Harper Sinks Navy

cybercoma · August 29, 2008

Citation that Dion has criticized the military spending except to say that it should have gone to tender?

I need a citation for my opinions now?

You mean to tell me you wouldn't expect Harper to be criticized for it?

Come election time, the opposing parties would be like children in a candy store.

AngusThermopyle · August 29, 2008

I need a citation for my opinions now?
You mean to tell me you wouldn't expect Harper to be criticized for it?

Come election time, the opposing parties would be like children in a candy store

Very good point.

It really can't be refuted by any rational basis.

Fortunata · August 29, 2008

My point is that you know damn well any sort of major increase in military spending, justifiable or not, would have Stephen Harper painted as a war-mongering redneck akin to Bush.

I don't agree with your opinion. Everyone knows that we need to upgrade our navy. At least it wouldn't be money pandering to Harper's interest areas trying to buy him votes on our dime.

cybercoma · August 29, 2008

Very good point.
It really can't be refuted by any rational basis.

Fortunata disagrees with me because he feels everyone knows we need a better Navy, so he doesn't think the opposing parties would use it as an opportunity to paint Harper as an evil Bush clone. History tells us that this is exactly the type of tactic that will be used to smear Harper.

jdobbin · August 29, 2008

I need a citation for my opinions now?

Ah, it is your opinion.

Thought you actually had something specific about Dion criticized the purchase of ships. It was the last Liberal government that had started the process in the first place to replace the ships.

cybercoma · August 29, 2008

Ah, it is your opinion.
Thought you actually had something specific about Dion criticized the purchase of ships. It was the last Liberal government that had started the process in the first place to replace the ships.

No. I'm just discussing things. Like I said, I'm glad the government showed restraint in not blowing the budget and investigating other alternatives. IMHO, if they did go over budget, the opposition would have found those alternatives and thrown it in the Conservative's face. Not to mention they'd have ammunition to show Harper as a war-mongering PM, regardless of whether or not the Liberals started the process.

You know how politics works. The Harper government was somehow catching crap for the war in Afghanistan, even though it was the Liberals who committed us to it. Come election time, the fact that our troops are still in Afghanistan and being killed, topped with the fact that Harper has gone over budget on military spending, the opposition would be having a field day. I'm not trying to turn this into a partisan thing because I don't care which party is in power, I'm fairly certain the opposition would jump on the opportunity regardless.

I'm not disputing that we need the equipment, but a government that can take a step back when something comes in over-budget and say there must be a better way, has my respect regardless of what colour tie they wear.

normanchateau · August 29, 2008

You might want to be friends with violent, hateful religious fanatics. I do not.

I don't even want to be friends with nonviolent, hateful religious fanatics...like this one:

.

http://www.maxpower.ca/wp-content/uploads/...rper_cowboy.jpg

"And Lloyd Mackey, author of "The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper," says he understands why Harper stays quiet, even to sympathetic biographers such as himself.

Mackey and other observers say Harper could suffer politically if he were more open in largely secular Canada, or publicly embraced the beliefs of his denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA).

"If Harper came out and said those who don't know the Lord are `lost,' (that they) are doomed, he'd be held up to ridicule," said Bruce Foster, head of policy studies at Mount Royal College."

Source:

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14287

"McVety and others on the religious right are convinced that Harper is one of their own. “We’ve got a born-again prime minister,” trumpets David Mainse, the founder of Canada’s premier Christian talk show, 100 Huntley Street. They see him as an image-savvy evangelical who has been careful to keep his signals to them under the media radar, but they have no doubt his convictions run deep—so deep that only after he wins a majority will he dare translate the true colours of his faith into policies that could remake the fabric of the nation."

Source:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/200...the-theocons/2/

Wild Bill · August 29, 2008

I don't even want to be friends with nonviolent, hateful religious fanatics...like this one:
.

http://www.maxpower.ca/wp-content/uploads/...rper_cowboy.jpg

"And Lloyd Mackey, author of "The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper," says he understands why Harper stays quiet, even to sympathetic biographers such as himself.

Mackey and other observers say Harper could suffer politically if he were more open in largely secular Canada, or publicly embraced the beliefs of his denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA).

