CdnFox

They're talking about one year in prison. You can't put people in prison for a bylaw violation.

Yes and no - and for the vast majority of countries it's always been illegal. There is influencing and then there is interference. I did a post not long ago comparing the russian efforts in the US elections with the Chinese efforts. it's night and day. You cross a line at a point and the americans have not, the russians haven't that we know of, the chinese appear to have done so. It's not 'normal'. That's like saying murder is "normal" so we shouldn't complain about it. It happens but it is not to be tolerated nor is it the 'normal' course of events. Well you would be wrong. There's actually zero evidence that the united states gov't puts funding into or attempts to get leverage over any of our politicians. And if such evidence DOES emerge then they should be 'singled out' every bit as much. But every candidate isn't receiving large amounts of money in violation of the act. Nor are they having their aids arranged to be agents of another gov't. Nor are they being pressured if they have family in that other country. If you have evidence that they are you should put it forward. We DO have evidence of that from China. There is a fundamental difference between doing business with china and letting them buy our elections. Harper did business with china, but he also called them out on human rights issues and met with the Dalai lama and did a bunch of other things in their face. When they complained he told them to suck our oil. Doing business with someone actually gives you some power over them. But this is something completely different. You are correct tho that it's up to us, the voters have to toss the libearls out over this and elect gov'ts who are willing to dig into it and get to the bottom of it.

Not to be mean or anything but if this thread had any less of a point it would be a perfect sphere.

The Odds of the UCP winning the most seats is 81 percent. The big challenge for the ndp is that the budget just put forward was really clever. It's got a surplus but not an outrageous one, and it increases spending in several key areas such as health. It's actually a very moderate budget. So the ndp won't be able to point at it and say 'Look at all the cuts" or anything. They can only say "Yeah but our budget would increase spednind MOAR. And go into deficit. " They're going to have a tough time showing voters why they are substantially different than the UCP. https://338canada.com/alberta/

And yet you must know SOMETHING is deep down - you keep coming back desperate to try to get someone to buy into them and agree with you. Honest ideals held by honest men don't need others to justify them. There is much wrong with what you've said, but if you have to explain the concepts to someone it's probably better that they just muddle along with their misconceptions. You're probably not hurting anyone with it. But it's like explaiing a joke to someone - they ain't gonna 'get it' if you have to spell it out.

So much common sense in one place MAY cause the leftist who read it to reach critical density and collapse into an apoplectic black hole I can't see how something like that would be remotely legal or enforceable. further what people who disapprove of that kind of thinking have to realize is trying to repress it gives it strength. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". We'll see.

Again - desperate and frantic to convince others. Sigh Oh - and that's not what "ad hominem" means. It's not 'ad hominem' in the slightest. I'm not discounting your argument just because YOU are dumb, i'm saying it's a dumb argument. At least bother to look up what words mean before you use them, if it's not too much trouble. You can start with Honour perhaps.

Well that's the thing - you're not. You're noticing i'm not buying your nonsense and you feel compelled to try to explain yourself at great length to justify your position. I don't do that. I just respond essentially with 'yeah well whatever' and don't really care. You become emotionally invested and frenzied to convince people your vision of reality has some merit. Sorry - too late to go back and fix that now. Like i said I'm not your threrapist, you'll have to learn how to live with your views on your own.

All joking aside, I think asking Canadians what kind of gear or the like that we should have is a fruitless exercise. Obviously we're not really qualified to answer. I think it would make more sense to talk to canadians about how they'd like to see their military used, but even then it's a little bit of a silly exercise because most people dont' spend time thinking or researching it and probably don't even consider all the areas that they should even if they WOULD agree to it if someone brought it up. I think it would make more sense to me for a group of expert military and focused politicians to basically say 'here's what we expect to reasonably require our military to do, and we're equipping and training it with those missions in mind, please let us know if you have thoughts. Then they can get public input and fine tune the plan if it seems warranted. As to training and equipment, they really need to be the experts there. I DO believe our military is a little out of touch with the latest and greatest JUST a little bit. I imagine all militarys are a little, there's that old saying that generals are always trying to figure out the last war. So i do wish we had some sort of department or military org that focused on really trying to examine how to innovate and fight the NEXT war and we should be crawling over every conflict we can get into to examine tactics and what failed and imagine new ways to fight. Ukraine for example has really shown what smaller drones can do, are we incorporating that into our tactics?

Don't be silly, that's not true. Our guys can't shoot down balloons.

Do you know how everyone here can tell you KNOW you're wrong? And that you don't really believe what you're saying? You keep coming back again and again to say it. You're desperate. You're literally afraid people won't agree and you MUST convince them. You can't let it go. If you really believed in your heart what you say that wouldn't happen. You notice i'm not trying to convince you of anything and i've said many times 'well thats that you do you lets move on". But you CAN'T. Because you know deep down what you're saying makes you kind of a bad person and you desperately need the approval of others to justify it. Sorry - i'm not your therapist. I can't help you find peace with THAT kind of thinking. I'd feel bad if i thought that way too. Maybe if you're having such a problem reconciling it you should reconsider your position or look at why it bothers you so much.

