Another Rant on Politicians & Parties: Split from Address by the Prime Minister
- Thread starter Toronto_NCO
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Bruce Monkhouse said:
I think maybe you are all missing the point - there is not a single politician who has been upfront. None, Nyet, Zip, Ziltch, Nada, zero. My point - it is the nature of the beast, and the sooner we all recognise and acknowledge that, the better off and happier we will all be. Do not expect a politician to be your friend, to acknowledge your work, to tell the truth all the time, or to not be politcially expedient. This goes for large "P" politicians, and for small "p" ones as well. The party apparatchiks at 101 Colonel By Drive are included.
For every "up front" politician you name, I, and anyone else, will easily be able to think of a lie, untruth, mis-direction, or flip-flop. THIS IS NOT ALL BAD, by the way. That's what they do, and what we expect them to do, and what they need to do to govern in our system. Just be aware and never think that one is "better" than another.
If you look for the "ideal" politician, you will not find one, and you will inevitably be dissapointed and bitter. Rely on yourselves and your compadres, and you will be fine - heck - happy even
If this sounds jaundiced - too bad! :-* It is based on 25 years of observation, 7 years of experience in teh forces, and a lot of being dissapointed until I learned. Ask a member of the airborne regiment what they think about politicians (in uniform or out)... Just remember to stand back... ;D
Cheers all
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
2023 said:
Ed Broadbent....he was just unfortunate enough to choose the wrong party
Kat
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Here's what I said on the thread just split off... I would like your opinions. I am curious to see if I am the only one with this opinion on politicians in general:
I think maybe you are all missing the point - there is not a single politician who has been upfront. None, Nyet, Zip, Ziltch, Nada, zero. My point - it is the nature of the beast, and the sooner we all recognise and acknowledge that, the better off and happier we will all be. Do not expect a politician to be your friend, to acknowledge your work, to tell the truth all the time, or to not be politcially expedient. This goes for large "P" politicians, and for small "p" ones as well. The party apparatchiks at 101 Colonel By Drive are included.
For every "up front" politician you name, I, and anyone else, will easily be able to think of a lie, untruth, mis-direction, or flip-flop. THIS IS NOT ALL BAD, by the way. That's what they do, and what we expect them to do, and what they need to do to govern in our system. Just be aware and never think that one is "better" than another.
If you look for the "ideal" politician, you will not find one, and you will inevitably be dissapointed and bitter. Rely on yourselves and your compadres, and you will be fine - heck - happy even
If this sounds jaundiced - too bad! It is based on 25 years of observation, 7 years of experience in teh forces, and a lot of being dissapointed until I learned. Ask a member of the airborne regiment what they think about politicians (in uniform or out)... Just remember to stand back...
Cheers all
I think maybe you are all missing the point - there is not a single politician who has been upfront. None, Nyet, Zip, Ziltch, Nada, zero. My point - it is the nature of the beast, and the sooner we all recognise and acknowledge that, the better off and happier we will all be. Do not expect a politician to be your friend, to acknowledge your work, to tell the truth all the time, or to not be politcially expedient. This goes for large "P" politicians, and for small "p" ones as well. The party apparatchiks at 101 Colonel By Drive are included.
For every "up front" politician you name, I, and anyone else, will easily be able to think of a lie, untruth, mis-direction, or flip-flop. THIS IS NOT ALL BAD, by the way. That's what they do, and what we expect them to do, and what they need to do to govern in our system. Just be aware and never think that one is "better" than another.
If you look for the "ideal" politician, you will not find one, and you will inevitably be dissapointed and bitter. Rely on yourselves and your compadres, and you will be fine - heck - happy even
If this sounds jaundiced - too bad! It is based on 25 years of observation, 7 years of experience in teh forces, and a lot of being dissapointed until I learned. Ask a member of the airborne regiment what they think about politicians (in uniform or out)... Just remember to stand back...
Cheers all
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Canuck_25 said:
What does, how a person sounds have to do with his integrity?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
2023 said:
How about the one that doesn't exist?
