CdnFox

Two acts of parliament that comprise a massive number of laws as well as substantial separate regulations which are enabled by the acts. Yes Uh huh. I just named two laws. Why don't you address those? Did you just realize you were wrong and now you're desperately trying to change the channel? By the way regulations are different than laws. An act of parliament, sometimes casually referred to as a law, enables the regulations. So there you go. You can't even do what deal with the two I presented without freaking out I guess that's your little way of admitting defeat but kind of childish if you ask me

Funny Side Story, the hunting regulations do not speak of bucks and does but rather antlered and antlerless, because every now and then there is such a thing as a doe with antlers I don't want to blame you for making that mistake No word yet on whether or not the females with antlers are allowed to play in any reindeer games

Different better or different worse though I wonder. This war started without a clear understanding of what its end would look like if it went well it usually doesn't end too great

That's an outer lie and everybody's pointing that out to you over time. I've said it a million times others have said it now goddess is saying it. You're fooling no one You're not here saying the conservatives are no better. You are here saying that the liberals are great and the conservatives are terrible and you did that under Justin and you're doing it under Carney

no no no not possible!!! @BeaverFever has been screeching at me like a banshee for days about how that's a LIE LIE LIE and anyone who says different doesn't' know what they're talking about!!!! You must be "ONE OF THEEEEEMMMMM" I just don't even see how that's controversial. It seems so obvious to me That you can't refer to this as new military spending And yet again we've got at least two people here arguing February that it absolutely is I said the same thing as you, I can see why they might choose to do it and it's not the worst idea I've ever heard of but it's not new military spending. I got called names for saying that I just don't understand how somebody can be so blindly loyal to the liberals that these things which seem so obvious are so hard for them to accept

Trees and coast guard are? Are you really this stupid? Do I really have to hold your hand and walk through this yet again with you? Tens of billions of dollars of this spending had nothing to do with the military. The coast guard is not the military . And you keep insisting it is and that all this was military spending. 🙄🙄🙄🙄 A four year old can figure out if they spent 10 billion on the coast guard, then DECIDED to call that 'military spending and claimed that the military spending went up by 10 billion dollars, that in reality there's no new military spending there. FFS. you're getting dumber with each post. Its literally getting hard to believe this.

Yeah that's really not going over well. All over the news and the press are asking all kinds of questions about it but the liberals don't want to answer and they're just not looking good. Add into it that he's a floor Crosser to begin with which puts him in the slightly shady category and most people's minds and this isn't a good look for the liberals LOL, he just can't manage to fool anyone can you

It is quite true in making false accusations doesn't change it any more than lying about it does I'm sorry you're having an emotionally difficult time coping with this but it is unfortunately for you the facts no, beaver. I know exactly what I'm talking about and so do the other people that are telling you exactly the same thing and so do the newspaper articles and other documentation which 100% supports that position This isn't controversial or open to interpretation. Things like the coast guard being transferred to the military budget is in no way shape or form new military spending. This is not something that can be argued. This is a simple fact. They took something that was not military and decided to call it military, it's not new military spending Do you have ANY idea what a delusional nutbar you sound like trying to pretend otherwise? Jezus kid, i get you love Carney that much but you need to wake up! THis is NOT HARD

No, the vast majority of them are democrats. Which is why the democrats have shut up about it

But not new spending and not really military spending That's the point.

Yeah, assuming he actually Does win I don't see this going well

The only one misrepresenting anything is you. D e I is in complete scam and it's a racist bigoted policy that should never have ever happened

I think we all appreciate your efforts to help poor @robosmith by providing that book and reading material, but I think you forgot that for it to be of any use we would have to teach him how to read first.

It's 100% true, and we did provide the evidence and links and I'm sorry that you missed that and that it upsets you but that doesn't make it not true They looked for every nickel that they could to shovel into military spending that had already been spent to give the appearance that we met our commitments Lying about it won't help. And you really need to stop with that shit, this is serious business. We're talking about the lives of our soldiers, obviously you don't care about that terribly much. You're more interested in protecting the liberals that are fighting men and women Many many billions of that 2 percent were NOT spent on anything anyone with even a quarter of a brain would consider "military", and much of it was money already in the budget in general and was previous spending relabeled. You can accept that or lie to yourself. I'll leave it up to you. But at the end of the day it means the libs did NOT dp what they claimed, which is pretty par for the course but it also means that our military is not actually substantially better off. Nice trees tho. Entirely true. And he really wasn't that much pressure to make that comment. Honestly I just don't think he knows what he's doing No that's what people who constantly lose arguments pretend to make themselves feel better. Again I've proven everything I've said here. None of it is secret none of it is controversial none of it requires some sort of ultra right media source. What you don't like is that I don't let it go when you lie. I keep coming back with facts and truths and it makes you angry but that doesn't mean they're not facts and truth As Legato has also pointed out she's very little in the way of new spending. You're just going to have to learn to cope

So I was right. And his reasoning at the time specifically was that Canada couldn't afford to be spending that much money on the military at that time because money was tight and the military didn't need the 'best' helecopter anyway. He called it the 'Cadillac' of helecopters and the military didn't deserve that during tough economic times. I don't know why you insist on pretending you disagree with me and then post that i was absolutely correct. Yeash. Anyway chretien was no friend to the military that's for sure. Broken down used subs that never did work and "no 'Cadillac ' helo's for you!"' And he flushed a billion bucks of taxpayer cash down the toilet doing it. Here's a non paywall link. Story's very old of course so the formatting is a little off How Chrétien fumbled the helicopter mission - The Globe and Mail Almost everybody takes him seriously. Almost nobody takes you seriously.

Kid just saying stupid things that have no meaning and aren't true isn't making an argument. It just makes you look dumb. IF you have an ACTUAL point or rebuttal or information then change your diapers and make it. Can't you have ONE adult conversation?

And then screw up the execution of the ideas, discover the MP's are corrupt, and blame us for both

With a doctorate in 'second breakfast'

The only one lying here is you. It's in no way shape or form suppresses the legitimate vote. The only people suppressed will be those who vote illegally. Every country has something like this except the US

Sigh. You're not listening, this is why you get your ass kicked so much. I'll say it again. I don't disapprove of folding the coast guard into the umbrella of the armed forces. BUT - you cannot pretend that the coast guard budget represents "increased military spending" if you do that. It's spending we've always done, not a penny in new spending has taken place, and it doesn't actually change our 'military'. Is that not easy to understand? Sigh, We went over this. A big hunk of the money was part of the 4 billion the liberals promised in tree planting and had nothing to do with the bases. Go back and read. So i understand the accounting just fine. Now if nato changes the rules and allows that kind of tomfoolery and it makes the Americans think we're hitting our nato commitments then so be it, BUT... you CANNOT pretend it was an ACTUAL increase in military spending. I literally mentioned the increases very specifically. FFS. I understand fine, what you don't understand is that Carney promised he'd make it happen by now anyway. I have literally backed up every single thing with facts. Why are you like this? You literally screwed up every single thing you just said and most of it was immediately available at your fingertips to know you were wrong before you said it? How the hell are you this stupid? If you have learned nothing else you should have learned that I don't open my mouth unless I know I'm right and make very few mistakes so if I said something you should have taken the time to see whether or not it was accurate instead of just opening your mouth and looking like a complete twat Do you think anybody anywhere is going to respect you for behaving like this? It's fine to have different opinions but you're just factually absolutely wrong when you shouldn't be Get it together man. Nobody's claiming you the brightest person currently on the planet but for god's sake surely you can do better than this? At any rate we didn't come close to 2% in actual military spending. We just changed the labels on some of the accounts in the books and that's my concern No he canceled the order. I literally provided proof of that and we had to pay a huge expense as a result Honestly you and link solar are peas in a pod, you can be force-fed the facts right in front of you and still screw up in your response We had helicopters on order. He canceled the helicopters. We paid like 500 million for the cancellation. The military wouldn't get his helicopters replaced for over a decade as a result Simple fact

Most people have peaks and valleys. Robo is just always peaking.

Sad but true regardless of the gov't. It IS absolutely necessary to regularly go back and clean the cobwebs and make sure that what we have is only what we need or nothing gets done, and that's not particularly 'left or right', that's just gov't.

He also cancelled the order for the sea king replacements Immediately upon taking office in 1993, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien cancelled a -billion contract to purchase 50 EH-101 helicopters (designed to replace aging Sea Kings), calling them a "Cadillac" in a time of fiscal restraint. This political move cost taxpayers roughly million in penalties, causing significant procurement delays So he cancelled more helecopters than he bought, and delayed the military getting replacements by a decade or more. Justin cancelled the purchase plan for the f35 harper started, and now a decade later they're just going to start buying them THe liberals have a long history of cancelling purchases the Conservatives have made, waiting a decade then announcing the same purchases. They are NOT a 'net' spender on the military

I actually do approve of spending on the military, but the point is.... are we? We are on paper but in the real world? You can't just change the label on a 10 billion dollar coast guard program and pretend 'military' spending actually went up 10 billion dollars. Not that i'm opposed to the move but you can see what i mean, it's not actually new money. Money on 'trees' isn't real military spending etc. I mean i get that it's important to give the impression we're hitting our nato targets for political reasons but that doesn't actually benefit our soldiers. I heard they were getting a raise, don't know if that happened, but that would be nice. But where's the AA systems, the armoured personnel stuff, and how much of what we bought went to the ukraine? That's where the aa and wheeled vehicles we bought previously went. I'd be fine with spending 2 percent on our miilitary ir we were actually getting more 'military' out of it, new gear and guns and such, but i don't think that's what's happening by and large. The only thing worse than spending no money on the military is spending completely wasted money on the military. Absolutely nothing to be proud of. That could have gone to improving wages or purchasing better gear for our guys and instead it literally got sunk

Ironically you're projecting again