What do you think about " Canada promises to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035 in pact with NATO leaders "?

[LinkSoul60]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not just insider trading. They're not just getting "stock tips".

People in congress regularly approve billions of dollars in funding, so they know which companies are about to get massive gov't contracts before anyone else does. Or they're involved in the planning to build new highways and bridges. Or they know that the DoJ is going to file a lawsuit against Visa before it happens. Or they know that chip manufacturing companies are going to get huge subsidies.

The people in congress are at the top of the stock tip food chain. Wall Street insiders basically become insiders by having friends in congress. 

Having access to Nancy Pelosi's information is like having a license to print money. She's not "smart" at all, you f'ing idjit.

I don't know her IQ or general acumen, but guessing it's at least 4 fold more than yours.  Appears to me that she had a very successful career, by any standards.  Have to have a bit of intelligence to get where she did, don't you think.

So it's only her and democrats the only ones in congress who approved funding?  No republicans would have dared using any of the same insight would they have.

Use your head man.... 

[WestCanMan]

17 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I don't know her IQ or general acumen, but guessing it's at least 4 fold more than yours.  Appears to me that she had a very successful career, by any standards.  Have to have a bit of intelligence to get where she did, don't you think.

So it's only her and democrats the only ones in congress who approved funding?  No republicans would have dared using any of the same insight would they have.

Use your head man.... 

Some people are dirtier than others, and do it more blatantly, and Nancy is at the top of the heap. 

• The PELOSI Act, officially known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act, aims to prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks while in office. This legislation is designed to prevent conflicts of interest and restore public trust in elected officials.

Nancy isn't smart, she's just connected. 

She's smart relative to you, but that's about the lowest bar there is.

Class dismissed, f-wit. Go back to your general idiocy.

[LinkSoul60]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Some people are dirtier than others, and do it more blatantly, and Nancy is at the top of the heap. 

• The PELOSI Act, officially known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act, aims to prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks while in office. This legislation is designed to prevent conflicts of interest and restore public trust in elected officials.

Nancy isn't smart, she's just connected. 

She's smart relative to you, but that's about the lowest bar there is.

Class dismissed, f-wit. Go back to your general idiocy.

lol... This coming from the Supreme Idi0t of idiocy.  

[WestCanMan]

Just now, LinkSoul60 said:

This coming from the Supreme Idi0t of idiocy.  

New signature?

[Shady]

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Harper waited 7 months before his first budget.
"Stephen Harper’s first budget was delivered about 7 months after his party formed a minority government on February 6, 2006. The budget was tabled in Parliament on September 25, 2006.."

Didn’t spend this kind of mind blowing money before his budget.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Agreeing to what?

I literally just explained that in the same post. I know your attention span is pretty short, but surely you can make it from one sentence to the next without losing track

Quote

 Why would I admit that when I have no idea if she did or not. 

And yet you did. And frankly I think it's completely unfair that you asked me, a sane and rational person, to try and explain your motives or actions. 

Is English your second language by any chance? It would explain a lot and it would be helpful to know. We could start to read what you write with that in mind and it would make a lot more sense

 

[LinkSoul60]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I literally just explained that in the same post. I know your attention span is pretty short, but surely you can make it from one sentence to the next without losing track

And yet you did. And frankly I think it's completely unfair that you asked me, a sane and rational person, to try and explain your motives or actions. 

Is English your second language by any chance? It would explain a lot and it would be helpful to know. We could start to read what you write with that in mind and it would make a lot more sense

 

It was a rhetorical question....  If she was inside trading she would have had the SEC up her ask in a heartbeat.  So no, I'm not agreeing that she did.  

 From Nato spend to Pelosi....enough already!

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

It was a rhetorical question....  If she was inside trading she would have had the SEC up her ask in a heartbeat.  

And very clearly was not. That's not what you said in the slightest. You acknowledge that she did it but pointed out that in your opinion she's not likely to be the only one and then admonished the other party as a result

Perhaps something of a Freudian slip on your part but you very clearly admitted that she's doing it, your point was that she isn't the only one and you said nothing about the cops being up her butt

Quote

 

So no, I'm not agreeing that she did.  

 

You did. Now you're trying to rewrite what you said previously having been called out for it.

Quote

 From Nato spend to Pelosi....enough already!

