PERB In Need of Banner

Peter McKay in the Running

BobbyMcgee

Active member
Feb 3, 2014
892
153
43
Peter McKay officially tossed his hat in the ring and landed a few body blows on JT with his opening speech.
 

PuntMeister

Punt-on!
Jul 13, 2003
1,921
854
113
Peter McKay officially tossed his hat in the ring and landed a few body blows on JT with his opening speech.
Isn’t MCKay the fucker that brought in the current fascist socialist bullshit pooning laws? I hate governments telling us how we should live our lives. Hope you go down like those fucktards Harper and Sheer. McKay is enema #1 in my books!
 

E.H.

Active member
Aug 1, 2018
155
68
28
Never ever forgive that piece of shit,for how he put CF members in Afganistan,then slashed their veterans' support,when CF members came home wounded.
Peter Mackay then gave himself a rai$e,in the wake of his treachery.
It will be an honor to lead the,"fuck -you"chant for the nation to bear witness,should Peter MacKay visit the Comox Valley.

Engelbert Humperdink
 

JimDandy

Well-known member
May 17, 2004
2,931
464
83
66
Lower Mainland, B.C.
It will be very telling if Harper does not give McKay a very hearty endorsement. Considering that Harper got the first chance to lead their 2 merged parties, Harper should be 100% behind McKay now that he is trying for his chance at being PM.

JD
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
1,889
863
113
Until McKay or O'Toole or any of the rest prove they're not hard-blue Harperites, I will just assume that's what they are. I see no evidence of any real dissenters coming out to have a go at leading.


The best thing for the Conservatives will be moving away from the Harper era - by getting a leader the party and electorate can rally behind, rather than a strong man leader who inspires fear and rules with an iron fist. Mind you, that iron fist was what was needed to keep the party in line. Now, it's time to consider what the party stands for, is it right wing bible thumping social conservatism or is it something else...?
Whatever else it claims to be, it is still all about letting Big Oil rule Canada. Every other thing they claim to believe in - religion / traditional values, fiscal prudence, hawkish defense policies, tax relief, punishing crime - they would gladly throw under a bus, if it can lead them back into power, so they can help the fossil fuel industry fuck this planet right into a coma. Anyone gets in the way? Hit them with a smear campaign or use the power of the state to deprive them of any right to dissent. That's Harperism.

The real question is whether Harperism will still rule the Conservative party, not the personal characteristics of whoever gets to be the leader.
 

MissingOne

awake but not woke
Jan 2, 2006
2,170
350
83
Back in 2015 I was desperate to get rid of Harper. So desperate that I overcame my misgivings about Trudeau and voted Liberal.

After four years (and counting) of Trudeau, I find myself kinda missing Harper. I didn't like many of his policies, and don't like them any better in retrospect, but compared to Trudeau Harper seems, in hindsight, to be a man of integrity.

Not that I'll be voting Conservative any time soon. Certainly not if McKay leads the party. I wouldn't mind having a conservative party as an option, but the CPC ain't it.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
1,889
863
113
Well, Erin O'Toole is officially in the race now too:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-conservative-leadership-bid-1.5441642

Launched his campaign in Alberta first, as a big signal that he's planning to appeal to those who are hardliners.



After four years (and counting) of Trudeau, I find myself kinda missing Harper. I didn't like many of his policies, and don't like them any better in retrospect, but compared to Trudeau Harper seems, in hindsight, to be a man of integrity.

Conviction? Yes. Integrity? No. Subtle but crucial difference between these two things.

Trudeau's problem is the usual Liberal one - fence-sitting; being heavy on the sales pitch, but pretty empty of action or clear direction.
 

testicles

New member
Aug 30, 2015
120
0
0
Back in 2015 I was desperate to get rid of Harper. So desperate that I overcame my misgivings about Trudeau and voted Liberal.

After four years (and counting) of Trudeau, I find myself kinda missing Harper. I didn't like many of his policies, and don't like them any better in retrospect, but compared to Trudeau Harper seems, in hindsight, to be a man of integrity.

