Derek 2.0

Of course, and will do such until the NDP say otherwise. Source? You equate the Government to be neglecting the Forces because they aren't funding a war we're no longer fighting? No plan? There are thousands of military, civilians staff and contractors, employed in the implementation of a plan that you say doesn't exist? Your suggestion that the Government is just "putting off" programs.........is both untrue and devoid of understanding the complexities involved. So you're suggesting the army should still be conducting extensive Afghan pre-deployment training? Reality seems difficult for you........ Why? The majority of past/current/future claims (upwards of 80% IIRC) are encompassing hearing loss......... And I lived through an NDP Government for several cycles in BC and we had scandal after scandal.........

Not at all, but it would lend credence to Smallc's "whispers of NDP defense spending increases".........

Sure, or better yet, point to the actual policy, or even a hint of such policy, by any named member of the NDP.

I'm not pretending anything, nor do I disagree with defense cuts or freezes outside of onetime procurements........ You're talking out of your ass........both DND and Veterans Affairs were ring fenced with cuts in Cabinet. By percentage of budgets they saw the least cuts to their departments.

He's in the business of selling papers? Where has he stated there will be a gradual adoption of his plan? Source? I know daycare is suppose to take over 10 years, but I haven't heard any different on his other promises.... I don't think anyone in '05-06 would have predicted a worldwide financial collapse... Nearly the same number of nations that are in deficit spending? I think it should go deeper... But then one wouldn't be grounded in reality............. ? That's veterans affairs.........and of course it should be cut drastically in the near future too, as the majority of the vets it serves are in their late 80s and 90s.... And I'm sorry that your views aren't grounded in reality and that you're gullible enough to believe the NDP will increase defense spending by ~20%

As stated in the other thread, in 2005/06 we were fighting a major land war on the other side of the planet, now we aren't.........since the global financial crisis, we're one of the few nations that hasn't taking an axe to the defense budget (Look at the United States, British, Dutch), instead taking a scalpel to the operations and training budget

No it won't He'll be lucky to fund his daycare promises, which still requires 40% of the costs being picked up by the Provinces.......let alone anything else well staying out of the red.........or raising taxes

Sure I discount them as NDP policy, since the NDP hasn't confirmed them........you stating it as "whispered fact" is quite different than what it is........rumors started by a person in the media that has been anti-Harper for nearly 20 years. Your source is far from detailed........already the MSM media is starting to questions Mulcair's magic: Of course they cut the budget, when they took office we were engaged in a war, now we are not.......I can't think of any modern Western Democracy that increases the defense budget after a war.....And no, though I feel it should shrink in terms of people, equipment and infrastructure, the short term reduction in spending has come at the expense of no longer funding a war on the other side of the planet and decreasing the training budget........ One could argue no longer fighting a war would reduce costs, likewise cuts to training being valid, what with a solid cadre of the Forces having been engaged in an actual war for nearly a decade.........I'm sorry that you allow your opinions to be shaped to such an extent by the MSM and the Official Opposition........

Have you also heard whispers of what additional taxes will be raised? Oddly enough, Mulcair's proposed roll-backs and increases will only account for a portion of his promises to date.......

Your "whispers" started from Martin's ass... Sure, and to date, the NDP has yet to explain how they will pay for their tens of billions of new promises, yet alone any additional promise yet to be rolled out, or promises only "whispered" to some

The cite I provided above (for you)........and no, its not creditable or the NDP wouldn't be whispering it, as suggested by Martin, such a promise would be to gain centrist support, so why would nobody from the NDP comment on it?

Political promises during an election are hardly worth their salt, let alone rumors of political promises that run counter to a parties dynamic.......Mind you, I'm sure the NDP would allocate further funds to Forces wide witch hunts and reaffirming "fairness" in the Forces and encouragement (i.e. quotas) of women, visible minorities and the LGBT community

Whispered to who? You or avowed anti-Haperite Lawrence Martin? The only NDP defense strategy laid-out in any detail was the suggestions proposed by Mike Byers.......namely purchasing Canadian built FWSAR, reducing the fighter fleet by 1/3rd (to be replaced by the Super Hornet) and laying up the subs............any (budgeted) increase in spending would come from the procurement of such items........like it would come from a Conservative or Liberal Government when they purchase big ticket items. The whispers I keep hearing are tens of billions of dollars of NDP spending promises, well also keeping a balanced budget.........Either taxes will be raised, the NDP is full of it or Mulcair is magic.

