Signals.Cpl

See, claiming that the Conservatives stole billions of dollars is like claiming that the NDP is the righteous party. Every Political party is composed of human beings, and just like human beings every political party has dirty laundry. I stand by my assessment that the conservatives are not corrupt more or less then any other part, you seem to believe that corruption is exclusively Liberal and Conservative problem and it is not, Corruption is a part of politics and the NDP is a part of the political system. Every person has something to hide, something they have done wrong or are ashamed of, the same extends to politics and political parties. Just wait once the dust settles and people start looking in to the NDP and their dealings things will come up that they would rather keep secret. Its true for me, its true for you and everyone else, if you don't believe that you are lying to yourself, naive or you live in a bubble.

Just because you don't know of it, does not mean it did not happen. Obviously the NDP is trying to push this as far as it could go and the moral high ground would be lost if they admitted that they do the same exact thing.

I dont disprove of this. As I said, there should be an investigation as to wether the election results were effected by the activity in question. If the MPs were caught doing something iligal and it was proven that their actions tipped the election in the riding decisively in their favour I am all of a reelection in those ridings. What I am against is the NDP and the Liberals losing in the election and pushing for reelection in order to push the Conservatives in to a minority government. If there is a cause to believe that the ridings in question would have gone to the NDP or liberals if it was not for the illegal activity then by all means do go ahead. If it is as you mentioned a case of getting reimbursed for expenses that were not existent then follow the law, if the law says reelection go ahead, if the law says give them a fine, go right ahead but don't invent punishments just because the NDP did not win the election.

Yeah sure. I highly doubt that the NDP never used that method or anything similar, only difference is until last election they were irrelevant and now the conservatives are under scrutiny and no one is looking at the NDP.

Is anyone investigating wether the Liberals and the NDP used the same tactic or are we to go with their word?

I dont agree with that statement. Find the people responsible and punish them but overturning the democratic election because of a few crooks is not the way to go. In all honesty do you think that the NDP, Liberals, Green Party or the BQ are going to be different? Politics as a whole has a corrupt segment which needs to be removed, and concentrating on the one party while ignoring the others is not the way to go. Strict punishments for corrupt officials,selection in ridings where it is proven beyond a doubt that illegal actions during the election were decisive in victory of one party or the other would be the way to go, but overturning 5.5million votes because of the actions of a few is not justified in my mind.

I have been to Cuba a number of times and every time I have gone to the nearby town/city and so far I have not seen anything that would suggest it is dangerous.When I go to Cuba they have encouraged us to go and visit the towns and cities and I have never seen any acts of aggression by Cubans. The only violence against Canadians in Cuba that I have witnessed was by fellow Canadians and the Cubans took care of those troublemakers.

MSVS-2011 Shipbuilding strategy-2010 Chinooks -2009 Leopard 2-2007 JSS-2009 Arctic Patrol Ship Project-2007 All of this projects were approved after 2006.

Where o where did I say that?

You are green. Thats an opinion not a fact, therefore since I have no proof of the colour of your skin being green I should not present it as a fact. Thats the thing, we should present facts in an argument because thats how we can convince the other side, If you cannot provide proof for what you say then make sure it is clearly stated as an opinion rather then being presented as a fact. And since we are (I assume) not in high school anymore we can leave all the gossip and all of the he/she did this behind your back. If we are to hold the politicians to a standard we have to follow the same standard, if we are on a political forum discussing serious local, national or international stories we have to maintain a certain level of integrity about us rather then let this forum become a place for allegations that are unproven and cannot be proven. The conservatives cut a number of jobs during the last budget is a factual statement I can back up,Thomas Mulcair eats babies is not something to be presented as a fact.

There were 1,000,000 rioters in Toronto During the G8/G20. I can post a source supporting my claim that there were 100 rioters would that in turn prove my statement of the million rioters? Or the fact that the crime rate increased by 30% while I provide sources to support a 3% increase? What if the Conservative's come forward and claim they saved taxpayers 100 billion dollars while they only saved 100million, would you agree with the assessment that wether they saved 100million or 100billion its all the same?

So when is the last time this was used to select a replacement for the CF equipment? Was it used when the G-Waggons were chosen? What about when the LSVW's were selected? When the government gave out the contract for the MSVS, did they use this exact criteria? It seems to me that the criteria being used here is just for political purposes and when it is convenient the opposition will forget about this criteria.

I wanted a source for that one thing and ONLY that one thing, so you providing me a source that proves nothing about the claim he made that interested me in the first place. So next time you ask someone to provide a source. or you ask a question people should just provide something irrelevant?

Wait so you were addressing a point I was not asking about?

Source? Now where is the source for this? I was quite specific you seem to ignore things that don't help your argument.

10 April 2012 - 10:16 PM Looks to me like I was pretty specific.

See, I asked for sources, you provide a source that is irrelevant to the quote I wanted a source for and then proceeded to try and twist everything I say to fit your agenda. I don't support corruption, never have and never will.

Lets not start this again. Re-read m posts, and do so without the bias.

Re-read it again.

No Canadian Deaths in Cuba, while a number of Canadian deaths in the US less then 10 but it still makes it more likely to die in the US then Cuba if you are Canadian.

And I asked for a source specifically for that one quote and you tried to twist everything I say to make it fit your agenda.

I asked for a source, and you decided to get involved. All you did was try to make it sound like I support corrupt conservatives because I question the BS artist's accusation.

-11 April 2012 - 09:31 PM Page #4 -12 April 2012 - 04:10 PM Page #4 -12 April 2012 - 04:22 PM Page #4 -12 April 2012 - 05:35 PM Page #4 Seems to me you are admitting that the BS artist lied and then you try to justify the lie.

I do know who I am talking to, but you seem to defend the BS artist. Go back and read who started this whole issue.

It is actually simple, take a stand for once in your life. Do you back up the BS quote or not?