Derek 2.0

In regards to procurement, it certainly is incompetence born out of managerial failings bestowed upon the department in the late 1960s, coupled with partisan politics, to complete the logic and efficiency sink. Not really……..there are clearly viable solutions presented by industry……the failings stem from upper management selecting the wrong cars, granted this is often corrupted by the elected government and civil servants determining the wrong cars are produced in a adventitious ridings/regions found within Canada.

There hasn't? Seaspan, like Irving, also required upgrading their own yards before taking on the actual production.....Likewise, the ongoing Canadianization of the parent TKMS design for the Canadian shipbuilder…. Or do you suggest it's Harper's fault that the ship builder has yet to finish upgrading their yard, likewise being unable to produce a ship without blueprints? You purchase a car for 25k and I purchase a car for 25k………your car comes fully loaded, my car is missing a tire and a door……..You advocate that if I had more money, I could be trusted with purchasing a car similar to yours. I advocate figuring out why I can’t purchase a car like yours, for the same amount of money I blew on my lemon. Likewise, the fact that your household income is 75K and mine is 100k, and we choose to both allocate the same amount of funds to purchasing our new cars plays little into the equation…….That you choose to spend a greater percent of your income on a new car and I spend less a percent, doesn’t impact my ability to purchase an incomplete car for the same actual dollar total spent by you…… Prior to giving me more money to purchase additional cars, perhaps we should examine why I can’t purchase a similar car to yours for the same amount of money spent…….or risk my spending 50K on two broken cars.

Did you not state in this thread that there has been no movement on new ships? I never suggested Australia gets less bang for their buck......quite the opposite in terms of actual money spent.

......yet the ships start construction next year. Back what up? That the Australians had a similar sized deployable force to contribute to Afghanistan and Iraq as us, all the while, having a significantly smaller overall military in terms of people? Or that they have a much more fluid procurement system, that transcends changes in Government? All of course with a similar outlay in actual dollars spent. Or that DND is conducting an internal review?

Did Clinton/the Democrats benefit (in the polls) from the Bills passing?

I would assume so......I doubt Irving is starting construction next fall for free. Better yet, why can the Australians achieve a more capable (in some areas) military, with a similar financial output (in actual money spent) as Canada? An actual fiscal Conservative, would ask this question and conduct a review (as is currently ongoing within DND) prior to blindly shovelling more money into the black hole that is the DND.

One would assume, if the legislation was bad (from a Dem POV), Clinton could have vetoed it yet again no? Why did Clinton choose to not to veto it?

But not thrice...

To get somewhat back on topic: More evidence on the “lack” of movement on the part of the Government is regards to defense procurement.

Did Clinton not have the power to veto the bill if it was such a $hit sandwich?

Perhaps that’s why the Liberals, from what I’ve heard, are flirting with mandatory voting as policy.

If those examples came with the potential for votes (leading to victory), I've no doubt a party would run on it....Reform once favoured capital punishment, but as they moved to the centre, dropped it.........they dropped it not because it was popular.

Without a doubt…….A draft dodger from Pasadena or Montreal could clearly be seen as a coward by some or a hero by others.

Perhaps through the lens of an Egyptian……clearly it’s a matter of perspective and context.

Yes, but then of course (as mentioned) politics within a democracy is merely a reflection of the electorate………If Canadians actually wanted “drastic changes”, then the large parties would incorporate them into their campaigning......cause and effect.

"Structure, meaning and dignity" for those on welfare?

Centrist…..mainstream…incrementalism…….same song different verses I suppose, none the less, Canada is largely all of the above.

Such as Clinton/Newt/PRWORA........another example of what is in the realm of the possible.

You never suggested it? If I thought you were worth the effort, I'd revisit your manifestos.

No, I put little stock in them........namely over a year out.

No, there's a whole host of your "positions" that appear fringe.........I noticed you refrained from addressing your proposed final solution on the disabled.

The changes that you allude to, but aren't brought forth, because of our governing system:

Did they actually see the war for what it was……..or were they just yellow? Could the same be said of Canadians that fled to the United States at the onset of the First World War? What of Canadians that dodged the Second World War? Smart Canadians or just cowards?

I thought you asked for examples of bipartisan legislation during the Bush administration…….I didn’t know you had qualifiers.

No Child Left behind..........Medicare drugs & HSA '03.....Trade Act of 2002.....pension protection act (2006)...Energy independance & security act '07....and of course Stimulus and TARP