IMHO, the less government interferes in private citizen's lives, the better. Moreover, an increase in government invariably leads to an increase in bureaucracy and waste (best case) and corruption (i.e., Adscam). The Liberals have led an unprecedented (in Canadian history) expansion and centralization of government and political power and we're faced with the predictable results (see also "Maple Leaf Revolution" thread). The NDP wants to increase this further: only the Conservatives offer hope of reversing the trend (the Liberals have proven that they're opposed to less government and the NDP doesn't even claim to support it).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have just two questions, when did being a politician change to become synonymous with being a liar?and why do we think it is acceptable for them to be that way?
I think that people should re-think their views on politicians in general. Using a simple litmus test to judge whether a politician is trustworthy or not, ask yourself "Would I trust this person to take care of my children?"
It's time to change politics in this country, no more professional politicians. These sorts have never really contributed ANYTHING to society. They are the worst sort of leeches out there. They are like a virus, they only exist to feed themselves and make more little politicians.(Trudeau comes to mind, as well as Manning)
Again though I will reiterate that ANYONE who would vote Lieberal after this mess should be locked up for their own protection because they are obviously not mentally capable of taking care of themselves. Also any liberal supporters please post your home address and leave the doors unlocked because it is obvious that you don't mind being stole from, I will arrange for some young thieving punks to come clean your place out!
Heres hoping for an end to the liberal party.
I think that people should re-think their views on politicians in general. Using a simple litmus test to judge whether a politician is trustworthy or not, ask yourself "Would I trust this person to take care of my children?"
It's time to change politics in this country, no more professional politicians. These sorts have never really contributed ANYTHING to society. They are the worst sort of leeches out there. They are like a virus, they only exist to feed themselves and make more little politicians.(Trudeau comes to mind, as well as Manning)
Again though I will reiterate that ANYONE who would vote Lieberal after this mess should be locked up for their own protection because they are obviously not mentally capable of taking care of themselves. Also any liberal supporters please post your home address and leave the doors unlocked because it is obvious that you don't mind being stole from, I will arrange for some young thieving punks to come clean your place out!
Heres hoping for an end to the liberal party.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
2Cdo: Agree with you on your points - my neighbor is a liberal - will pass on your warmest wishes for future endeavours! heh heh...
As to your question - I think Politician became synonomous with liar during Trudeau's reign. That's my recollection anyhow.
As to your question - I think Politician became synonomous with liar during Trudeau's reign. That's my recollection anyhow.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Has anyone here ever actually held a position of more stature than Platoon 2 i/c in an infantry unit? It's easy to lambaste politicians never having been one yourself.
I have repeated this several times here, but apparently it bears saying again. I remember as a lowly courier thinking how rotten my bosses were and how I couldn't fathom most of the decisions they made. After a year of pounding the streets, I was elevated to operations manager, and very rapidly, my "I would never do that if I was in charge" attitude was transformed, as my eyes were opened to some pretty interesting realities, not to mention plain old human nature. I showed up late - because I could, and because I worked long hours; longer than many of my staff, or so it seemed. Had a lot of responsibility too - more than my couriers who had a considerable amount themselves, but all their responsibilities were also mine, in addition to my own. Stopped giving a damn about the quality of water in the cooler because I knew there was no way to change it. I had complained loud and long as a long suffering employee that we never got the water replaced, not because I really cared, but because I felt I was entitled to it because it was available. Sound like a Canadian taxpayer to you? As manager, I told one of the couriers to fill the old jugs with tap water because I found I had other priorities. In short - I lied to the staff. Didn't feel bad at all, either.
I rather suspect, never having been a politician myself, that it is quite a different world. I recently sat on two committees within the regiment, and saw some of the more "political" side of the house, and this in a reserve infantry battalion of 200 persons. I've been administrative assistant at a major bank and saw more of the same.
I suspect most of the more vocal critics here haven't really had any responsibilities which required "political" handling. To them, I can only say that you will always be disappointed in the process. Whoever said "get used to it" in response to this discussion was correct. If all you've ever done is be Number Two Rifleman, you can talk til you're blue in the face, you're not going to make anyone change their minds.
I still like our system much better than those adopted by some of our adversaries in the last 100 years.