What of it? We had an "Axis of evil" before, surely you don't feel Churchill, FDR, Stalin and King were Neocons?

Or Hillary for voting in support of the invasion of Iraq? Clearly not..........

No, GWB wasn't a Neocon, though as said, portions of his administration were. George Walker Bush's beliefs, from his own book no doubt, stem from his own, Judeo-Christian, moral beliefs..........hence the simplistic, yet what he felt true, "Axis of evil" and "with us or against us" mantras, which very much so continues along the black and white themes of the bible.......good versus evil, right versus wrong etc...... Such beliefs are not found within neoconservative philosophy, which very much so are far more complex and nuanced, with a strategic undercurrent as backbone......for some, the post 9/11 World presents varied opportunities to further neocon beliefs, for others, like GWB, the post 9/11 world was seen as a struggle of good versus evil. George Walker Bush isn't a neocon, nor is Jeb, but their farther, without a doubt, encompassed many neocon traits, likely from his time at the CIA and his role during the closing act in the defeat against Worldwide Communism.

Actually, the Governor used the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, it was the use of Federal troops (101st airborne) by President Eisenhower that upheld the Supreme court ruling..........

Exactly, GWB wasn't a Neocon, but he did have Neocons in his administration........

Just throwing it out there, but could the PBO's forecast have been wrong?

Why bother? We've "won", even a Socialist like Bernie Sanders is pro gun rights......partaking in the gun-control nuts grave dancing only gives some semblance of credibility to their position, much like debating conspiracy theories or trolling on internet forums. To the conclusion offered by the author of your linked piece: Despite the suggestion of gaining more attention through the use of more horrific images of gun deaths (further grave dancing) the antis still don't see why they are doomed to still fail.........reasonable people don't equate such deaths to the majority of firearms owners across the United States, nor do reasonable people equate such deaths even to the NRA........ The anti's agenda and methods are much like social conservatives and religious groups arguments against gay rights and abortion.......through your own manner of discourse you've only achieved painting yourself into the corners of the lunatic fringe........as I've said countless times, if you want to see further reductions in gun crime, you've got to sort yourselves out first, than discuss that actual root causes. Until then, we've won and you've lost.

Does surplus equate to balanced budget? So even discounting the one time sale of GM shares, the downfall in the price of oil and the Canadian dollar, PM Harper has a balanced budget?

No, the Reform/CA was a vocal mixture of varying type of conservatives.........."Grandpa Clark" rejected the CPC for the same reasons he rejected working with (the conservative) Socreds in 1979, which resulted in Clark losing his job as Prime Minister...... Stockwell Day, like George W Bush, wasn't/isn't a Neocon, but a social conservative........

I'm not fully critical, I just very much so gave the Trudeau Liberals props, likewise I cited after the debate that I felt Trudeau won....... At the end of the day, how is it different than NDP or Liberal supporters going after the Tories? No hypocrisy there? I read your chasing of Argus of Harper deficit spending, but you seem remiss in mentioning that both the Liberals and NDP wanted even more.........are you, Waldo, also a HIPPPPPOCRIT?

As said to you before, the CPC feels no need to unveil major policy nearly two months prior to the election...........As to your description of wedge politics and your "calling me out", is it wrong to call into question Mulcair's magical promises? They're putting it out there, is it not then fair game?

I can't give you more details from within the weeds of NDP policy Waldo........their promises lack details and costings, and they've removed pages of policy from their website........it appears by the many holes in the financials of the NDP's plans, that they are making them up on the fly........again, this is a true (and surprising) contrast between the two leftist visions...........I thought Mulcair would shine better in the debates and their roll out of policy would be fully costed, versus a Trudeau embarrassment in the debates and fluff policies..........But so far, the inverse is true........ Mulcair sounds like the drunken sailor, and Trudeau, a true adherent of Keynesian economics.....of which I disagree with much, but do support the notion of public investment in national infrastructure.........CO-OP housing in Kitts not included.........