Not that I'll be voting Conservative any time soon. Certainly not if McKay leads the party. I wouldn't mind having a conservative party as an option, but the CPC ain't it.
I kind of miss Paul Martin. Doesn't seem fair that Mulroney, Chretien and Harper all basically got a decade in power but he got only a little over two years.
 
Last edited:

overdone

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2007
1,458
158
63
In the west, his inability to speak passable french will likely be seen as a plus.

JD
you don't need to speak French anymore, Que doesn't hold the key to winning a majority that it once did, due to demographic shifts

it would hold even less if we didn't have a rigged system, AB should have more seats than it does, PEI shouldn't have 4, Ont should have more, Que and a few others get seats due to old rules they shouldn't

it's time to reform it and just go on population amounts

Ont, is where you need to win now, you don't have to suck up to Que, you haven't had to for the last 3 elections

and quit with the bullshit that we are a bilingual country, we aren't and haven't been since there was Upper and Lower Canada

less than 20% of the country is bilingual in English and French, it's probably really closer to 10%, when you talk actual fluency, lol
most of those who are "supposedly fluent" are in Montreal and some in New Brunswick

Que is going to have less and less power, people aren't moving there, they're leaving the more stupid the Provincial laws become

you need to sweep the GTA, then get moderate support out west and in the Atlantic, Que will still elect the odd Cons or Lib or NDP here and there

plus all the bilingual speakers are mainly in Montreal, where all the seats are
 

carvesg

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2010
690
592
93
you don't need to speak French anymore, Que doesn't hold the key to winning a majority that it once did, due to demographic shifts

it would hold even less if we didn't have a rigged system, AB should have more seats than it does, PEI shouldn't have 4, Ont should have more, Que and a few others get seats due to old rules they shouldn't

it's time to reform it and just go on population amounts

Ont, is where you need to win now, you don't have to suck up to Que, you haven't had to for the last 3 elections

and quit with the bullshit that we are a bilingual country, we aren't and haven't been since there was Upper and Lower Canada

less than 20% of the country is bilingual in English and French, it's probably really closer to 10%, when you talk actual fluency, lol
most of those who are "supposedly fluent" are in Montreal and some in New Brunswick

Que is going to have less and less power, people aren't moving there, they're leaving the more stupid the Provincial laws become

you need to sweep the GTA, then get moderate support out west and in the Atlantic, Que will still elect the odd Cons or Lib or NDP here and there

plus all the bilingual speakers are mainly in Montreal, where all the seats are
We represent 20% of the population in Canada.

Quebec represent 22% of the population in Canada and holds 21% of the seats in Ottawa.

Just to clarify the numbers
 

80watts

Well-known member
May 20, 2004
2,420
627
113
Victoria
Actually, any new seats for parliament are based off of how many seats are in Quebec, there is a formula for it somewhere. To win a majority you need to win Quebec and Ontario, the rest of Canada usually splits itself....unless Canadians are voting a government out....

As for MacKay the bible thumper, I wouldn't vote for him. I would of voted for Ambrose, but she is too smart to run a divided/mixed directional party. And she probably doesn't want to contend with the negative aspect of party politics happening in today's climate.
The Liberals social programs come at the expense of Defence Spending on new equipment for the *** which is badly needed. Conservative governments usually look better on Defence spending.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
1,889
863
113
Actually, any new seats for parliament are based off of how many seats are in Quebec, there is a formula for it somewhere. To win a majority you need to win Quebec and Ontario, the rest of Canada usually splits itself....unless Canadians are voting a government out....

As for MacKay the bible thumper, I wouldn't vote for him. I would of voted for Ambrose, but she is too smart to run a divided/mixed directional party. And she probably doesn't want to contend with the negative aspect of party politics happening in today's climate.
The Liberals social programs come at the expense of Defence Spending on new equipment for the *** which is badly needed. Conservative governments usually look better on Defence spending.
Look better, but aren't. Their problem is usually one of trying to "look tough" rather than be tough. The plain fact is for Liberals and Conservatives, neither of them has fixed the procurement system that has mired so many projects in "development hell". One party is forever directionless and indecisive; the other decides things more clearly, but almost always for the wrong reasons.