I have repeated this several times here, but apparently it bears saying again. I remember as a lowly courier thinking how rotten my bosses were and how I couldn't fathom most of the decisions they made. After a year of pounding the streets, I was elevated to operations manager, and very rapidly, my "I would never do that if I was in charge" attitude was transformed, as my eyes were opened to some pretty interesting realities, not to mention plain old human nature. I showed up late - because I could, and because I worked long hours; longer than many of my staff, or so it seemed. Had a lot of responsibility too - more than my couriers who had a considerable amount themselves, but all their responsibilities were also mine, in addition to my own. Stopped giving a damn about the quality of water in the cooler because I knew there was no way to change it. I had complained loud and long as a long suffering employee that we never got the water replaced, not because I really cared, but because I felt I was entitled to it because it was available. Sound like a Canadian taxpayer to you? As manager, I told one of the couriers to fill the old jugs with tap water because I found I had other priorities. In short - I lied to the staff. Didn't feel bad at all, either.
I rather suspect, never having been a politician myself, that it is quite a different world. I recently sat on two committees within the regiment, and saw some of the more "political" side of the house, and this in a reserve infantry battalion of 200 persons. I've been administrative assistant at a major bank and saw more of the same.
I suspect most of the more vocal critics here haven't really had any responsibilities which required "political" handling. To them, I can only say that you will always be disappointed in the process. Whoever said "get used to it" in response to this discussion was correct. If all you've ever done is be Number Two Rifleman, you can talk til you're blue in the face, you're not going to make anyone change their minds.
I still like our system much better than those adopted by some of our adversaries in the last 100 years.
A
aesop081
Guest
2 Cdo said:
What year did Jean Chretien first get elected ;D
U
Uberman
Guest
I tend to agree with Pronto - its a chicken / egg thing. Did the politicians become this way due to the circumstances they inherited or did they start out this way and create the circumstances. If one looks at the political history between Quebec and the rest of Canada, it's pretty obvious that this type of scandal was just waiting to happen - it's just luck of the draw that it happened on the Liberal watch. The separatists could have held the referendum on the Tory watch and created the "keep Canada together at any cost" emergency that directly led to pumping Fed money into Quebec to secure them at the polls. To the Tory's credit though, they might just have told PQ where to shove it. Personally I think PQ keeps this charade going to ensure preferential treatment like the spoiled kid who gets the extra scoop of ice cream so he wont cause a scene.
The Feds and PQ have been doing this tug of war since Canada's inception. The reason this particular scandal got to where it did, is most likely due to Cretiens turning a wilful blind eye to his bureaucracy and tearing down the bureaucratic watchdogs that Mulrooney had put in place (as Mulrooney didn't trust them to see them) Cretien wanted to "work with" the bureaucracy - not babysit it. Had those watchdogs been in place, Cretien would have had a better idea of how rampant and carelessly the money was being spent. Maybe he knew about every single transaction and well as Martin, but I highly doubt that either of them paid too much attention to the Sponsorship program as long as the political ship had clear and navigable waters, if anything - far less attention than the opposition parties would have us believe.
To put us through the huge cost of another election right now is fiscally irresponsible and would establish very little. If anything I'm more disappointed with Harper's approach to this after Martin's speech. Harper's a man of contraditions and hypocrisy - who knows what he'd pull out of his red neck magic bag. The rag tag buch they have in the party as a result of the Alliance's corporate take over of the Tory party remains their biggest problem; still walks talks and smells like Alliance. As with PQ's Duchenne, what possible good could a separatist and a Tory combo do for Canada.
As for the comment that Canadians are predominantly stupid and forgetful therefore they will forget about the sponsorship program is an unfair jab at Joe Lunchbox. If anything, the inquiry going on and on and on and on will bore the general public and desensitize them to the whole thing - just like the OJ trial. In doing do it minimizes the issues - so if Harper thinks kicking the sponsorship thing around for the duration of an election is going to get brownie points, I think he's sadly mistaken. Joe lunchbox will simply associate Harper with the long and boring Crucifixion of the sponsorship scandal.
IMO the Liberals, as crappy as they've been hitherto, will probably do the best job for now as they will be like a week #1 recruit during kit inspection. - too GD scared to step out of line.
