No more airlines. No more cars. No more cows (farts are bad). All buildings replaced.
[img width=500 height=281]https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default ... cortez.jpg[/img]
This from a former bartender. Sorta like a former substitute drama teacher.
Ever notice that super-popular, rock star politicans are almost always really bad news?
I remember Obama came to Ottawa. It was like Elvis. The entire city went crazy for him.
Turned out to be the worst POTUS since Jimmy Carter, of course. Maybe worse than
the peanut farmer. Opinions vary.
Biggest rock star politician I can think of, is JFK. #fakenews still gush like fangirls about
him, and never mention the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Wall, or the
Vietnam War - in less than one term. Imagine the damage he could have done in two.
Millions died in Vietnam. JFK had millions of gallons of Agent Orange, contaminated
with Dioxin dumped there. #GoCamelotTrainWreck
#fakenews shits all over Nixon but he ended the Vietnam War that the Democrats were
so fond of, when they weren't drowning their pregnant girlfriends or raping their babysitters.
#fakenews hated Lincoln, too. Long history of shitting on Republican Presidents and
forgetting all the train wrecks of Democratic Presidents.
You Guys Are All Out Of A Job
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Canada today is a very successful country. It has suffered less from the global economic crisis than any other major economy. So Canadians may be tempted to be philosophical about disasters in their own past. Hasn't it all come out right in the end?
But I want to stress: Canada's achievement overcoming Pierre Trudeau's legacy should not inure Canadians to how disastrous that legacy was.
Three subsequent important prime ministers — Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper — invested their energies cleaning up the wreckage left by Pierre Trudeau. The work has taken almost 30 years. Finally, and at long last, nobody speculates anymore about Canada defaulting on its debt, or splitting apart, or being isolated from all its major allies.
Yet through most of the adult lives of most people reading this, people in Canada and outside Canada did worry about those things. And as you enjoy the peace, stability and comparative prosperity of Canada in the 2010s, just consider — this is how Canadians felt in the middle 1960s. Now imagine a political leader coming along and out of ignorance and arrogance despoiling all this success. Not because the leader faced some overwhelming crisis where it was hard to see the right answer. But utterly unnecessarily. Out of a clear blue sky.
Pierre Trudeau took office at a moment when commodity prices were rising worldwide. Good policy-makers recognize that commodity prices fall as well as rise. Yet between 1969 and 1979 — through two majority governments and one minority — Trudeau tripled federal spending.
In 1981-'82, Canada plunged into recession, the worst since the Second World War. Trudeau's already big deficits exploded to a point that Canada's lenders worried about default. Trudeau's Conservative successor, Brian Mulroney, balanced Canada's operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits grew, the Bank hiked rates again — and Canada toppled into an even worse recession in 1992. Trudeau's next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder and harder with no real increase in their standard of living. Do Canadians understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s? They should. To repay Trudeau's debt, federal governments reduced transfers to provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements.
If Canada's health system delivers better results today than 15 years ago, it's not because it operates more efficiently. Canada's health system delivers better results because the reduction of Trudeau's debt burden has freed more funds for health care spending.
Pierre Trudeau was a spending fool. He believed in a state-led economy, and the longer he lasted in office, the more statist he became. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was succeeded by Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was succeeded by wage and price controls. Wage and price controls were succeeded by the single worst economic decision of Canada's 20th century: the National Energy Program.
The NEP tried to fix two different prices of oil, one inside Canada, one outside. The NEP expropriated foreign oil interests without compensation. The NEP sought to shoulder aside the historic role of the provinces as the owner and manager of natural resources. Most other Western countries redirected themselves toward more fiscal restraint after 1979. Counting on abundant revenues from oil, the Trudeau government kept spending. Other Western governments began to worry more about attracting international investment. Canada repelled investors with arbitrary confiscations. Other Western governments recovered from the stagflation of the 1970s by turning toward freer markets. Under the National Energy Program, Canada was up-regulating as the U.S., Britain, and West Germany deregulated. All of these mistakes together contributed to the extreme severity of the 1982 recession. Every one of them was Pierre Trudeau's fault.
