OT: American Politics

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

Hopeychange?

cue the "that is not a racial label" retort from Krauthammer

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

but they have to "defend themselves" whereas we don't have to, US planes get to our air space in no time to meet any interloper.

I also never would have thought you would want to emulate a penal colony.

Australia isn't reliant on New Zealand or Indonesia for their defence requirements.

And why is it that the left is so eager to demonize the United States at every opportunity but is also perfectly content to hand over a large element of our national sovereignty to them?

 

[blacksheep]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

The real problem is that there aren't any real conservatives in the Progressive "Conservative" party. The term "conservative" was thrown in there, most assuredly to attract supporters of the former party, decimated by Mulroney's "conservative" actions, into this new team effort of Reform/Cons. But there are no real "conservatives" in it.
And it's laughable that Harper's appologists bring up Chretien's Adscam. Adscam wasted about $1M. If you want to be totally fair with the mudslinging, don't forget the HRDC scandal during Chretien's reign - which was another $1M or so. So $2M wasted under Chretien's more than ten years in office. That's it.
Along comes Harper, the saviour of all things Canada, including Super Stockwell, with his plan to build hundreds of jails in anticipation of housing all the pot smokers who "deserve" a longer sentence than hockey didlers, and in a mere five years, Harper's Tories spend us back into 1997 levels. Where the fluck are these "conservatives???"
When they allow the REAL cons to run the party again, I will vote for them. I am a TRUE conservative. The kind that actually wants to CUT spending, not build jails to replace half-empty ones, and commit to buying a jet without any shopping around.

 

[HabsAddict]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

The "liberals made me do it" applies because up until last year we have been dealing with minority governments. The Conservatives had little choice but to cave to the demands or go back to the polls.

.

That would hold water if he did something drastic to cut the deficit and jobs NOW. All he did was the bare minimum to retain his "conservative" credentials.

On the other hand, let the critics bay all they want. On some issues like carbon tax and oils sands development, the Libs would put the screws to it and us. Not going to happen with Conservatives.

Face it Cork, we have to drink Conservative Lite beer that's only conservative in the foam, but at least it wont be that ugly Lib pisswater or NDP poison.

 

[blacksheep]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

More than 10 million dollars was invested into the deal between 1997 and 2006 when Harper and the Conservatives won their first minority.

The "deal" wasn't specifically for the F-35s.

You also didn't address the fact that all NATO partners, up until last year were moving ahead with F-35 purchases. Was Canada expected to walk away from their allies and risk having woefully incompatible aircraft? If you say so.

Those "woefully incompatible aircraft" are better than billions spent on nothing.

The "liberals made me do it" applies because up until last year we have been dealing with minority governments. The Conservatives had little choice but to cave to the demands or go back to the polls.

Or.... just prorogue Parliament, so that they can avoid the polls.

 

[MindzEye]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Nothing worse than an armchair expert empowered by google. Actually, that's not true. There is nothing worse than an armchair expert empowered by google with a condescending attitude claiming others should be less biased. The irony is overwhelming.

Nice try in channeling your inner HA. It's about as silly coming from you as it is him. You perhaps gain all of your knowledge through osmosis, and not reading like the rest of us?

More than 10 million dollars was invested into the deal between 1997 and 2006 when Harper and the Conservatives won their first minority.

Source?

You also didn't address the fact that all NATO partners, up until last year were moving ahead with F-35 purchases. Was Canada expected to walk away from their allies and risk having woefully incompatible aircraft? If you say so.

A new fleet of F-18's wouldn't be "woefully incompatible".

The "liberals made me do it" applies because up until last year we have been dealing with minority governments. The Conservatives had little choice but to cave to the demands or go back to the polls.

So what you're saying is, you're cool with the 100 Billion in debts rather than run the risk of your boys lose an election?

No shit, hypocrite.

You've tried this before, and it simply doesn't pass the smell test. My being hypocritical would require my being partisan...I'm simply not. You can't find a single post of mine where I show support for any of Canada's federal parties. In fact, I've consistently stated the opposite.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

By the way, it bears noting that Pierre Elliot Trudeau, one of the most liberal leaders in Canadian history, saw fit to purchase an untested two year-old aircraft back in 1980.

And not only did his Liberal government purchase said aircraft, they bought 130 of them.

 

[corksens]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

That would hold water if he did something drastic to cut the deficit and jobs NOW. All he did was the bare minimum to retain his "conservative" credentials.

On the other hand, let the critics bay all they want. On some issues like carbon tax and oils sands development, the Libs would put the screws to it and us. Not going to happen with Conservatives.

Face it Cork, we have to drink Conservative Lite beer that's only conservative in the foam, but at least it wont be that ugly Lib pisswater or NDP poison.