It was your comment I was responding to.  But it is pretty natural for these conversations to wander afield regardless of the topic

[LinkSoul60]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And very clearly was not. That's not what you said in the slightest. You acknowledge that she did it but pointed out that in your opinion she's not likely to be the only one and then admonished the other party as a result

Perhaps something of a Freudian slip on your part but you very clearly admitted that she's doing it, your point was that she isn't the only one and you said nothing about the cops being up her butt

You did. Now you're trying to rewrite what you said previously having been called out for it.

It was your comment I was responding to.  But it is pretty natural for these conversations to wander afield regardless of the topic

Are you some experimental chatbot that doesn't work....  You seem to enjoy telling me what I said to better guide your 32mb brain along.  Tell your programmers it's been a complete disaster....back to the drawing board.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Are you some experimental chatbot that doesn't work....  You seem to enjoy telling me what I said to better guide your 32mb brain along.  Tell your programmers it's been a complete disaster....back to the drawing board.

Oh look. you got backed into a corner again and can't support your argument again so now you're attacking me.   Very first time we've seen THAT !

I bet all the kids on the playground at recess make fun of you don't they  LOLOL

Edited 13 hours ago by CdnFox

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, Shady said:

Didn’t spend this kind of mind blowing money before his budget.

Lets be real.

No government ever spent the required money on NATO.

Chances of hitting 5% by most NATO countries is unrealistic and all are agreeing only to appease Trump. He will be gone and so will the 5% requirement.

They all said they would comply but long after the Trump presidency is over

[LinkSoul60]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh look. you got backed into a corner again and can't support your argument again so now you're attacking me.   Very first time we've seen THAT !

I bet all the kids on the playground at recess make fun of you don't they  LOLOL

I gave you too much credit for having a 32mb brain capacity....  

[I am Groot]

On 6/25/2025 at 1:24 PM, MDP said:

My suggestion: The United States should cut defense spending to 2% , even 1.5% of GDP

Calling in from China, are you? Or is it Russia?

On 6/25/2025 at 11:08 PM, Army Guy said:

I thought Carney said that removing internal trade barriers will mean up to 200 bil more in GDP...

You realize that isn't going to happen, right?

[I am Groot]

On 6/26/2025 at 11:31 AM, CdnFox said:

Yeah it's nice to say that.  And sure i agree, we've wasted too much time not funding the military. 

But MY point, which you seem reluctant to address, is that it's over 100 billion in new spending we don't have based on TODAY"S gdp. Even if we roll some 'infrastructure' spending into that it's still around 100 billion. 

That spending will not happen. Trudeau spent ten years ignoring Canada's obligation to reach 2% and I have no doubt Carney is up to the task of ignoring a higher goal. He only has to do it for three and a half years, after all.

[I am Groot]

On 6/26/2025 at 1:22 PM, Nationalist said:

What we need is at least 1 good ice-breaker.

Harper was going to build us two. Whatever happened to them?

[I am Groot]

On 6/27/2025 at 12:27 AM, herbie said:

Yes you are correct in that. So seldom we tend to agree.

Count in the $$ to build up the shipyards here to build more ships and build faster. No more of this ferries from China shit.

We can't count the $$ in Canada because everything the federal government does is top secret. We aren't allowed to know what things cost or the reasons why budgets keep going up and timelines keep going back. Why did that stupid pipeline cost so much? TOP SECRET!  Why are we paying such enormous prices for unarmed support ships? TOP SECRET! Why are we spending so much on those Irving ships when the British are building them for a fraction of the price we're paying? TOP SECRET!

The only certainty we have is that whatever they do will cost a lot more than they say it will and take a lot longer than they say it will.

I'd love to do a deep, forensic accounting dive at Iriving industries to find out where all the money is going. I have a feeling the Irvings have a money bin hidden somewhere in Nova Scotia that they like to party in and do their own deep dives into piles of taxpayer cash. 

[I am Groot]

22 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

This is retarded. Canadian companies have been bought up by American companies forever. Suddenly, you want to blame Harper for the ones that happened while he was PM? Nortel to Sweden? LOL. Nortel was bankrupt. There was nothing left of it! And if any Canadian company had been willing to buy those other ones they could have. They didn't. 

[Zeitgeist]

5% of GDP is excessive.  Not even the U.S. spends that much of their GDP on defence.  2% was reasonable and Canada needs to meet that goal asap.  NATO countries shouldn’t be propping up the US defence welfare complex.

We’re getting the fleet of ice breakers.  The 88 F-35’s or something comparable like the Grippen is coming.  My understanding is that we’re getting ships but they’re dependent on US communication systems.  We need a proper compliment of subs and they should be nuclear.   Canada does need a significant military boost.  I do question the value of some of this heavier conventional tech given that wars seem to be fought increasingly with unmanned drones operated by video game whizzes in command centres. Canada needs to play this smart and do enough to placate Trump until he’s run out of town.

Canada doesn’t have as many enemies as the U.S., nor do we seek to manipulate geopolitics as much as the U.S.  Having said that, we have benefited from U.S. hegemony.  We need to up our game for our own independence, so that we really can defend ourselves with or without NATO and the U.S.   The reality is that once a country has the power to nuke the world once over and defend its borders, the rest is just about supporting allied missions.

Canada has to be prepared for the U.S. to close the door and be self-reliant.  That also means making enough of our own military stuff that we can close the door too, export gear, trade it, etc.  Canada needs to start acting like a Britain as our population closes in on 50 million over the next 15-20 years.  

Edited 4 hours ago by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you honestly have no clue why the Pelosis are so much luckier than everyone else when it comes to investing

All American politicians played the same game - on both sides of the aisle. 

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Agreeing to what?  Why would I admit that when I have no idea if she did or not. My logical is guess is that no she didn't. Otherwise the SEC would be all over her, which they're not.  Do you have a link you can provide that shows she was insider trading?  

It's not called insider trading when you base your trades on knowledge of upcoming government regulatory, tax and legal changes unless that information came from the companies that will profit from it. If you're a senator or congressperson, you were always free to trade on that knowledge before it became public. Or were, until relatively recently. They finally put a new rule in place banning it, but it's never been enforced. 

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

This is retarded. Canadian companies have been bought up by American companies forever. Suddenly, you want to blame Harper for the ones that happened while he was PM? Nortel to Sweden? LOL. Nortel was bankrupt. There was nothing left of it! And if any Canadian company had been willing to buy those other ones they could have. They didn't. 

But it is all true

Nope, just saw this and it is all fact. As a conservative seems you do not like to be told the tings your heros do?? LOL

[I am Groot]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

5% of GDP is excessive.  Not even the U.S. spends that much of their GDP on defence.  2% was reasonable and Canada needs to meet that goal asap.

Honestly, they should scrap that rule. Change it to something more real, like how many soldiers you can field. How many tanks or armored vehicles or fighters or missiles, all based on a country's population. It does Canada's defense little good to pay three times more for its weapons than is needed. Nor to play accounting games by doing things like putting our unarmed, civilian coast guard under the military umbrella so we can include their budget as 'defense spending."

 

 

[WestCanMan]

20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

All American politicians played the same game - on both sides of the aisle. 

And the worst part of it isn't even that they make all that dirty money, it's that some of it comes from military industrial complex spending. Those multi-billion dollar contracts that pump up shareholder value all come at a cost in lives, and it makes war profitable for these members of gov't.

I wonder how much the avg congressman gets from the lobbyists of military contractors, big pharma, etc. Not in $ straight to their account, just in meals, golf games, tickets to shows, etc. 

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

It's not called insider trading when you base your trades on knowledge of upcoming government regulatory, tax and legal changes unless that information came from the companies that will profit from it. If you're a senator or congressperson, you were always free to trade on that knowledge before it became public. Or were, until relatively recently. They finally put a new rule in place banning it, but it's never been enforced. 

Absolutely agree that having the knowledge of upcoming government regulatory, tax or legal changes gives a significant and unfair advantage for an investor.  Insider trading was the accusation/inference though...which is factually incorrect.  Not aware but will look up rule you mention. I was an insider in my past life and we had a trading window of 8 days to sell which was only after quarterly earnings became public. Unsure how they would do similar with politicians...other than making it mandatory to disclose buys/sells immediately?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I gave you too much credit for having a 32mb brain capacity....  

Are you still crying? Holy crap you're a delicate little flower aren't you? Like I said you can't get this upset every time you're wrong on the internet. You'll give yourself a heart condition  

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

But it is all true

Nope, just saw this and it is all fact. As a conservative seems you do not like to be told the tings your heros do?? LOL

It's not even a little bit true and the fact that you have to lie to make your point demonstrates yet again that you don't have a good point