"If Harper came out and said those who don't know the Lord are `lost,' (that they) are doomed, he'd be held up to ridicule," said Bruce Foster, head of policy studies at Mount Royal College."

Source:

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14287

"McVety and others on the religious right are convinced that Harper is one of their own. “We’ve got a born-again prime minister,” trumpets David Mainse, the founder of Canada’s premier Christian talk show, 100 Huntley Street. They see him as an image-savvy evangelical who has been careful to keep his signals to them under the media radar, but they have no doubt his convictions run deep—so deep that only after he wins a majority will he dare translate the true colours of his faith into policies that could remake the fabric of the nation."

Source:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/200...the-theocons/2/

McVety is doomed to disappointment! If Harper achieves a majority the LAST thing he would ever do would be to enact policies that would please McVety.

If he did, he would get maybe a few thousand votes from McVety's followers.

And that would be all he would ever get.

The most McVety could hope for would be a LITTLE bit of drift towards SOME of the values they hold in common, as long as it was ONLY a little and would not cost the government any votes at the next election.

Why people like McVety keep thinking that their heroes would cheerfully commit suicide just to please the few of them is beyond me.

jdobbin · August 29, 2008

You know how politics works. The Harper government was somehow catching crap for the war in Afghanistan, even though it was the Liberals who committed us to it. Come election time, the fact that our troops are still in Afghanistan and being killed, topped with the fact that Harper has gone over budget on military spending, the opposition would be having a field day. I'm not trying to turn this into a partisan thing because I don't care which party is in power, I'm fairly certain the opposition would jump on the opportunity regardless.

I think I have been on the record here many times that I never trust what is quoted when it comes to military spending. The contractors always seems to understate the costs and the timeframe.

The government may take some of the blame for that but they are not the builders of these things. The contractors routinely overspend or add charges with little penalty involved. The ultimate penalty is to have the contract cancelled which I accept might be the only way to get back on track.

My criticism if how the Tories announced this late on a Friday. This is getting to be a tiresome taking out of the trash event and Harper used to berate the Liberals for it. Now, even some supporters of the Tories are saying it is becoming a more frequent occurrence.

I'm not disputing that we need the equipment, but a government that can take a step back when something comes in over-budget and say there must be a better way, has my respect regardless of what colour tie they wear.

I hope they come to a decision soon. They can't say the Opposition opposes the purchase. The Liberals know full well that leasing ships is not the way to do things. They wouldn't want to get burned like that again.

Edited August 29, 2008 by jdobbin

normanchateau · August 29, 2008

The most McVety could hope for would be a LITTLE bit of drift towards SOME of the values they hold in common, as long as it was ONLY a little and would not cost the government any votes at the next election.
Why people like McVety keep thinking that their heroes would cheerfully commit suicide just to please the few of them is beyond me.

I'm certainly not claiming that Harper's actions are motivated by a desire to please McVety. I'm suggesting that since Harper and McVety have common values, Harper is more likely to act upon those values with a majority than a minority government. Astonishingly, Harper has already taken small steps in that direction.

While arguably Section 120 of Bill C-10 is not actual censorship but merely denial of tax credits for certain sexually explicit films, it's one small step towards censorship.

No wonder anti-pornography crusaders like Charles McVety support Bill C-10.

And Harper's introduction of legislation requiring judges to impose a mandatory sentence of six months for a single marijuana plant suggests that he is willing to act, even with a minority government, in a way consistent with those values. I would guess that most intelligent Conservatives oppose this over-the-top if not absurd legislation. It's the sort of legislation one expects to emerge from the social conservative McVety wing of the Conservatives.

Wild Bill · August 29, 2008

I'm certainly not claiming that Harper's actions are motivated by a desire to please McVety. I'm suggesting that since Harper and McVety have common values, Harper is more likely to act upon those values with a majority than a minority government. Astonishingly, Harper has already taken small steps in that direction.
While arguably Section 120 of Bill C-10 is not actual censorship but merely denial of tax credits for certain sexually explicit films, it's one small step towards censorship.

No wonder anti-pornography crusaders like Charles McVety support Bill C-10.