The Feds and PQ have been doing this tug of war since Canada's inception. The reason this particular scandal got to where it did, is most likely due to Cretiens turning a wilful blind eye to his bureaucracy and tearing down the bureaucratic watchdogs that Mulrooney had put in place (as Mulrooney didn't trust them to see them) Cretien wanted to "work with" the bureaucracy - not babysit it. Had those watchdogs been in place, Cretien would have had a better idea of how rampant and carelessly the money was being spent. Maybe he knew about every single transaction and well as Martin, but I highly doubt that either of them paid too much attention to the Sponsorship program as long as the political ship had clear and navigable waters, if anything - far less attention than the opposition parties would have us believe.
To put us through the huge cost of another election right now is fiscally irresponsible and would establish very little. If anything I'm more disappointed with Harper's approach to this after Martin's speech. Harper's a man of contraditions and hypocrisy - who knows what he'd pull out of his red neck magic bag. The rag tag buch they have in the party as a result of the Alliance's corporate take over of the Tory party remains their biggest problem; still walks talks and smells like Alliance. As with PQ's Duchenne, what possible good could a separatist and a Tory combo do for Canada.
As for the comment that Canadians are predominantly stupid and forgetful therefore they will forget about the sponsorship program is an unfair jab at Joe Lunchbox. If anything, the inquiry going on and on and on and on will bore the general public and desensitize them to the whole thing - just like the OJ trial. In doing do it minimizes the issues - so if Harper thinks kicking the sponsorship thing around for the duration of an election is going to get brownie points, I think he's sadly mistaken. Joe lunchbox will simply associate Harper with the long and boring Crucifixion of the sponsorship scandal.
IMO the Liberals, as crappy as they've been hitherto, will probably do the best job for now as they will be like a week #1 recruit during kit inspection. - too GD scared to step out of line.
- Reaction score
- 6,397
- Points
- 1,360
Quote,
Harper's a man of contraditions and hypocrisy - who knows what he'd pull out of his red neck magic bag.
..the first part of that sentence REQUIRES proof before posting and the second part shows a lack of class on your part.
Harper's a man of contraditions and hypocrisy - who knows what he'd pull out of his red neck magic bag.
..the first part of that sentence REQUIRES proof before posting and the second part shows a lack of class on your part.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Some of us red necks might take offence to that! ;D
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
That sums up the whole state of political debate in this country, Bruce. It's out of the hands of the intellectuals and into the hands of the "commoners" for lack of a better term. They think words like "redneck" or monickers like "Papa Doc Crouton" are actual methods of stimulating poltical discussion. Canadians don't know how, based on most of the comments in most forums I've seen, including radio shows and newspaper letters to the edtor, to discuss politics dispassionately and above all, intelligently. Stuff like "lie-berals" just shuts down any possibility of reasoned discussion. It's why one is well advised not to bother trying. The sarcasm could be cut with a knife, and who wants to bother, really. Most people in these parts seem not to be up to the job.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
So Michael stealing from the public and lying about it are traits that you admire in a person? Some politicians may work long hours and have to travel away from home( wow that sounds like my job, only for a lot less pay and just not the same accommodations) big f#cking deal. All I am asking for is a little INTEGRITY from our elected officials, and failing that maybe some sort of recall mechanism for those who continually ignore the electorate that put them in office.
To be honest, I don't think that is asking too much. But to simply say"Oh well thats the way it is" is completely asinine and shows a level of indifference that is scary.
To be honest, I don't think that is asking too much. But to simply say"Oh well thats the way it is" is completely asinine and shows a level of indifference that is scary.
" Stuff like "lie-berals" just shuts down any possibility of reasoned discussion. It's why one is well advised not to bother trying. The sarcasm could be cut with a knife, and who wants to bother, really. Most people in these parts seem not to be up to the job."
Pretty much on the money.
Trying to get across a logical political point here has to be a labour of love.
We will get the government we deserve, and our just desserts in the end. The sheeple will moan "No one warned us..."
Tom
Pretty much on the money.
Trying to get across a logical political point here has to be a labour of love.
We will get the government we deserve, and our just desserts in the end. The sheeple will moan "No one warned us..."
Tom
Similar threads
