Signals.Cpl

You don't care about accountability, at least you don't care about accountability as long as it benefits the NDP, you only care about accountability if it has no direct benefit to the NDP politically except as an opposite position to score some extra points.

It has everything to do with the conversation... If you don't like the hard questions then maybe you shodden be here. You seem to have an obsession with knowing the full cost of the fighter planes even though the RCN ships as well as the CG ships would cost at least 10X what the full cost of the F35 would be. You are inconsistent because it suits your political position, if the ship building program did not exist and instead we were purchasing the ships from the US or some other nation we would have the exact same problem as the F35. On the flip side if the Harper government was to award some well paying contract to a Quebec firm this issue will be gone so fast your head would spin.

And you have a hard-on for the RCN and CG ships that most likely are overpriced as it is and use the exact same formula...seems to me you like to lie to people just like the NDP...

Who here thinks NDP will add that to the cost of the aircraft?

This was not a prank, this was an invasion of privacy with the intention of hurting someone, the DJs one would hope would have had the intelligence to foresee that someone gets hurt by this so they should be held responsible and if they did not have the intelligence to foresee that then maybe they should be watered twice a week.

How much would the bidding process cost Canadians?

Luckily he is not referring to any human beings... just the Khadrs...

I don't think it matter what she did so much as what they intended to do which was to cause harm to someone else, the DJs and anyone associated with them should lose their job and the station should be punished one way or another for sanctioning this stupidity. This was not a prank but an attack on a person's privacy that also put the jobs of at least 2 innocent people at risk, wether or not action was taken is irrelevant because the DJs should have realistically been able to predict that great harm would befall anyone who falls for that prank, harm in the sense that their jobs and future employment on top of the embarrassment that is cause all involved...all for a cheap laugh.

The numbers are fluid... why? Because the same data could be presented either way depending on who you are and what your agenda is. The extra "costs" are not added because of the F-35s they are there because we already have this ability...what bothers me is that no one who throws around the 35 billion number explains to people where it comes from and that its part of the budget...thereby lying by omission. Why was that not an issue before for other projects? Or why is it not an issue for the Naval Ships and the Coast Guard vessels? Why is it an issue for one particular project? Somehow I doubt that is your motivation and the motivation of the NDP... How many projects in the last 30 years be it military or civilian have required those numbers? Those numbers are to determine the funding of the CF and the internal budget. Was it clearly explained where he got the total from? That it was not 35 billion on top of the regular budget but that it was ripped from the budget for the CF? If you give it to the NDP I bet you they can double the cost... the numbers are a guess as to what it will cost, if they are used at the same tempo as the CF18's, if we end up using them at a much higher operational tempo the price increases dramatically. The NDP is playing politics, costing more money just so we get back to this aircraft. I know for a fact...why? Because the difference in cost would be based on the aircraft purchase as the rest of the cost would be required no matter which plane is chosen, they will still require infrastructure and the manpower... So do you ask the car dealership for the price of the car or the price to maintain the car over 20 years? And then if you do so do you ignore the same requirement for your house? In this case? You cut the military numbers therefore costs go down. So what happens when the numbers come out, they are at 45 billion dollars and the numbers for all other aircraft are between 44 billion and 50 billion? What then? Do we stop purchasing fighters because they are expensive? What about rifles? Do we account for the salary of the soldier carrying it? The ammunition that will be needed to fire it? Medical expenses and other expenses incurred? Why not ask the same questions for the ships? But why for the fighters? Why only for them and no other purchase? IT seems awfully selective to pick only one project and demand it meet a standard while ignoring dozens of others that don't meet the same standard? How many times has the government released the cost of a hospital with the projected expense in salary for the doctors and nurses and support staff as well as all the equipment in that hospital?