Pierre Trudeau had little taste for the alliances and relationships he inherited in 1968. His spending spree did not include the military. He cut air and naval capabilities, pulled troops home from Europe, and embarked on morale-destroying reorganizations of the military services. In 1968, Canada was a serious second-tier non-nuclear military power, like Sweden or Israel. By 1984, Canada had lost its war-fighting capability: a loss made vivid when Canada had to opt out of ground combat operations in the first Gulf War of 1990-'91. Something more was going on here than a left-of-centre preference for butter over guns. Throughout his life — now better known than ever thanks to historian John English — Pierre Trudeau showed remarkable indifference to the struggle against totalitarianism that defined the geopolitics of the 20th century. Indifference may be too polite a word.
Yet it was upon the Canadian nation that Trudeau inflicted his greatest harm. When Pierre Trudeau was elected prime minister in 1968, Canada faced a small but militant separatist challenge in Quebec. In 1970, that challenge erupted in terrorist violence: two kidnappings and a murder of one of the kidnapped hostages, Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte.
Trudeau responded with overwhelming force, declaring martial law in Quebec, arresting dozens of people, almost none of whom had any remote connection to the terrorist outrages. The arrests radicalized them, transforming many from cultural nationalists into outright independentists. As he did throughout his career, Trudeau polarized the situation — multiplying enemies for himself and, unfortunately, also for Canada.
At the same time, Trudeau lavished economic benefits on Quebec at the expense of English-speaking Canada. Unsurprisingly, English-speaking Canada resented this favouritism — with the result that Trudeau polarized English-Canadian politics, too. In 1968, Trudeau's Liberals won 27 seats west of Ontario. In 1980, they won two.
To win the 1980 referendum, Trudeau promised Quebec constitutional changes to satisfy Quebec nationalism. Instead, he delivered a package of constitutional changes that tilted in exactly the opposite direction. The government of Quebec refused to ratify the new constitutional arrangement, opening a renewed opportunity to separatists and bequeathing a nightmare political problem to Trudeau's successors.
Defenders of Trudeau's disastrous governance habitually rally around one great accomplishment: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Well, Herbert Hoover had some excellent wilderness conservation policies, but we don't excuse the Great Depression on that account. Would it really have been so impossible to achieve a Charter of Rights without plunging Canada into two recessions, without wrecking the national finances, without triggering two referendums, without nationalizing the oil industry, without driving not only Quebec, but also Alberta to the verge of separation?
To me, one story will always sum up Pierre Trudeau:
1979. Trudeau had lost that year's election. His career seemed finished. Reporters awaited in the driveway of 24 Sussex Drive as he stepped into his gull-winged vintage Mercedes to speed away into history.
One shouted: "Mr. Prime Minister — any regrets?" Pierre Trudeau pondered. He remembered something that Richard Nixon had said after losing the California governor's race in 1962 and revised Nixon's words to his own very different purpose. "Yes," he said. "I regret I won't have you to kick around anymore."
It's long past time that Canadians in turn resolved: no longer to be posthumously kicked by this bad man and disastrous prime minister.
But I want to stress: Canada's achievement overcoming Pierre Trudeau's legacy should not inure Canadians to how disastrous that legacy was.
Three subsequent important prime ministers — Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper — invested their energies cleaning up the wreckage left by Pierre Trudeau. The work has taken almost 30 years. Finally, and at long last, nobody speculates anymore about Canada defaulting on its debt, or splitting apart, or being isolated from all its major allies.
Yet through most of the adult lives of most people reading this, people in Canada and outside Canada did worry about those things. And as you enjoy the peace, stability and comparative prosperity of Canada in the 2010s, just consider — this is how Canadians felt in the middle 1960s. Now imagine a political leader coming along and out of ignorance and arrogance despoiling all this success. Not because the leader faced some overwhelming crisis where it was hard to see the right answer. But utterly unnecessarily. Out of a clear blue sky.
