Stripes–and its red, white, and blue colours–dear.
You seem to be suggesting that we Canadians divest ourselves of our historical colours of red, white, and blue, because–well, I’m unsure why, except they remind you of a political party you don’t like. I say, you don’t know your Canadian history, that red, white, and blue are (and continue to be) important colours in Canada’s symbology, and that Canada will not rewrite its history to suit your political preferences.
I looked at that but failed to see any mention of “lard bucket”.
I’d still like to know why you call her a “lard bucket”?
Remember Harper gallery?[
](http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9c6b53f6-f0a2-4eca-93bb-559023144731)
I see you got your rake out to pile up all the straw in the yard for that straw man.
Yes.
No.
-
I believe in doing science properly, and part of that is keeping public records of it. Harper sabotaged that in Canada. The fallout of that doesn’t all stop the day he leaves Ottawa.
-
We denounce bad behavior to discourage its recurrence.
-
Harper just left. I probably whinged loudly about G. W. Bush for over a year after he was gone.
Red and white I know. Since when was blue one of our national colours?
There are a large number of Canadians who were quite literally not allowed to criticize Harper in public until now, under the very real penalty of loss of their careers. There is a lot of pent up anger there.
News flash: Trudeau senior gave the finger to a bunch of pig-ignorant protesters who did not understand national policy, and simply wanted more money for themselves in the middle of an oil crisis. They wanted “Eastern bastards to freeze in the dark.” And I do admire Trudeau senior for absolutely crushing a nascent terrorist organization that had just kidnapped and killed a provincial cabinet minister.
And my posts do not “imply sainthood” for Trudeau. Only a pure partisan fool would see this. Another news flash: I did not vote Liberal. Not everyone is an authoritarian Leader worshipper. Dislike of Harper does not equal worship of Trudeau.
Nice Hyperbole. And I’ll continue to bitch about Harper, because his toxic legacy within the Conservative party can and will continue to hurt many Canadians. He has damaged real conservative ideas with his toxic, self-indulgent, Reform Party crap.
I don’t know about current practice (especially this year in the light of the election), but as recently as nine or ten years ago I was shepherding kids around on Halloween and we paid a visit to 24 Sussex, where Harper’s wife was standing out on the front porch with a couple of (I’m guessing) aides, handing out candy and stickers and taking pictures with parents and/or kids. No frisking, no metal detectors, although there were some dudes standing around in suits near the gates and Mrs. Harper, and I’m assuming they were armed.
Prime Ministers make history. We remember and discuss history. Without such memory and discussion, we are less able to make informed decisions on what direction we take in the future.
The challenge is to keep it all in perspective.
I don’t know why you’re so hung up on this. Are you asking a question or laying the groundwork for a lecture on political correctness? I explained in some detail why her comments were exceptionally ignorant coming from an environment minister, and doubly reprehensible coming from a northern MP whose primarily Inuit constituents were being especially hard hit by the climate change phenomena that she claimed didn’t exist. She was either ignorant or displaying a reprehensible lack of integrity as a Harper lackey. She deserved to be called worse.
Amen. And you’ll have my support every time you do so.
Want to weasel-your-way-out? Argue that too much cholesterol can lead to amyloid plaques in the brain which can cause dementia, which is not usually a good thing when the person holds political power.
Or just admit that it was an inappropriate cheap shot and move on. As you rightly noted, she was either ignorant or lacked integrity.
Still no explanation. Just evasion. I have to assume you do not have the courage of your convictions and that makes it difficult to accept most of what you have said.
You then claim I’m “hung up” on it. But that is just your evasion of the question.
When you didn’t answer, I asked again. You claim this means I was “hung up” on it. But you can’t wriggle out of that by calling me “hung up” because you refuse to answer.
I don’t think you understand what “courage of your convictions” means. If I had called a politician some derogatory name and then later decided I liked them and supported them, one might well ask for an explanation. But I did not. The courage of my convictions is that I have made hundreds of posts over the years critical of most of Harper’s policies, many of them in these forums but also elsewhere since before I joined here, and they were all backed by cited evidence and I stand by all of them. That’s what the phrase means.
If you want to challenge anything of substance I said in those posts, please do so. If you want to keep railing on about frivolous trivia like you feel a particular derogatory adjective I used against a politician was not nice and you disapprove, take it somewhere else. This is not a conversation I’m going to continue because it has zero substance, and secondly, because I started this thread on a positive note of celebration of what I regard as the renaissance of a new kind of government, and I’d like to keep it positive and on topic.