On Guard for Thee Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 Which of the scandals of Harper's would you say is phony? Would it be the In Out scandal, well then why did Harper pay the fine levied by the court. Maybe the contempt of parliament scandal? no that one is in the books as well. The senate scandal? The F35 maybe? Robocalls? nah, courts already determined the calls used CIMS to be generated. I don't think there are too many phony ones around. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 Good question. It's getting rather ridiculous. I kinda picture the perpetrators of these phony scandals as Captain Kirk from Wrath of Khan. Khan being of course, Stephen Harper to them. And as he slips through their fingers once again.... The phoniest things about the scandals are the comments made by those who want them to be swept under the rug. Quote
Smallc Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 The F-35 isn't a scandal. It never was. The others, besides the senate scandal, bore people and are questionable. The Senate scandal is quite real, but seems to be going in a way that leave Harper clean (except that he can't make appointments worth shit). Quote
Bryan Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 Which of the scandals of Harper's would you say is phony? Would it be the In Out scandal, well then why did Harper pay the fine levied by the court. Maybe the contempt of parliament scandal? no that one is in the books as well. The senate scandal? The F35 maybe? Robocalls? nah, courts already determined the calls used CIMS to be generated. I don't think there are too many phony ones around. All of those, completely fake. Still being pushed by people with an agenda who know they are fake. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 All of those, completely fake. Still being pushed by people with an agenda who know they are fake. Court dockets say otherwise. Quote
guyser Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Court dockets say otherwise.Gosh, doncha know those court documents were done by a Liberal. A Liberal made them all up, oc-ordinated the facts and then the media....er left wing controlled media manufactured more. Amazing that some can believe this idiocy Edited April 30, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
Smallc Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 So far these 'scandals' haven't amounted to much though, you have to admit that. Quote
guyser Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 Quite true, and admittedly there hasnt been one that has truly stung them,but giove them time, I imagine they will. They ALL do eventually given enough time in power Quote
Keepitsimple Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Court dockets say otherwise. Just because something ends up in court does not make it a "scandal". One by one these "scandals" have fallen by the wayside - though Robocalls was the classic faux scandal - which ended up to be nothing more than what the Conservative party had said all along - it happened in Guelph and whoever was involved will get whacked. The National conspiracy leading to the door of the Prime Minister was nothing more than a big bag of opposition wind. Edited April 30, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 Just because something ends up in court does not make it a "scandal". One by one these "scandals" have fallen by the wayside - though Robocalls was the classic faux scandal - which ended up to be nothing more than what the Conservative party had said all along - it happened in Guelph and whoever was involved will get whacked. The National conspiracy leading to the door of the Prime Minister was nothing more than a big bag of opposition wind. I think they have anything but fallen by the wayside. I think there is just a touch of "scandal overload" going around. Robocalls was anything but faux, at least according to a federal court ruling (Richard Mosley) who concluded it affected ridings nationwide and was tied to the Conservative CIMS database. Had investigators had the power to compel I suspect the outcome with regard to charges might be quite different, but it seems they did get awat with it. And as I write yet another one is breaking, namely telecom companies being allowed to give out private info. on citizens w/o any warrant. And of course that's on the heels of the TFW scandal. I think this is what I mean with the term scandal overload. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 The F-35 isn't a scandal. It never was. The others, besides the senate scandal, bore people and are questionable. The Senate scandal is quite real, but seems to be going in a way that leave Harper clean (except that he can't make appointments worth shit). Never a scandal? Withholding documents that revealed the true cost estimates of the program are part of what led to contempt of parliament findings against Harper. Quote
Smallc Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) No program in history was ever costed that way before, ever. It was always acquisition + maintenance and nothing else. Suddenly, it was all about life cycle costs, a very misleading figure. Edited April 30, 2014 by Smallc Quote
Keepitsimple Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 No program in history was ever costed that way before, ever. It was always acquisition + maintenance and nothing else. Suddenly, it was all about life cycle costs, a very misleading figure. Exactly - it was always a $9 billion spending envelope......not $45 billion over 30 years, 40 years or longer. Very, very misleading - but very convenient for the faux-scandal crowd. Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Exactly. We always knew that it was $9B for the aircraft and $14 - 16B with maintenance costs. Edited April 30, 2014 by Smallc Quote
Bryan Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 Exactly - it was always a $9 billion spending envelope......not $45 billion over 30 years, 40 years or longer. Very, very misleading - but very convenient for the faux-scandal crowd. $45 billion over 40 years is an awful lot of money. We should definitely cut out of the federal budget anything that cost that much. Does anything else cost that much? Oh I know, the CBC! Quote
Smallc Posted April 30, 2014 Report Posted April 30, 2014 We should cut out the CBC. Defence is actually a constitutional responsibility. Quote
waldo Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 I trust no one will ask for a qualification on what entity/organization you're talking about here! Quote
waldo Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 not to derail this thread, I've copied over the recent F-35 posts to a relevant thread - see here: Quote
Topaz Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 The one action that the Tories have done that no body knew about it until year later or even more was to change the law so the feds could borrow as much money as they needed/wanted by going to the Governor of Council, rather than the getting legislative approval. Perhaps the surplus will come from there. Quote
Shady Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 The one action that the Tories have done that no body knew about it until year later or even more was to change the law so the feds could borrow as much money as they needed/wanted by going to the Governor of Council, rather than the getting legislative approval. Perhaps the surplus will come from there. So the surplus comes from borrowed money? What? Huh? Quote
Bryan Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 So the surplus comes from borrowed money? What? Huh? No kidding. That's the entire disconnect when it comes to fiscal matters in a nutshell right there. People who do not have a grasp on basic math, yet they try to expound on the complexities of a federal budget within the construct of a global recession. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 Harper has so many scandals on the go now, and they keep erupting, one more today, I doubt he will have time to revisit the F35 fiasco. Go get some Super Hornets, save a boatload of money, (like most other Commonwealth customers) and call it a day. Quote
Smallc Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Citation required for all of your points. There are only two operators of that aircraft, and it doesn't cost less last I saw. It's a great plane though....but...in the year 2050 it might not be so much. Edited May 1, 2014 by Smallc Quote
waldo Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) There are only two operators of that aircraft, and it doesn't cost less last I saw. since you're calling for citations... care to support your claim that the Super Hornet costing is more than the F-35? on edit: in an appropriate thread... like the concurrently running F-35 thread. Edited May 1, 2014 by waldo Quote
Shady Posted May 1, 2014 Report Posted May 1, 2014 since you're calling for citations... care to support your claim that the Super Hornet costing is more than the F-35? on edit: in an appropriate thread... like the concurrently running F-35 thread. I don't think he said it costs more. I think he said it doesn't cost less, so probably around the same price. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.