Pierre Trudeau took office at a moment when commodity prices were rising worldwide. Good policy-makers recognize that commodity prices fall as well as rise. Yet between 1969 and 1979 — through two majority governments and one minority — Trudeau tripled federal spending.
In 1981-'82, Canada plunged into recession, the worst since the Second World War. Trudeau's already big deficits exploded to a point that Canada's lenders worried about default. Trudeau's Conservative successor, Brian Mulroney, balanced Canada's operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits grew, the Bank hiked rates again — and Canada toppled into an even worse recession in 1992. Trudeau's next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder and harder with no real increase in their standard of living. Do Canadians understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s? They should. To repay Trudeau's debt, federal governments reduced transfers to provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements.
If Canada's health system delivers better results today than 15 years ago, it's not because it operates more efficiently. Canada's health system delivers better results because the reduction of Trudeau's debt burden has freed more funds for health care spending.
Pierre Trudeau was a spending fool. He believed in a state-led economy, and the longer he lasted in office, the more statist he became. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was succeeded by Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was succeeded by wage and price controls. Wage and price controls were succeeded by the single worst economic decision of Canada's 20th century: the National Energy Program.
The NEP tried to fix two different prices of oil, one inside Canada, one outside. The NEP expropriated foreign oil interests without compensation. The NEP sought to shoulder aside the historic role of the provinces as the owner and manager of natural resources. Most other Western countries redirected themselves toward more fiscal restraint after 1979. Counting on abundant revenues from oil, the Trudeau government kept spending. Other Western governments began to worry more about attracting international investment. Canada repelled investors with arbitrary confiscations. Other Western governments recovered from the stagflation of the 1970s by turning toward freer markets. Under the National Energy Program, Canada was up-regulating as the U.S., Britain, and West Germany deregulated. All of these mistakes together contributed to the extreme severity of the 1982 recession. Every one of them was Pierre Trudeau's fault.
Pierre Trudeau had little taste for the alliances and relationships he inherited in 1968. His spending spree did not include the military. He cut air and naval capabilities, pulled troops home from Europe, and embarked on morale-destroying reorganizations of the military services. In 1968, Canada was a serious second-tier non-nuclear military power, like Sweden or Israel. By 1984, Canada had lost its war-fighting capability: a loss made vivid when Canada had to opt out of ground combat operations in the first Gulf War of 1990-'91. Something more was going on here than a left-of-centre preference for butter over guns. Throughout his life — now better known than ever thanks to historian John English — Pierre Trudeau showed remarkable indifference to the struggle against totalitarianism that defined the geopolitics of the 20th century. Indifference may be too polite a word.
Yet it was upon the Canadian nation that Trudeau inflicted his greatest harm. When Pierre Trudeau was elected prime minister in 1968, Canada faced a small but militant separatist challenge in Quebec. In 1970, that challenge erupted in terrorist violence: two kidnappings and a murder of one of the kidnapped hostages, Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte.
Trudeau responded with overwhelming force, declaring martial law in Quebec, arresting dozens of people, almost none of whom had any remote connection to the terrorist outrages. The arrests radicalized them, transforming many from cultural nationalists into outright independentists. As he did throughout his career, Trudeau polarized the situation — multiplying enemies for himself and, unfortunately, also for Canada.
At the same time, Trudeau lavished economic benefits on Quebec at the expense of English-speaking Canada. Unsurprisingly, English-speaking Canada resented this favouritism — with the result that Trudeau polarized English-Canadian politics, too. In 1968, Trudeau's Liberals won 27 seats west of Ontario. In 1980, they won two.
To win the 1980 referendum, Trudeau promised Quebec constitutional changes to satisfy Quebec nationalism. Instead, he delivered a package of constitutional changes that tilted in exactly the opposite direction. The government of Quebec refused to ratify the new constitutional arrangement, opening a renewed opportunity to separatists and bequeathing a nightmare political problem to Trudeau's successors.
Defenders of Trudeau's disastrous governance habitually rally around one great accomplishment: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Well, Herbert Hoover had some excellent wilderness conservation policies, but we don't excuse the Great Depression on that account. Would it really have been so impossible to achieve a Charter of Rights without plunging Canada into two recessions, without wrecking the national finances, without triggering two referendums, without nationalizing the oil industry, without driving not only Quebec, but also Alberta to the verge of separation?
To me, one story will always sum up Pierre Trudeau:
1979. Trudeau had lost that year's election. His career seemed finished. Reporters awaited in the driveway of 24 Sussex Drive as he stepped into his gull-winged vintage Mercedes to speed away into history.
One shouted: "Mr. Prime Minister — any regrets?" Pierre Trudeau pondered. He remembered something that Richard Nixon had said after losing the California governor's race in 1962 and revised Nixon's words to his own very different purpose. "Yes," he said. "I regret I won't have you to kick around anymore."
It's long past time that Canadians in turn resolved: no longer to be posthumously kicked by this bad man and disastrous prime minister.
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
Here's the expanded "Green New Deal"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02- ... n-new-deal
Of course she's very vague on how all this insanity will be paid for - Trillions of Dollars that the US simply doesn't have.
Pretty well guarantees a Trump victory in 2020.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02- ... n-new-deal
Of course she's very vague on how all this insanity will be paid for - Trillions of Dollars that the US simply doesn't have.
Pretty well guarantees a Trump victory in 2020.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel issued a blistering critique of the proposed Green New Deal, saying that the proposal reads like a parody of the Democratic Party done by Republicans.
“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,†Strassel wrote on Twitter. “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.â€[/quote]
“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,†Strassel wrote on Twitter. “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.â€[/quote]
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
The hypocrisy of the Elite Left knows no bounds:
[quote]Top Democrats running for president in 2020 have jumped on and endorsed Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s radical Green New Deal that aims, among other things, to eliminate air travel.
But the elimination of air travel strikes particularly close to the homes of Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris – all of whom extensively used air travel, including private jets – throughout the years in office.
Yet Harris herself is far from following what she preaches. Since 2015, her campaign has spent around $300,000 on air travel.
Booker is another 2020 candidate who immediately jumped on the Green New Deal without delving too much on the details, even though he also extensively relies on air travel.
His campaign records show that at least $300,000 were spent on air travel since 2013 by his campaign. He spent just about $11,000 on Amtrak – the Green New Deal’s preferred mode of transport.
Gillibrand, a New York Democrat and a close friend of Booker, is also backing the Green New Deal, despite being one of the worst offenders when it comes to air travel.
“A #GreenNewDeal is ambitious. It's bold. And I’m cosponsoring this resolution with @aoc and @senmarkey because it’s exactly the kind of action it will take to conquer the biggest threat of our lifetime,†she tweeted.
But Gillibrand has long been criticized for her extensive use of private jets. A Fox News review of public records reveal that Gillibrand’s campaign spent at least $439,000 on air charter company Zen Air between 2010 and 2017. In the last decade, her campaign also spent an additional $465,000 on non-charter flights.[/quote]
The Elite Left burn unlimited amounts of kerosene and live in gated communities surrounded by walls and armed guards.
But the rest of us are supposed to give up fossil fuels entirely, and we don't get a wall or a gun.
The hypocrisy of the Elite Left knows no bounds.
#GoStalin
[quote]The Daily Caller traveled to Obama’s D.C. neighborhood to find out if the “10-foot wall†existed. What did we find? Obama does not have one wall. He has many. He has barricades. He has armed guards entirely blocking the suburban road where he lives. Multiple cement and iron barricades block the road leading up to the Obama mansion. A Secret Service car and agent keep people from entering the stretch of road on both ends approximately 1,000 feet in both directions.
The Daily Caller asked the Secret Service agent if we could walk to the Obama house on the sidewalk. The officer told us he would be forced to stop us if we tried.
So does Obama have a 10-foot wall around his house? We tried to find out. We even brought a tape measure. But we were stopped by all of Obama’s other walls from even finding out.