And Harper's introduction of legislation requiring judges to impose a mandatory sentence of six months for a single marijuana plant suggests that he is willing to act, even with a minority government, in a way consistent with those values. I would guess that most intelligent Conservatives oppose this over-the-top if not absurd legislation. It's the sort of legislation one expects to emerge from the social conservative McVety wing of the Conservatives.

You may not like Harper but he is still a politician, not a total idiot. He would have to be brain dead to fit into your argument.

I'm way too Libertarian to ever support censorship but I agree with him on denial of tax credits for some films. Actually, I'm not to keen on tax credits for ANY films but I understand its a real world and we have to compete with other countries to attract the business!

Anyhow, I've personally witnessed how with many such grant programs our government hands out OUR tax dollars willy-nilly, both to gems and to crap! I understand art is in the beholder but still, there is such a thing as a lowest common denominator and let's face it, many films that receive grants fall FAR below even that standard!

This has been the perpetual problem of government grants for ANY piece of art! Because of the difficulty in deciding what is actually art and has merit we give thousands of dollars for dog crap pinned to a picture of the Pope, or some such drivel.

A step towards censorship? Give me a break! You're really stretching here!

As for 6 months for one plant, I don't believe that the Tories are serious. There's too many "cosmic cowboys" in the West and in the Tory party who would see the inanity in such a provision. I believe this is just an old tried and true tactic when initiating a Bill that might have problems being passed. You deliberately insert a clause or two that you don't expect anyone to ever accept! It gives you something to take back when the Bill is up for debate or revision. The Opposition can crow that they forced changes to improve the Bill and you got what you wanted anyway!

This trick is much older than Harper. The Liberals used it many times.

I think it was invented by Moses but I'm not sure...

normanchateau · August 29, 2008

As for 6 months for one plant, I don't believe that the Tories are serious. There's too many "cosmic cowboys" in the West and in the Tory party who would see the inanity in such a provision. I believe this is just an old tried and true tactic when initiating a Bill that might have problems being passed. You deliberately insert a clause or two that you don't expect anyone to ever accept! It gives you something to take back when the Bill is up for debate or revision. The Opposition can crow that they forced changes to improve the Bill and you got what you wanted anyway!

Of all the creative ways in which Harper supporters defend his social conservatism, this is my favourite. :lol:

Harper's proposed legislation wasn't serious, it was just a negotiating tactic...

I suppose Harper's opposition to same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition wasn't serious either. And when he opposed Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals, that was just another negotiating tactic. His opposition to stem cell research...yet another negotiating tactic.

And how about when Opposition Leader Harper announced in December, 2005 that he would not act on the Liberal's bill to decriminalize possession of small quantities of marijuana? When asked why he would saddle a student who is caught with a small amount of the substance with a permanent criminal record, Mr. Harper said "we believe we have to send a message" that these types of activities are unacceptable.

Source:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/

So Harper merely pretends to be socially conservative as a negotiating tactic? What a great strategy to win a majority government.

cybercoma · August 29, 2008

My criticism if how the Tories announced this late on a Friday. This is getting to be a tiresome taking out of the trash event and Harper used to berate the Liberals for it. Now, even some supporters of the Tories are saying it is becoming a more frequent occurrence.
I hope they come to a decision soon. They can't say the Opposition opposes the purchase. The Liberals know full well that leasing ships is not the way to do things. They wouldn't want to get burned like that again.

I don't understand why the day they make the announcement makes any difference at all. In fact, announcing it on a Friday night ensures that it's going to be covered in the Saturday edition of the newspapers, which are purchased by more people than the weekday editions.

Regardless, we need the equipment, they said they're looking at alternatives, all we can do is hurry up and wait.

jdobbin · August 29, 2008

I don't understand why the day they make the announcement makes any difference at all. In fact, announcing it on a Friday night ensures that it's going to be covered in the Saturday edition of the newspapers, which are purchased by more people than the weekday editions.

Actually, a lot of the time they send out the news releases, it often doesn't make the Saturday papers as Don Martin said in his column.

More importantly, Harper was against this type of activity declaring it showed a lack of transparency. I agreed with him.