The fighter decision was before under Harper; the indecision under Trudeau was not any better. They might end up choosing it anyway, just 10 years later, which would be absurd. Other projects do get announced and (eventually) built, but it's all a tangled mess, as the whole Mark Norman issue proved. Decisions are made but the actual outcomes are almost random.

Whatever - this is off-topic now. I don't think the choice Cons make for their new leader will actually affect what their decisions would be if they were in power.
 

jgg

In the air again.
Apr 14, 2015
2,454
381
83
Varies now
...The Liberals social programs come at the expense of Defence Spending on new equipment for the *** which is badly needed...
LOL. I like how the reference to Canadian Armed Forces :)censored:***) or Baby cow board was edited out!
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
1,889
863
113
LOL. I like how the reference to Canadian Armed Forces :)censored:***) or Baby cow board was edited out!

Oh, is that why? I thought he was editing out "F35" for some weird unknown reason. :doh:
 

80watts

Well-known member
May 20, 2004
2,420
627
113
Victoria
I guess I used an acronym that the site doesn't like, not like Canadians having Fun......(that's another review board). Although the F-35 is one of the world's top 10 planes, its technology is from the early 90's. The Canadian military uses technology from the 1890's- machine gun. In the 80's the tech for radars was vacuum tubes, in the 90's you could only get vacuum tubes from behind the iron curtain. On Prime I was watching a short series on Planes that didn't fly, interesting.
Just so you know Canada couldn't pull a plane out of its ass, it couldn't in the 60's, and it can't now in 2020. So going to another country to get a very good plane makes sense. Also any heavy industry Canada had back in the 50 and 60 is gone now. We are designated the as the northern resource area for the US....which is why we don't have much for manufacturing here in Canada (also forgot about higher wages for skilled tradesmen)....The beancounters got to the supply system and anything doesn't sit on shelves for more than 5 years because it cost to heat the buildings which store the supplies..

BC ferries builds its new ships in Europe, not Canada.

You see the Conservatives need an Charismatic Leader and someone in touch with the people and their views; and I don't see that in MacKay.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
1,889
863
113
F35 that are TimeXed was a waste of money ,, Another shift of Canadian money out of Canada ,as with all of our gold is gone. CPP and all the rest will be under funded. We Paid for Helicopters that we never got because .GOV moved more money out. Follow the money to the CROWN !!
Ex AME for.mil for life. 2old now .
VT

Well, speaking of the F35, yeah everyone up above seems to be trying to designate it as the sole future fighter for all of NATO / US allies, but it has a ton of problems, and seems to bankrupt every other country who buys it. Honestly, you think Israel could afford it if the US wasn't designating them to receive like $5 billion+ in military aid every year? Nope. There are very few makers of fighters anymore; since anything Russian or Chinese is out of the question, Lockheed has the market almost cornered - definitely on 5th generation fighters. It's almost as if the real purpose of the F35 is to be so expensive that it puts an end to anyone else's ability to design a competitor.

Look at this stuff if you think it's not a white elephant:

https://www.airforcemag.com/lockheed-potentially-mixed-up-structural-fasteners-in-most-f-35s/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-30/f-35-s-gun-that-can-t-shoot-straight-adds-to-its-roster-of-flaws


I am not sorry Trudeau decided to take a pass on it (at least for a while). I just wish he'd made an immediate decision to buy something else to replace the CF18's. Eurofighters, Rafales, Gripens ... hell they wanted Super Hornets then Boeing decided to sue the government of Canada for something else so that was the end of that option. (Way to treat potential customers, morons!)

In any case, Canada's not the only 1st world country to find that the cost of new fighters has become totally obscene. Others faced the same thing, and it broke their budgets,
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
1,889
863
113
You see the Conservatives need an Charismatic Leader and someone in touch with the people and their views; and I don't see that in MacKay.
I see it as finding someone who can reach people on the issues the public really cares about. I don't think charisma hurts, but no amount of empty charisma can turn a turd of a policy platform into chocolate cake.

Trouble is, party members / supporters generally only talk to their own kind, and this atmosphere leaves them unable to use logical & clear reasoning to convince other people. No, modern political machines are far better at tricking people into a vote they will regret, than convincing of ideas that might actually be believable.

This I mean in general; all parties, not just for Conservatives.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts