Lionized27

Well, here's hoping it's not "the" or "the biggest".

Surprised it hasn't already happened.

Unequivocally no.

By far, the funniest thing I've read in a while. (outside of the Proposals/Armchair GM forum)

Even then it's a hard pass.

If the Canucks add a prospect then Dallas should retain some salary. The pick swap should up the value from the Canucks end enough. I also like the team picking at 18...hoping Soderstrom is still available there. See my post on page three.

Sauce: Kooze talks Benn

Totems for sure. No Kraken for me.

Just heard about this on the radio. Apparently there's some renovation work going on which is to blame. Hopefully Quasimodo is safe!

I apologize for the derailment.

They got even worse when he left...no doubt (due in part) to correct his ridiculous spending habits.

"When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion (24% of GDP) which was largely left over from World War II, when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion (46% of GDP), an increase of 83% in real terms. However, these trends were present in most western countries at the time, including the United States." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau Ummm, he did quite a bit more damage than "double the debt". Your understanding of "the most simple of mathematics" should show you this. Since you're so handy with figures, you can break down the PDF document included in the wiki article. I simply can't be bothered. If you're really ambitious, you could even translate those figures into today's numbers and give us all a clearer picture of how Trudeau Sr. wasn't fiscally irresponsible. I'm going to guess you're either too young to remember the '70's and '80's or are willfully forgetting them. Either way, they weren't particularly easy times. I do understand that things were tough all over, which is why I included the last sentence of the quote. I hope you have a great day!

Suppose I am. Maybe you should explain in detail the numbers to me...this way you and Joker of Surrey both can get a good laugh?

This might be what is referred to as "revisionist history". I mean, numbers don't lie but people do.

Where and why do you get 700%? Also, please answer my question.

You posted this link, among others, but this was the first: https://www.taxpayer.com/media/CoverStory24-27WEB.pdf DonLever then posted this, the content of your link: According to that link: Pierre Trudeau - 738% increase in debt Brian Mulroney - 67% increase in debt Jean Chretien - 1.8% increase Paul Martin - 4.7% decrease Stephen Harper - 12.6% increase Now, please explain how I've misconstrued these facts. The Frum article aside, I want to know where you and I are in disagreement with regards to PET and his spending habits.

Ok, I have no idea where exactly you're going with this, but I'll bite. You posted the figures yourself providing fact that PET was a (very well documented) spendthrift. If you have any evidence at all to the contrary, we'd all love to see it. My opinion, based on the evidence YOU provided, is indeed based on fact. Red Herring? Straw Man?

The first Link quoted by warhippy shows an interesting graphic.

You and KOS continuing to laud PET is admirable, yet I'm not convinced to consider him in any other way aside from abject failure. Goes to prove just how polarizing he was and continues to be.

Haha! Pot, meet kettle.

It's the 700+% debt increase incurred by his father I'm referring to, but yeah, there's also this. The apple indeed does not fall far from the tree.

Good grief. Simply Google "Pierre Trudeau debt legacy" and take your pick of the many articles listed.

Appreciate that. Apparently he's too shortsighted to remember our last debate on this exact subject and refuses numerous reminders. Hence the moron remark.

Who are you, exactly? Again, check your &Ucking post history. Moron.

"Serious debate" and your name DO NOT go together.