Regardless, we need the equipment, they said they're looking at alternatives, all we can do is hurry up and wait.

Hopefully, it won't end up a forgotten promise.

Wild Bill · August 29, 2008

Of all the creative ways in which Harper supporters defend his social conservatism, this is my favourite.
Harper's proposed legislation wasn't serious, it was just a negotiating tactic...

I suppose Harper's opposition to same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition wasn't serious either. And when he opposed Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals, that was just another negotiating tactic. His opposition to stem cell research...yet another negotiating tactic.

And how about when Opposition Leader Harper announced in December, 2005 that he would not act on the Liberal's bill to decriminalize possession of small quantities of marijuana? When asked why he would saddle a student who is caught with a small amount of the substance with a permanent criminal record, Mr. Harper said "we believe we have to send a message" that these types of activities are unacceptable.

Source:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/

So Harper merely pretends to be socially conservative as a negotiating tactic? What a great strategy to win a majority government.

Hey, I simply pointed out that he may be doing something that other PM's have done since Canada was founded. I leave it to you to give it a value judgement.

Me, this is where I part company with the Tories anyway. I'm a total Libertarian about drugs. People have the right to screw up their heads any way they want as far as I'm concerned. It's their head, after all!

I agree that there's a smell of Ned Flanders about this bunch but I still see no choice but to vote for them.

As far as I know, they've never stolen from us for millions of dollars like the Liberals have! That's enough in my books, at least for a term or two.

AngusThermopyle · August 30, 2008

Me, this is where I part company with the Tories anyway. I'm a total Libertarian about drugs. People have the right to screw up their heads any way they want as far as I'm concerned. It's their head, after all!
I agree that there's a smell of Ned Flanders about this bunch but I still see no choice but to vote for them.

As far as I know, they've never stolen from us for millions of dollars like the Liberals have! That's enough in my books, at least for a term or two.

Exactly. Thats why I dislike political partisanship so much, they're more concerned with affiliation than actual actions.

I'm hoping this cancellation of the procurement process will be a positive one. As I said earlier I'm not really onboard with the concept of a do everything supply ship/troop ship/assault ship. Hopefully saner heads will prevail and instead of trying to build a Hienz 57 they just build superb fleet support ships, with some transport and landing capabilities, much as those possesed by our current AOR's.

Before my remuster in the CAF I served seven years aboard the Preserver, I know that ship. She's a good ship but she's old, refits will only keep a ship going for so long. We need new AOR's, thats not open to debate.

What I would like to see would be four new AOR's and two new transport/assault ships. That would be ideal, but we'll never get that, the Canadian public would never accept that.

We could also use about ten new destroyers (ideally about twenty, plus ten new frigates), from what I understand those are coming. They'll be based on the present City class hulls of the frigates. Thats good, its a really nice hull, you wouldn't believe how it performes.

The first time I saw one was when I was RAS communicator on the Preserver and the Halifax was coming alongside to refuel. She approached us at about 32 knots on about a 35 degree angle off our port bow. She was planeing, the forward part of the hull was clear of the water with only about the last 60% still in the water. As he approached the Captain kicked her into a tight turn and throttled back on the mains (normally he wouldn't have control of the yolk and throttles but she was new and he was playing), she listed moderately to port and turned sharp as her hull settled back into the water and she cruised alongside at a sedate 12 knots. It was a beautifful sight to behold.

They're a very good blue water hull. Actually Canada has a reputation for building very good hulls that exhibit good traits in the heaviest of sea's. It's too bad our shipbuilding industry has been allowed to languish and die.

eyeball · August 30, 2008

Me, this is where I part company with the Tories anyway. I'm a total Libertarian about drugs...but I still see no choice but to vote for them.
As far as I know, they've never stolen from us for millions of dollars like the Liberals have! That's enough in my books, at least for a term or two.

This is where I part company with Libertarians. A principled Libertarian should be a total Libertarian about liberty.

That said, as long as you're putting your wallet ahead of your other principles - what's better, saving a few dollars from an ideology that steals, or losing money for the rest of your life to an ideology that's pouring it down the bottemless pit of a war on drugs? Why can't you temporarily support the former for as long as it takes them to win this important fight? Recall the adage that the left has won all the important battles. History has shown time and time again that once the right loses a cherished value they give it up forever, so you can always vote for them again once they do.