It would be great if nothing comes of it, but it does show the lengths to which the russians will go to get their way. I've always thought the whole J Edgar Hoover thing in the states and the 'commie' witchhunts were pretty much unjustified and the whole 'subversion' thing unlikely - watching russia these days is making me really reconsider that.

LOL sure kiddo - keep telling yourself that This from a guy who couldn't even spell 'm o r o n' and now looks like a total turd because he thought it wasn't possible and got shown up ROFLMAO!!!! Well i imagine someone with your kind of fail levels in life has to say whatever they can to prevent crying themselves to sleep at night so sure - you go ahead and call me whatever you like little guy

And yet you should be. So - lets leave it there.

Ohhh Dougie - like i said if someone has to explain what honor is to you - you haven't got it and it's probably not worth the effort to try to explain it to you. You just carry on pretending - it'll let you sleep at night

You're correct of course but i'm not sure i see the relevance to the subject at hand, other than just a general commentary.

Well of course you do. But honestly if you have to explain to someone how honour works, they're probably never going to have it, so i won't waste your time trying to go over it. You just worry about william. I'm sure you'll be fine.

I noticed.

Sooooo - you feel it proves i am one and you're not because you can't spell it? ROFLMAO!!! well. Guess that answers the question which one of us is nicely Ok - it's spelled M O R O N. How hard was that? Yeash

Tell me you know i'm right and you're wrong without telling me Hey - you had to know most of that was bullshit when you posted it. Did you hope no one would read it? Sorry kiddo - you really crapped the bed on that one. You must be pretty desperate to try to justify voting for the left. ANd what's your infatuation with licking buts? Freudian slip? You see yourself licking someone's so you project that on others if they disagree with you? Well - hope you're at least getting paid for it, tho it wouldn't surprise me if you just give it up for free. You seem the type.

Sure. So you keep saying. We have a name for when people think like you in the writing world - bad character development. Anyway, nobody says you have to be a good Canadian, you can dishonor whatever duties you like in favour of the ones you do in this land. Now - if you don't mind the Canadians are talking here.

Yeah but you're not a canadian veteran by your own statements, you didn't do it for canada. You did it for william et al. Sooooo - why should we respect your service exactly? I mean - any more than we would respect any soldier from another country? You're not loyal to Canada so why would we have any particular loyalty or regard for you other than the norm we would have for anyone else?

Satire is not synonymous with irony. At all. In fact satire is actually fairly protected against libel.

Oh please Well lets take a look Conservatives were found to be INNOCENT on the robocalls thing. All evidence pointed to one guy who did it on his own. FAIL Conservative "sting" operation - this was done by a single girl who VOTES CONSERVATIVE - not someone working for or connected with the gov't . It had nothing to do with harper. COMPLETE FAIL Del Maestro was sentanced because he overspent on his OWN campaign. It didn't benefit harper nor did harper know about it. FAIL "reprehensible Tricks" - this has nothing to do with corruption. This is politics. Politicians frequently pull this crap on each other. He didn't abuse his power, they did nothing ethically wrong and certainly nothing illegal. FAIL Bar Crosbie - Again, this is political but it has nothing to do with corruption or ethics and liberals and even ndp "parachute" preferred candidates into ridings all the time. You might not like it but it's just politics and not corruption or illegal. More 'dirty tricks' - see above. Also unproven in this case Unfixing fixed election - this one is just a blatant lie. In a minority gov't the OPPOSITOIN can bring the house down any time it wants regardless of law. THe opposition signaled they wanted to do that, harper met with every single leader asking if there was ANYTHING they could agree to work on and keep the gov't going, they all admit they said no. Well in a minority that means an election. He didnt' break it - they just wanted to have one and you can't pass a law that forbids that. "record use of personal attacks". Also bullshit. Seriously the liberals have done that MORE in every single election. "Secret agenda". "will bring back abortion". "soldiers in the streets". Ringing any bells? That's just childish. I guess we can stop there. The rest are teh same. Many are completely untrue. most of the remaining ones are just things the author doesn't like but aren't corrupt or abuses of power at all, and what's left is grossly distored. And in each case the liberals have previously done the same things and said that it was ok. So complaining when harper does it is just political nonsense. Like when he prorogued parliament - everyone claimed it was horrible but EVERY gov't EVER has done that. But ONLY when harper does it is it bad. In conclusion - if that was your best shot then i'm afraid you have been dishonest with us. Harper did nothing corrupt or remotely illegal at all. the closest we come to that is duffey, where he tried to use his power to FORCE SOMEONE TO GIVE TAXPAYER MONEY BACK TO THE PEOPLE. More scandals like that please.

You prefer the term collar and chain?