Derek 2.0

I'm not deflecting anything, I was conversing with member smallc on the Trudeau Liberal's Newspeak on the previous page

What reason would I have to speak to a previous Government's policies in the context of a thread on the Liberal's defense review.............how is this, the previous Government planned to continue funding several ongoing programs, including several started by the previous Liberal Government, and earmarked over $3 billion for said programs.........the present Government, despite promises not to remove funding during the election, have now removed funding "to be held in reserve in the future" from several ongoing programs, including programs started by a previous Liberal Government. This Government, as you quoted above, cites "delays" as the reason to remove funding...........my question, in what Liberal reality does the removal of funding address delays? That's akin to addressing head trauma to a person in a coma by removing life support.......No more life = no more coma......In Trudeau land, problems fix you

I read the entire thing numerous times..........does the Liberal promise of holding money in "reserve" for some future date carry as much weight as their $10 billion deficit promise?

There is no problem, other than its divorced from the present reality.......Trudeau already taking an axe to the military and hasn't even completed his faux defense review.........never saw that one coming

Nice deflection.........subtraction of budgeted funds is a cut.........that's simple math.

This is no game, I cited the article that is confirmed by the DND......money that was once there and is now no longer there is a cut.... And no, I'm not twisting anything, that is you......in the article it clearly states that it is not clear what portions of said cut programs the money is from.....hence you either have another source that you can cite or you're making up your assertion. So are you playing the smallc game of stating an unfounded opinion as fact?

In relation to the AOPS, are you suggesting Postmedia and the DND are incorrect in stating 10s of millions of dollars earmarked for the program have now been withheld? That is a cut....... Likewise, how do you know the "totality of the money is not needed" until post 2021? Do you understand the concept of long lead items and economies of scale? What exactly was the money earmarked for? And why did the Liberals cut the Cyclone program? The Halifax life extension? New body armor and load carrying devices for the army?

Moot point, as the previous Government isn't conducting said defense "review", hasn't clawed back spending for various programs with this year's budget and isn't....well.....the Government....... Does the Waldo have a timeline as to when choices made by this Government can't be blamed on the ones previous?

Here's something interesting, which has been spoken to a year+ ago (Chinese polar icebreakers, forget which topic): I wonder if the Chinese Government has been in talks with the Trudeau Government? Furthermore: I read that as the Chinese approach to shipping in the South China Sea..........we'll do whatever said country wants, as long as it aligns with our own foreign policy........ I wonder the importance this Government sees in protecting our (Arctic) sovereignty.........based on it already making cuts to the Arctic patrol ship program, among many others, not very much...... Good thing Trudeau admires Communist China's ability to get things done

I don't know that I ever said Trump was stupid..........more a gifted showman and grifter like a modern P.T. Barnum............

I don't know the extent of admiration held by Lindbergh (or the Kennedy family) for the Nazis........but in the context of the 1930s, National Socialism brought Germany Goosestepping out of the depression with public (infrastructure) spending.....that doesn't make FDR or Trudeau Nazis though.... In the context of the US General Election, Clinton/Trump/Sanders/Cruz/Kasich all seek to put America First.......the differences are found within the presentation and mouth noises.......as I said (to you?) before, on the surface of foreign and economic policy, Sanders and Trump have more in common with their populist mantra than a Clinton/Cruz/Kasich.

Without a doubt, not surprised the least that the American people are coming to the realization that its time for the rest of the World to pull up its collective socks............much like the America of the 1930s.

I hope he does, as it stands, a Scheer or a Rempel would be my favorites......they're both young and intelligent, and could be viable to run through two election cycles if required (to dethrone Trudeau).

I hadn't heard that Obama had put so much pressure on the United Kingdom to boost their defense spending.....A truly bipartisan issue among both parties......defense freeloaders like Canada should be put on notice in the advent of a Clinton or Trump administration.

Ahh no, America First was a group of depression era anti-war isolationists, comprised namely of socialists and Quakers.......though disjointed, many of Trump's foreign policy stances would be right at home with a Ron/Rand Paul or even a Bernie Sanders (combined with Trump's economic protectionism).

I don't know which was sadder, Cruz's "big announcement" or Trump's discombobulated forty minute, scripted, foreign policy speech The one good thing to come out of it though, there won't be a mention of Trump or Cruz in the next MLW GOP nomination thread, nor in the 2020 election thread

What details? McCain's recap of the history of the program? Why would I highlight McCain's remarks in response to your dated claim on the F-35's software? . Feel good politics? You're suggesting that Senator John "Maverick" McCain is playing feel good politics with the F-35? Why would he do that?

What am I deflecting?

His remarks from yesterday, were in the link I provided yesterday, I do note that you didn't quote his closing remarks though: I suppose the Waldo ran out of room to quote this above portion of Sen. McCain's remarks........what's wrong with Waldo?

I spoke to the GAO's major concerns........and provided all the actual concerns, with the actual report (not a picture of a portion of a draft report) and DOD's actual response as reported by the GAO..........the problem is what? I provide the entire report released several weeks ago........and you cite a picture of a portion of the page of the draft report.......yet I'm the one deflecting

Waldo, said remarks were in the link I cited the other day, likewise his positive remarks about the program......and you want to talk about deflecting? I cited a report, with said remarks, before you........you're losing a step Waldo

Say what? I just cited a link, that speaks directly to the cited 30 days..........from 2013 Waldo, do try and get with the program Your days old statement has been common knowledge for years..........

No I didn't, the response starts on page 46 of the actual report.........not the pdf file page.

The NG is the Gripen E.....and no, its not in service........the first purpose built Gripen E won't be rolled out until next month......if you're going to push the aircraft, you could at least go to the trouble of following the program

I cited my response to you.