Signals.Cpl

What I want is when you or anyone else makes a statement, they can back it up. If they cannot then admit it rather then trying to circle around the issue. I have no problem discussing the Conservatives, and any crimes they might commit or have committed. My main problem is with your attempt to support an accusation that is an outright lie and you are trying to steer the conversation away from it. This was BS, I know it, you know it so why don't you stop trying to twist everything I say to fit your agenda?

Why do you guys feed in to this idiot's delusions?

What I want to see is the proof of the outrageous crimes by the conservatives since there were none we can assume the claim was an outright lie and now we can get back to the discussion on hand.

I am not arguing that, I never did. I think Canadians in general deserve everything they get in federal elections because during the 1990's the Liberals kept screwing the country but kept being reelected. My personal opinion is that we need serious reforms in order to improve our system and one of those would be to eliminate the party system so that an MP votes based on the desires of the constituents that they represent rather then the party wishes which may me different then what the constituents want.

Cuba is pretty safe for Canadians more so then the US.

Best reply EVER

Well, I was really interested because it is such an obvious bullshit claim that renders the entire argument of corruption comical. If there are 3 accusation are that 1)a number of Conservative MPs scammed hundreds of thousands of dollars and you prove it great. 2)that there was election irregularity 3)then there are the billions of embezzled tax dollars that went to conservative slush funds. Number 1 and 2 are accusations that might or might not have happened but they are believable and can be proven if they did or did not happen, but then we get to the 3rd claim and thats what I want proof. That precisely why that accusation is stupid, and other like it detract from the serious conversation that is needed. Frequent untrue and exaggerated comments like the one above are pushing me to take serious and factual crimes less and less serious when it comes to the conservatives due to the almost weekly "scandal". I am not a conservative apologist but I do believe that we should keep accusations in in line with the crimes. When it comes to your position it seems to me that you are so intent on finding a crime you would be willing to overlook the truth or exaggerate a crime in order to support your view that the conservatives are the big bad wolf. Reality is they are not better or worse then any other party(Except BQ) and are no more or less corrupt then any other party. We need to punish those who are corrupt and do so regardless of the party they belong to.

How did you get to that conclusion? I really want to know WHERE and WHEN I said THAT? Be Generous with the relevant quotes where i said that.

Billion dollar guilty?

Yes it does. I think we should keep the crime in perspective and avoid inflating the numbers as somewhere down the road people can become desensitized to the crimes committed. It goes from an MP charging a government card for 500 dollars to the MP charging the card for ONLY 500 dollars. The bigger the perceived crime the less likely people will be to pay attention to something smaller. Think about it, if a government employee is caught doing something wrong/criminal, there is outrage. Now imagine if 1,000 were caught then suddenly it becomes a non story. There will always be corruption in any large governing body, we likely will never be able to completely eliminate corruption but we can try and get every corrupt official big or small.

So in other words MACKER is a liar, otherwise we would have the source.

I am more interested in this Making a claim that someone has embezzled billions of tax dollars is serious and needs some serious evidence. Even if all conservative candidates scammed the government for 100,000 dollars each that adds up to 30.8 million, if they all embezzled 1million then its 308million... Still nowhere near a billion let alone billions. The claim was made that the conservatives stole billions while you provide evidence for hundreds of thousands. Give me proof for this claim: that specifically states billions were embezzled by the conservatives and if the claim cannot be supported with facts as is likely the case withdraw the slander of such immense proportions.

Yeah, well the link said the conservatives might or might not have committed fraud. The numbers do not match up. I am more interested in this quote: People can't make a comment like that without proof.

I stated that there are corrupt politicians not that I approve or agree with them and defend them in any way shape or form. To insinuate I support corruption means you either lack ethics yourself or you lack the ability to read. Read my post again, and this time try to tune down the propaganda machine.

I agree with you 100%, what I find problematic is when people claim we need to have 100% of the cost in and then switch the tune that some cost are unforeseeable. Seems people pick and choose on what to add as long as it benefits their side of the argument.

A prayer?

But then we would be lying to the public. The Canadian public wants all the costs up front right? But if we go to war, all of the numbers that the AG gave out would be wrong, so he better give out the right estimate based on the number of operations we will be involved in as well as the future economic situation in Canada, because once again if the economy goes down the drain, the Military can cut the numbers and this would mean less operations and exercises and less support crews and infrastructure.

I guess improving infrastructure to hopefully lower the cost of living in the north would be a great start. Another one would be more military aircraft up north to assist the Rangers so if there is some disturbance anywhere in our territory we can be in a better position to investigate any and all incidents. I don't think it helps our claims up north if we can't a) Show the door to anyone who might be trespassing in our airspace or through our waters and b)The fact that the rangers could report an explosion on our territory and it would take us several days to investigate.

Thank You for the source but I was more interested in the evidence for this claim: I figure if you are to post outrageous lies it should be in a fiction forum. I am not defending the Conservatives, yes I do think that there is corruption, but I think the corruption you speak of is not concentrated in one party alone. To me every party big or small will have a certain degree of corruption, thats just part of politics as some people go in to politics for the money and power. Who ever thinks that the conservatives are the only corrupt organization in Ottawa I have some news for you, every other party does it and most likely when or if they are elected someone will air their dirty laundry as well. It seems to me that many people who disagree with Harper are spitting on the rest of the country that voted in the Conservatives in a majority. Brigette DePape thought she knew better then 5.8 million Canadians who voted for the Conservatives. I think what the nation needs to realize is that for better or for worse the Conservatives are a majority government and thus we need to work with that in mind to see if we can use our democratically elected officials for the betterment of the nations as a whole rather then try to destroy ourselves from within. We need to end corruption in both our elected government officials and unelected government employees but focusing on one party and making everything a big scandal wether there is any merit to the charge or not just means that at some point in the future when someone might find an actual game changer they will not be taken seriously due to the many times that the opponents of the conservatives cried wolf.

Source? Do you have a funny little thing called proof?

Source?

I dont think tactical nukes were/are at the disposal of local commander at all times. I belive it would be up to higher ups. Otherwise it could get scary just because 1 division is losing and decides to even out the playing field. I could be wrong but I remember reading this but I might be mistaking.

Could be worse, the NDP could be in power.

If you say so.

No, that explains sooooooooo much.