Politics is politics.

I wanted more cuts this past budget, but sadly he did cave and slashed with a butter knife instead of a machete.

 

[corksens]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

So what you're saying is, you're cool with the 100 Billion in debts rather than run the risk of your boys lose an election?

You're argument is pointless here. The other choices would have added far more than what the Conservatives did.

Is your contention that the Conservatives should be MORE conservative. Is that what you want?

 

[MindzEye]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Australia isn't reliant on New Zealand or Indonesia for their defence requirements.

And why is it that the left is so eager to demonize the United States at every opportunity but is also perfectly content to hand over a large element of our national sovereignty to them?

Because they're idiots.

With the amount of continental airspace we have, simply to protect our sovereignty, we absolutely require a functioning, well equipped RCAF to defend our airspace. Where I get a little touchy is when we start talking about spending many billions on a fighter that's main utility is in it's ability to project aerial power on battlefields abroad, which is what the F-35 is really for. It's not a fantastic interceptor style fighter by any stretch, and that should be the main concern when we're procuring imo.

 

[MindzEye]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

You're argument is pointless here. The other choices would have added far more than what the Conservatives did.

Is your contention that the Conservatives should be MORE conservative. Is that what you want?

Fiscally, absolutely.

You seem to be caught up in some weird false dichotomy where someone can either be conservative on all things, or liberal on all things.

and my argument isn't pointless at all....the potential would have been there for the Conservatives to stand up on principle, tell the people of Canada during an election that massive expenditures wasn't necessary because of the position we were in economically.

That's what a conservative government is supposed to do, no? Not turtle because the threat of them losing power was there, and run up the ****ing credit card to keep the Liberal idiots happy.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Because they're idiots.

With the amount of continental airspace we have, simply to protect our sovereignty, we absolutely require a functioning, well equipped RCAF to defend our airspace. Where I get a little touchy is when we start talking about spending many billions on a fighter who's main utility is in it's ability to project aerial power abroad, which is what the F-35 is really for. It's not a fantastic interceptor style fighter by any stretch, and that should be the main concern when we're procuring imo.

And I have absolutely no problem with this argument. If you're getting into a debate on the merits of the aircraft's specs, like I know you have focused on in the past, that's fine. I can respect that argument.

It's the people who complain about the government's search for new RCAF hardware as if it will result in health care or education being left out in the cold that I take issue with. We're putting $30 billion into new war ships over the next several decades to refurbish our water-borne fleet, and $10 billion in additional funding for coast guard vessels and civilian-commanded ships. The Air Force should see similar upgrades. The problem is that some people don't view these purchases as a one-time investment that will last for decades.

They view it as a sunk cost that will continue to take away funding from other governmental departments, and that is simply factually incorrect (beyond any of the associated standard maintenance costs which are factored into the budget). If you subscribe to the notion, as I do, that the protection of national sovereignty is a fundamental pillar of defence strategy, it's acceptable to engage in modernization programs now and then to defend our borders and assist our allies in missions elsewhere.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Fiscally, absolutely.

You seem to be caught up in some weird false dichotomy where someone can either be conservative on all things, or liberal on all things.

and my argument isn't pointless at all....the potential would have been there for the Conservatives to stand up on principle, tell the people of Canada during an election that massive expenditures wasn't necessary because of the position we were in economically.

That's what a conservative government is supposed to do, no? Not turtle because the threat of them losing power was there, and run up the ****ing credit card to keep the Liberal idiots happy.

Well the worst outcome of any government generally is to end up with a government that is fiscally liberal and socially conservative rather than socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

 

[corksens]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

So $2M wasted under Chretien's more than ten years in office. That's it.

How'd that gun registry thing work out? 1 billion+ dollars later.

 

[MindzEye]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

By the way, it bears noting that Pierre Elliot Trudeau, one of the most liberal leaders in Canadian history, saw fit to purchase an untested two year-old aircraft back in 1980.

And not only did his Liberal government purchase said aircraft, they bought 130 of them.

All true, but there was an open competition for the F-18 contract.

The F-35 project has been a known gong show for years. Which isn't to say that it won't turn out a spectacular multipurpose fighter at some point, I just don't see the need for us, with our limited military spending power, to be canaries in that particular coal mine.

 

[theREALkoreaboy]

hopeychange isn't even close to being a racial label. not even close.

 

[Wayward DP]

cue the "that is not a racial label" retort from Krauthammer

ha

 

[MindzEye]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Well the worst outcome of any government generally is to end up with a government that is fiscally liberal and socially conservative rather than socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Tada!!!!

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

 

[JaysCyYoung]

:lol