(RELATED: Trump: If Democrats Think A Wall Is ‘Immoral,’ They Should Do Something About The Vatican)[/quote]
Remember: The Elite Left say that "walls don't work". That's why they have them,
and we aren't allowed to have one.
[quote]Top Democrats running for president in 2020 have jumped on and endorsed Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s radical Green New Deal that aims, among other things, to eliminate air travel.
But the elimination of air travel strikes particularly close to the homes of Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris – all of whom extensively used air travel, including private jets – throughout the years in office.
Yet Harris herself is far from following what she preaches. Since 2015, her campaign has spent around $300,000 on air travel.
Booker is another 2020 candidate who immediately jumped on the Green New Deal without delving too much on the details, even though he also extensively relies on air travel.
His campaign records show that at least $300,000 were spent on air travel since 2013 by his campaign. He spent just about $11,000 on Amtrak – the Green New Deal’s preferred mode of transport.
Gillibrand, a New York Democrat and a close friend of Booker, is also backing the Green New Deal, despite being one of the worst offenders when it comes to air travel.
“A #GreenNewDeal is ambitious. It's bold. And I’m cosponsoring this resolution with @aoc and @senmarkey because it’s exactly the kind of action it will take to conquer the biggest threat of our lifetime,†she tweeted.
But Gillibrand has long been criticized for her extensive use of private jets. A Fox News review of public records reveal that Gillibrand’s campaign spent at least $439,000 on air charter company Zen Air between 2010 and 2017. In the last decade, her campaign also spent an additional $465,000 on non-charter flights.[/quote]
The Elite Left burn unlimited amounts of kerosene and live in gated communities surrounded by walls and armed guards.
But the rest of us are supposed to give up fossil fuels entirely, and we don't get a wall or a gun.
The hypocrisy of the Elite Left knows no bounds.
#GoStalin
[quote]The Daily Caller traveled to Obama’s D.C. neighborhood to find out if the “10-foot wall†existed. What did we find? Obama does not have one wall. He has many. He has barricades. He has armed guards entirely blocking the suburban road where he lives. Multiple cement and iron barricades block the road leading up to the Obama mansion. A Secret Service car and agent keep people from entering the stretch of road on both ends approximately 1,000 feet in both directions.
The Daily Caller asked the Secret Service agent if we could walk to the Obama house on the sidewalk. The officer told us he would be forced to stop us if we tried.
So does Obama have a 10-foot wall around his house? We tried to find out. We even brought a tape measure. But we were stopped by all of Obama’s other walls from even finding out.
(RELATED: Trump: If Democrats Think A Wall Is ‘Immoral,’ They Should Do Something About The Vatican)[/quote]
Remember: The Elite Left say that "walls don't work". That's why they have them,
and we aren't allowed to have one.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
When Chelsea Clinton was asked if she was having sex when she was attending college she said not according to dad.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Just to set the record straight, I think [u]everyone[/u] should have guns, walls,
burn all the kerosene they want, and get lots of blowjobs. #NoJudgement
Frankly if everyone took my advice, I think the world would be a much
happier place. So many angry people. I have no idea why. Things are
great right now, but perhaps I get more guns, walls, kerosene and blowjobs
than most.
PS I get why burning kerosene could be bad for the environment, but
can someone explain to me why guns, walls and blowjobs are bad for
the environment? Does it make a difference if they spit or swallow?
burn all the kerosene they want, and get lots of blowjobs. #NoJudgement
Frankly if everyone took my advice, I think the world would be a much
happier place. So many angry people. I have no idea why. Things are
great right now, but perhaps I get more guns, walls, kerosene and blowjobs
than most.
PS I get why burning kerosene could be bad for the environment, but
can someone explain to me why guns, walls and blowjobs are bad for
the environment? Does it make a difference if they spit or swallow?
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 3 Replies
- 1235 Views
-
Last post by Chuck Ellsworth
-
- 2 Replies
- 2522 Views
-
Last post by digits
-
- 3 Replies
- 1598 Views
-
Last post by Squaretail