You should reassess your choices because you have more than you think.

eyeball · August 30, 2008

Exactly. Thats why I dislike political partisanship so much, they're more concerned with affiliation than actual actions.

Have you ever considered how politically partisan the Conservative affiliation with the war on drugs actually is?

Edited August 30, 2008 by eyeball

Wild Bill · August 30, 2008

This is where I part company with Libertarians. A principled Libertarian should be a total Libertarian about liberty.
That said, as long as you're putting your wallet ahead of your other principles - what's better, saving a few dollars from an ideology that steals, or losing money for the rest of your life to an ideology that's pouring it down the bottemless pit of a war on drugs? Why can't you temporarily support the former for as long as it takes them to win this important fight? Recall the adage that the left has won all the important battles. History has shown time and time again that once the right loses a cherished value they give it up forever, so you can always vote for them again once they do.

You should reassess your choices because you have more than you think.

Give me a break! I live in Ontario! I survived Bob Rae's NDP government, barely!

I'd shoot my own children rather than have them live through such pain again!

Well, an exaggeration of course but damn! I'd feel sad as hell for them! I couldn't describe how strongly I feel about such idea without killing the thread under Godwin's Law!

Far as I'm concerned, I will never drink that kool-aid! You're asking me to live in Jamestown long enough to win YOUR issue!

What are you willing to suffer to support one of MY principles?

Edited August 30, 2008 by Wild Bill

Smallc · August 30, 2008

Exactly. Thats why I dislike political partisanship so much, they're more concerned with affiliation than actual actions.
I'm hoping this cancellation of the procurement process will be a positive one. As I said earlier I'm not really onboard with the concept of a do everything supply ship/troop ship/assault ship. Hopefully saner heads will prevail and instead of trying to build a Hienz 57 they just build superb fleet support ships, with some transport and landing capabilities, much as those possesed by our current AOR's.

Before my remuster in the CAF I served seven years aboard the Preserver, I know that ship. She's a good ship but she's old, refits will only keep a ship going for so long. We need new AOR's, thats not open to debate.

What I would like to see would be four new AOR's and two new transport/assault ships. That would be ideal, but we'll never get that, the Canadian public would never accept that.

We could also use about ten new destroyers (ideally about twenty, plus ten new frigates), from what I understand those are coming. They'll be based on the present City class hulls of the frigates. Thats good, its a really nice hull, you wouldn't believe how it performes.

The first time I saw one was when I was RAS communicator on the Preserver and the Halifax was coming alongside to refuel. She approached us at about 32 knots on about a 35 degree angle off our port bow. She was planeing, the forward part of the hull was clear of the water with only about the last 60% still in the water. As he approached the Captain kicked her into a tight turn and throttled back on the mains (normally he wouldn't have control of the yolk and throttles but she was new and he was playing), she listed moderately to port and turned sharp as her hull settled back into the water and she cruised alongside at a sedate 12 knots. It was a beautifful sight to behold.

They're a very good blue water hull. Actually Canada has a reputation for building very good hulls that exhibit good traits in the heaviest of sea's. It's too bad our shipbuilding industry has been allowed to languish and die.

I've always thought we could do well by just doubling the number of frigates in order to replace the destroyers. They've already been designed, so an updated model would cost less than something completely new. 24 frigates and 3 AORs would make a nice fleet IMO.

eyeball · August 30, 2008

Give me a break! I live in Ontario! I survived Bob Rae's NDP government, barely!
I'd shoot my own children rather than have them live through such pain again!

Well, an exaggeration of course but damn! I'd feel sad as hell for them! I couldn't describe how strongly I feel about such idea without killing the thread under Godwin's Law!

Far as I'm concerned, I will never drink that kool-aid! You're asking me to live in Jamestown long enough to win YOUR issue!

Who said anything about voting for Bob Rae? Even I'd rather shoot your kids than vote for a Liberal.

What are you willing to suffer to support one of MY principles?

I'd be willing to double the size of our military. I'd still insist on holding referendums before attacking anyone with it however.

