CdnFox

Well at least we're thinking about it. We may not be able to manufacture our own fighter jets or tanks but it felt like drones should have been within our wheelhouse

Potentially better question is why aren't we looking at making our own? I mean I'm sure we could buy some tech or advice or plans from Ukraine and look at our own improvements for their own military industry. There might be value in expensive drones but there's clearly some value in the cheaper ones too

You mean like when they call the emergency act on people for bringing bouncy castles? You've been very supportive of people like that in the past. Even though a judge has ruled that it was an unlawful use of that act. Perhaps your words would have more impact if you practiced consistency

Sounds like a lie. May not have been on the forum but we know the guy, and that just doesn't sound right. You on the other hand come across as a little sus. So based on the Balance of probabilities I'm going to have to call bullshit on that

Sure we do. They're critical for several reasons. Why is it you think we don't need any? That is a real possibility.

Honestly I think there's a certain element of truth to that. There is a very distinct call and cry for attention side to his posts, and he's desperate for people to acknowledge him. I think generally he feels ignored and his anger at that in the real world gets triggered here. He seeks a peer group and even if he has to act out to get attention he will. But i also genuinely believe he's a young kid, so he'll probably grow out of it

I actually tried to explain that this was going to happen when carney began making some of his announcements to some of the people here on the board. Announcing military spending is not the same as making military spending' I do notice that carney is planning on having up to 300,000 civil servants qualify as a special reserve force by making them take a one-week course once a year and then becoming reservists essentially. He's creating a new bureaucracy for this which will have dozens and dozens and dozens of new bureaucratic managers all getting paid what will now be labeled as defense spending. He's also paying $800,000 a year to the guy who will be in charge of procurement as well as giving him a special ministry and there's not really much money to procure new items in the budget. So what are we paying that guy for? But he'll count towards military spending. At least I hope, that the serving military guys will get a pay increase. I expect efforts for recruitment will also go up. But most of the capital spending that some were hoping would translate into extensive military equipment probably won't make it to the books anytime in the near future

I accept your admission of defeat Wow you really are giving it up easy these days You spend all day worrying about what I think of you and what other people think of you and what @taxme thinks of you. You freak out when you realize you look stupid. You have no self-esteem and are desperate for our approval and come begging for it on a regular basis and lose your crap when you don't get it. LOLOL still don't know how English works do you All you ever call me is factual. Well that's a good thing to call me because I'm always factual. So it's appropriate that you refer to me as factual. Go beat up your English teacher, they really have it coming

He wasn't remotely charming and absolutely nobody anywhere ever referred to him as such. It was a constant criticism. Remember when he shook his kid's hand going to school? Made the papers for weeks. Remember when he showed up at the debates trying to 'dress down' and be more 'relatable' and layton asked him "where's your plan? Is it under your sweater vest?" The only time he was ever seen as even human is when he sung the beetles song that one time and his popularity soared because people saw him as human for the first time, Lets not try to rewrite history here He did well because he delivered. Best response to the Great Recession with other countries openly seeking canada's advice, constantly delivered what he said he would with very few exceptions (notibly income trusts early on but not much more than that), and his ideas were extremely effective But he did NOT run great campaigns and he was NOT charismatic At the time i coined the phrase "if you don't have a charismatic man you better have a charismatic plan", Meaning if your guy isn't attractive then the story he's selling voters better be Pierre Trudeau made the modern debt and plunged the country into a decade of stagnation and in affordability, now with some help from his son who is doubled down on that and made it worse. It's like saying Hitler made modern germany. Not untrue but that's not a good thing

All you do here all day is post insults and name calling. That's 99.8% of your posts. Sometimes complete with ass porn. You could hypocrite for the olympics

Says every traitor

I shot down your stupidity and I see now you're afraid to engage me again and address the points I made. The partisan here is you. You are also the one who's incapable of reflection. And as usual it only takes about two posts for you to embarrass yourself.

But they were and you didn't actually refute it. I pointed out exactly what the difference was.