No outrage that you were lied to? The ships and planes are calculated the exact same way, you present this phoney outrage for the F-35s while you are quiet about the ships.... I have not seen you post one thing about demanding the CPC explain the costs of the RCN and CG ships mainly because that is NDP territory and a big no no. Or we need to cancel both projects and do a fair comparison with all the costs associated with them, and when American ships come up cheaper we go and buy those.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CSCOAL,,IRN,,498805f02d,0.html http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-demons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Iraq_War#Human_wave (Human wave portion)

They get it from the federal government while the rest of us have to ay for our own upkeep at least on one level of government. Not with that attitude... Doubt that it is any significant sum of money to cover even the most basic of infrastructure and services.

And what is that definition? Because it seems to me that the world community decides to fight over the definition every time and intervenes when too late or not at all. I would say that fire arms are a serious threat to humanity but no one seems interested in stopping a madman from slaughtering his people as long as its with conventional weapons. Those chemical weapons are no more dangerous to the rest of the world once he uses them against his people than before he uses them on his people...they are dangerous to humanity as soon as they are created so either ban them or don't use them as an excuse. I am critical of Palestinians for attacking Israel and then using women and children as human shields to get sympathy from fools in the west. The fact is the Palestinians cause their casualties despite Israel's best efforts, look at some of the targets hit during the last round, the ISraeli airforce would hit specific windows rather than the whole building in order to get their target and avoid any casualties but it is hard when the weapons and munitions are stored in civilian neighbourhoods where no matter how you hit it there will be casualties unless you send in the ground troops to secure and carry them out. Thousands of innocents? Are we talking about the way the enemy that the US is fighting uses civilians to fight against the US? Shoot at American forces and run in to civilian areas? Most of the civilian casualties of the wars they fought were not caused by the US and the once that were caused by them were for the most part pure accident despite their best efforts. As for the drone strikes I don't think it is quite so indiscriminate as you might believe. Nobody is confused we know why you want to intervene, what we question is why you value the few that might die from chemical or biological weapons more than the vast majority who die through other means. To intervene after the fact does not make the world safer, just establishes a threshold for slaughter, as long as you slaughter your people with conventional weapons you are fine by us but you kill 1 person with a chemical attack and you get on our most wanted list. So you think that one ethnic/religious group in Syria slaughtering people from another ethnic/religious group is fine as long as they do it with AK-47s instead of chemical weapons? So Assad is following the rules of war? I didn't know that the rules of war recognized the indiscriminate killing of civilians because they are of a different ethnic and religious group as legal...

What revenue structure? 100% from the federal government and the local community makes very little? You are saying that the Federal government is responsible 100% for them while every other community shares at least in part financial responsibility for itself.

Any source you base that opinion on? Everything I have seen so far about the subject suggests that they are not as open as you are stating. Again any source for that? Last time I checked the protest held by some of the FN chiefs including Theresa Spence were angry over a number of bills and I quote"They are angry over a number of bills before Parliament, including one that would force First Nations to disclose their financial statements and the salaries of chiefs and councillors."(A10, Toronto Star, 12 Dec 2012) Now if they are upset about a bill being in front of parliament that would get them to open their books then that would suggest they are not as open as you might believe. Again do you have a source as to how much the chiefs are making? If they are getting federal fund then they should be open... You are suggesting that they are making small salaries but from what I have seen it is not the case. And how would throwing more money solve that problem if they are not allocating the money properly? I want to know how much they get from the federal government, where it all goes and the salaries of the leadership. Simply put I would like to see who is at fault wether it is the federal government providing low funds or the FN wasting their resources. Because if it is the federal government not handing enough money then the problem is easy to solve find the right number and fix the problem. If the fault lies within the FN then the problem will not be solved with more money as there is a finite amount of money and people in general are more than capable of wasting it all while complaining they don't get enough and are being screwed. Prove to us that the FN are severely regulated and then we can talk... Think about the reason why there is a discrepancy... do you realistically expect that a community of just under 2000 people will receive the same services as a major urban centre such as Montreal, Ottawa or Toronto? Do you think that the difference in spending FN receives per person is that much different than a community of comparable size anywhere else in Canada? And lets look at it for a second, do you really believe that the provincial government sending does not benefit FN in Ontario at all? Are the roads to the communities funded 100% by the federal government? Are they maintained by them as well? Do they go and receive treatment in hospitals that are 100% federal funding? What about the airports and other infrastructure that the province maintains that is essential for supplying and maintaining those FN communities?