The fact is, I'd probably have little trouble voting for the Conservatives if they could only live up to their oft-stated principle of getting the government off of people's backs. Unfortunately prohibition makes such a mockery of that principle that I just can't do it. Sorry.

Just think about how much money we'd have for our military if we didn't have to waste so much fighting an unwinnable drug war. Ironic eh?

Edited August 30, 2008 by eyeball

Wilber · August 30, 2008

Just think about how much money we'd have for our military if we didn't have to waste so much fighting an unwinnable drug war. Ironic eh?

Winnable of not, afraid you're stuck with a drug war until the whole world legalizes the stuff. It is international big business. Anyone who maintains otherwise either has their head in the sand or is being deliberately misleading. In this country at least, legalization and the involvement of organized crime in drugs are two separate issues unfortunately. Most of our drug production is for export meaning organized crime will always have a major part in the trade whether we legalize it or not. As long as our laws are so much more lax than other countries, we will be a favoured place for them to operate. As our manufacturers gravitate to China and the rest of Asia to produce goods because of the favourable conditions, organized crime will come here to produce drugs for the same reasons. BC criminologists say that if every man, woman and child in the province smoked their brains out on a daily basis, there is no way they could come close to consuming the amount of pot now being produced here.

normanchateau · August 30, 2008

I agree that there's a smell of Ned Flanders about this bunch but I still see no choice but to vote for them.
As far as I know, they've never stolen from us for millions of dollars like the Liberals have! That's enough in my books, at least for a term or two.

So let me understand the logic. You agree that Harper is a social conservative with anti-libertarian policies which you oppose but you see no choice but to vote for him because of the sponsorship scandal.

The sponsorship scandal arose out of the 1995 Quebec referendum and resulted in millions of federal funds being wasted and/or stolen in Quebec between 1997 and 2001 to boost support for federalism. Which of Canada's current MPs have been implicated in the sponsorship scandal? My current MP was in the cabinet of the provincial government before she ran successfully for the Liberals in the last federal election. Should I not vote for her because of what happened in the 1990's before she joined the federal party? Do you think that if Stephane Dion or any current Liberal MP was implicated in the sponsorship scandal that the Conservatives would withhold this information from the Canadian public?

I'm not at all surprised that people with Harper-like views support Harper. But I am surprised that anyone who has a problem with Harper's social conservatism and anti-libertarianism and out-of-control spending spree would

feel that they have no choice but to vote for him because of what happened in the 90's. How socially regressive and financially irresponsible would potential leaders of the Conservatives have to be before you felt that they

did not deserve your vote?

Oleg Bach · August 30, 2008

So let me understand the logic. You agree that Harper is a social conservative with anti-libertarian policies which you oppose but you see no choice but to vote for him because of the sponsorship scandal.
The sponsorship scandal arose out of the 1995 Quebec referendum and resulted in millions of federal funds being wasted and/or stolen in Quebec between 1997 and 2001 to boost support for federalism. Which of Canada's current MPs have been implicated in the sponsorship scandal? My current MP was in the cabinet of the provincial government before she ran successfully for the Liberals in the last federal election. Should I not vote for her because of what happened in the 1990's before she joined the federal party? Do you think that if Stephane Dion or any current Liberal MP was implicated in the sponsorship scandal that the Conservatives would withhold this information from the Canadian public?

I'm not at all surprised that people with Harper-like views support Harper. But I am surprised that anyone who has a problem with Harper's social conservatism and anti-libertarianism and out-of-control spending spree would

feel that they have no choice but to vote for him because of what happened in the 90's. How socially regressive and financially irresponsible would potential leaders of the Conservatives have to be before you felt that they

did not deserve your vote?

The sinking of the navy is based on the fact that we have a tiny water force and Harper has become totally dependent on the big American machine - capable of knocking out Baghdad with a few water based crusie missles - shock and awe - remember that video game? Harper maybe becoming overly attatched miliarily to the US - which is dangerous - we could not even irritate the Americans militarily if they decided to come across the boarder and take over - which they all ready have - so it's to late to discuss this - where where you 3 years ago when commandership of the Canadian forces was handed over to the Pentagon?