cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 You'll see...or your kids will. I've seen it. I've seen the government allow our resources and companies to be sold off to the highest foreign bidders. I've seen the government slash their taxes and give them breaks and demand nothing in return. I've also seen those same companies pack up once they've made their money and leave the rest of us that do pay taxes with our d***s in our hands picking up the pieces. That's not some future dystopian society. That's today. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I've seen it. I've seen the government allow our resources and companies to be sold off to the highest foreign bidders. I've seen the government slash their taxes and give them breaks and demand nothing in return. I've also seen those same companies pack up once they've made their money and leave the rest of us that do pay taxes with our d***s in our hands picking up the pieces. That's not some future dystopian society. That's today. Kiss the feet of your masters then, chump. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Kiss the feet of your masters then, chump. No shit you've got nothing to add. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 No shit you've got nothing to add. Like you do other than 'I surrender!' Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 No shit you've got nothing to add. He never really does add anything. That has been obvious for some time. A quick check of his recent postings back that up. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 He never really does add anything. That has been obvious for some time. A quick check of his recent postings back that up. Don't you have some fake Moon landings to investigate, professor? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Don't you have some fake Moon landings to investigate, professor? Case in point where this poster is now simply trolling. Obviously against the rules, but some don't want to play nice here. Not to mention that Shady has been termed the 'Professer' by others here. It's also an attempt at taking away the focus of this thread which is the F-35 purchase and the skyrocketing costs of these yet to be delivered jets. The attempt is to make me put a tinfoil hat on to make me look like an idiot (I can do that all on my own thank you very much) and slander my character instead of dealing the contents of what I post (the only time he does that really is in threads related to Israel). Also this poster loves to mention Alex Jones in replies to some of my posts which also proves the point that he has not much to add to the conversations. Quote
Argus Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 overpriced, overdue, over-hyped I take it that's your version of a serious alternative? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 What is right for a country like the US is not right for a country such as Canada. If that is your argument we can save ourselves a lot of trouble and fire our government and do whatever the US does. No one has proposed a serious alternative, so I guess in this case what's right fro the US IS in fact right for Canada. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 No, I mean stop supporting dictators with military aid. Israel isn't forcing us to be unjust so I don't know why you've dragged them into it. So stop giving foreign aid to third world countries? Is that what you're saying? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 So stop giving foreign aid to third world countries? Is that what you're saying? Well thats charity... just like world policing is charity. Its ok to give to charity when you CAN but not too smart to borrow money to give to charity. But I suppose that during the odd year when we run a budget surplus, if we want to spend some of that extra money on various schemes to "help" people around the world, thats our choice. But as the west has now starting to realize defecit financing this type of activity will cause severe problems in the long run. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 So stop giving foreign aid to third world countries? Is that what you're saying? No, is that what you read? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Smallc Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 We've already gone way beyond that in price. We haven't spent any money on acquisition. Quote
Smallc Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Look, there's no argument here. The standard accounting procedure Which has never been used before for public announcements of DND projects. There's an argument here about what the opposition is doing. Quote
Topaz Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 No one has proposed a serious alternative, so I guess in this case what's right fro the US IS in fact right for Canada. This jet is not right for Canada BUT it is right for the Canadian Air Force because this plane is going to be used more for foreign agendas than flying over the north. This jet was going to be the plane for NATO countries to rule the world, so to speak, but those NATO countries can't afford the jet and neither can Canada and even the US says it costing too much. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Which has never been used before for public announcements of DND projects. There's an argument here about what the opposition is doing. It was never used before... except that it was. It was used for the F-35s. They just lied and said they didn't have those figures. Quote
Smallc Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 It was never used before... except that it was. It was used for the F-35s. They just lied and said they didn't have those figures. It has never been part of the public figures. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 It has never been part of the public figures. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Sheila Fraser and Michael Ferguson have already told them they're doing it wrong. Give it a rest. You've already said they refused to release the figures because it was politically expedient. You've justified the government lying to parliament and made it perfectly clear that you think it's ok for the government to pick and choose how it presents its numbers, rather than actually giving answers to the questions posed by parliament. I get. Seriously. The F-35s are really sweet and you would rather the government lie (they had the numbers even though they said they didn't) so we can get them, then tell the truth and have credibility when they say they're the party of openness and accountability. Quote
Smallc Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Sheila Fraser and Michael Ferguson have already told them they're doing it wrong. Give it a rest. You've already said they refused to release the figures because it was politically expedient. No, because this is the way the numbers have always been presented. Showing lifecycle costs for a program (jet fighters) that is already ongoing his misleading, and even dishonest. This program is not costing the taxpayers a net amount of $25B. It's really costing about $9B, something that you so far refuse to acknowledge. It's clear that you can't see beyond your line on this particular issue. I understand why lifecycle costs need to be calculated, but if they're reported, it needs to be in proper context, and neither you nor the opposition seem interested in that. Edited April 16, 2012 by Smallc Quote
eyeball Posted April 17, 2012 Report Posted April 17, 2012 I understand why lifecycle costs need to be calculated, but if they're reported, it needs to be in proper context, and neither you nor the opposition seem interested in that. By all means get Mr Harper to explain why we need to fear a Chinese invasion of Baffin Island and Russians landing on Ellsmere. Please, I'm just dying to hear this officially put into context. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
GostHacked Posted April 17, 2012 Report Posted April 17, 2012 We haven't spent any money on acquisition. True, mainly because we have not acquired them yet. But Canada has spent a lot already on RnD and other stuff. Quote
Smallc Posted April 17, 2012 Report Posted April 17, 2012 True, mainly because we have not acquired them yet. But Canada has spent a lot already on RnD and other stuff. Only a few hundred million dollars. Sorry, you're wrong. Quote
Army Guy Posted April 17, 2012 Report Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Canada has been/is involved in wars, regardless of how the current government terms them. http://en.wikipedia....story_of_Canada Vietnam ( although Canadian citizens took part in this war it was not a Canadian venture) Korea ( Korea was deeed a conflict not a war,it was the UN's first and only conflict) Bosnia ( Bosnina was a peace keeping/ peace making operation for Canada) Somalia ( Same as above) Afghanistan ( AFghan was never a war one must declare war for it to be a war, Canada did not do that, it is considered by governments to be an operation but i'm with you if it smells like war, taste like war, then it's war.Iraq First Gulf War and the second invasion of Iraq *(*according to some people here) Once again declared an operation by Canada as we did not declare anything. Libya ( libya was a peace making process, not a war, a small operation) Edited April 17, 2012 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Guest Derek L Posted April 17, 2012 Report Posted April 17, 2012 Canada has been/is involved in wars, regardless of how the current government terms them. http://en.wikipedia....story_of_Canada Vietnam ( although Canadian citizens took part in this war it was not a Canadian venture) Korea ( Korea was deeed a conflict not a war,it was the UN's first and only conflict) Bosnia ( Bosnina was a peace keeping/ peace making operation for Canada) Somalia ( Same as above) Afghanistan ( AFghan was never a war one must declare war for it to be a war, Canada did not do that, it is considered by governments to be an operation but i'm with you if it smells like war, taste like war, then it's war. Iraq First Gulf War and the second invasion of Iraq *(*according to some people here) Once again declared an operation by Canada as we did not declare anything. Libya ( libya was a peace making process, not a war, a small operation) And what happens with an Operation? It comes out of the Operation and Maintenance portion of DND’s budget….. Quote
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.