Crowd turnout was actually pretty good where I usually go. Mind you it's a pretty nice day today and more like plus 10 which helps

Complete nonsense. It sounds like you expect an opposition party to sit there and clap for the government. Calling someone adversarial in a Westminster parliamentary system suggests that you have no idea how the system works. It is confrontational and adversarial! You don't sit there and suck up to the other side and say how great they are, you call them out for the things that they're not doing well. Trudeau literally called ministers when harper was in power pieces of shit. The whole angry man thing is a complete manufactured falsehood narrative that people push trying desperately to discredit him rather than address the issues he raises. As if there would ever be a conservative leader that you would point to and say oh how wonderful. No matter what a conservative reader does you're going to point at them and say this is why they're the most terrible thing in the entire universe because that's what you do. But here's the thing, despite everything you still got 41% of the vote. And if he had presented a slightly better argument as to why he's better or carney had had any track record to run against he would have won. Carney's approval ratings are slipping every month and the CPC is already pulling ahead of the liberals again. And it hasn't even been a year. The conservatives are not the one with the problem right now

There is a huge amount of land between charming and good looking small and homely Harper was never charming, in fact I remember when he first went into the house after being elected and the opposition accused him of seducing the voters and he said essentially "That's absolutely ridiculous, my wife is in the gallery today and can confirm that I've never been able to seduce anyone in my entire life" The problem is good leaders have a tough time being elected, and charming and good looking leaders have a tough time governing once elected. Trudeau was always very charming but he was a complete disaster as a leader. Carney was very charming but isn't doing that great so far either. The first Trudeau was very charming but was a disaster for Canada. There have been leaders that were fairly charming and also good at their job. But they are relatively rare. You're always better off as a rule with a leader you may not be that charming but is a solid performer

Then what was the problem with harper? You say he was a loser But he won three elections

Sorry should have been Chretien. My spell checker doesn't really like that name That really should have been obvious but I forgot how dumb you are.. I was just checking to see if you were hypocrite. You claim that harper is a failure because he lost an election or was thrown out of power. Chretien was thrown out by his party, Martin lost an election justin was thrown out.... they were all losers according to your measure. So that'd be 'yes' to you being a hypocrite No surprise, just pointing it out to others But harper got elected. Three times. And he claims harper's a failure because he lost his last election But you call harper a failure and he was prime minister. Got you again kiddo LOLOLOL

Title says it all. For those who gave up their lives in the past, for those who suffered incredible hardship and lived with fear and violence wondering if they would ever see their loved ones again in order to ensure that we had a chance to build a life that we believed in I could be proud of. my most heartfelt thanks for your sacrifice. And for those who served and stood ready to give up their lives for the same reasons, and those who will as they answer the call in the future, thank you for your commitment. Least we forget. In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie, In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.

Well, It's hard to think poorly of someone for their passions

You vote liberal. You're not making a particularly compelling argument considering you want to win the next election and therefore if what you're saying is true would want Poilievre to stay So you're saying Gretchen was a failed leader? And Paul Martinmust have been a fair later too then? Justin is definitely a failed leader by your measure It sounds to me like the liberals have been failing every bit as much!

And it's tradition to put a deposit down if you're going to order one. And it is very common for procurements to be in the budget if they're anticipated in the next year or two even if they don't get bought in the next year. The money is set aside Can you think of a time when that hasn't happened? I don't remember time when a military procurement of any size wasn't in the budget before the year the check was due. It's not like they're going to build them for us and hope we pay them everything at the end, there will be an upfront and then regular payments to be made as progress is completed. So it would seem that they have no intention of even considering making a decision in the next year or two.

454 posts is your top number of posts? Sounds like a really popular winning place Black dog used to come here quite a bit. But this place tends to filter out the mental rechecks. I see they found a home at your place.

It didn't even show up in the budget. It would appear that we're a long way away from actually buying any submarines. I imagine he'll comment when there's something to comment on but right now it's a whole lot of nothing

awww.... well there's my mental image of you two shattered.