You are making the statement that they are severely underfunded, what comes before that doesn't change the meaning other than making it clear who you are accusing of screwing the FN. The FN are the Local government, can't fault the federal government that the FN are not as prosperous as other local governments. Canadians fall under 3 layers, municipal(local), provincial and federal while the first nations fall under municipal(local) So the federal government would be responsible only for the Federal and Provincial portions. Or maybe they should close them down altogether rather than using that as a reason to dump money in to communities that are difficult to maintain and are economically unsustainable. The Federal Government should be responsible for helping the FN become self-sufficient of sorts rather than dump money without oversight in to communities that will be as bad if not worse 50 years from now because of guilt over their treatment by a government 50,100 or 500 years ago. Ask yourself this questions, in 100 years what would change if we throw money at the FN without any expectations? If we don't place some demands on them to become at least to some degree self sufficient we will make them dependant on the government for generations to come.

So you DONT care that the government is using the same formula for both project but you accuse them of being liars for only one? How does that work? Either they are liars on both counts or on neither...

It will cost 45billion, and the RCN ships as well as the CG ships will cost 300+ billion.

That is what I am wondering... it seems the logic is upside down where instead of worrying that 200,000 people died from all sorts of weapons we worry about the 5,000 that die from chemical weapons and basically state that the other 195,000 died in the approved way. They are just as dead wether the weapon is a grenade, knife, firearm or a chemical weapon and it doesn't matter to them or their families how they died because they died. The world community has this major problem when it comes to facing such problems where it is inconsistent, with one dictator and situation they lash out and attack while in another they lodge complaints and do nothing. We need to act with consistency wether its go in and invade every homicidal dictator's back yard or do nothing otherwise we contribute to the problem as we help one group and then ignore another even though they are both the doing the same thing.

Are they severely underfunded or are they just worse at managing their resources than the rest of Canadian society? do you have the numbers to back this up? To show us that the government is starving them of funds? Or is it simply them getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in Salary as chiefs, wasting money and such? If they want money they should be held accountable for the way the money is spend rather than get the money waste is and come back crying the federal government is underfunding them.

Maybe they got the original scoop from the onion?

Where is the line though? If 200,000 people died from violence and Assad used chemical weapons ONCE against say 5,000 people and went back to slaughtering them with bullets and bombs what then? Where do we draw this line? And what consequences are brought on by drawing the line there?

So Assad could slaughter say another 200,000 people and we won't move a muscle but should he gas a couple of thousand people suddenly he has crossed a line? You either value life or you don't, we shouldn't devalue the loss of life simply because the lives were taken one way rather than another. If we follow that logic can explain pretty well why the world sat and watched 800,000 Rwandan's die when something as simple as 5,000 well trained and equipped soldiers could have save the lives...if only the militia's had used biological or chemical weapons we would have done something right?

I love how the nations that used children for mine removal is spreading BS like this only a short time after Canada removed its diplomatic mission from Iran... Or maybe someone lost their children to child protection services and are now spewing BS for an imaginary kidnaping... I also love how they snuck the Israel comment in there... plus what about the thousands of missing and murdered white, black, asian women? Is that part of the conspiracy as well?

Wether or not she killed herself over this is irrelevant as I tend to believe that they had no way of knowing that she was in such a fragile state. That being said I still believe they should be fired and anyone else involved in the station should be fired simply because they decided to play a prank which if successful would have most likely had a negative impact on a persons career and future advancement in their profession and they seemed to not really care about that until there was a negative response from people. They should be held responsible as this was not a prank but it was a malicious actions disguised as a prank as failure would have accomplished nothing but a very prompt f*** you and success would have put someone on the spotlight for a very negative event and probably had negative impact on their career, maybe not at the immediate moment but at some point it will come back and haunt them. People should be held responsible for their actions, if your actions carry the intent on pain and suffering to someone else be it someone you know or a random person then you should be held accountable for your actions... one way or another they should reap what they sow.