LinkSoul60 Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I actually do approve of spending on the military, but the point is.... are we? We are on paper but in the real world? You can't just change the label on a 10 billion dollar coast guard program and pretend 'military' spending actually went up 10 billion dollars. Not that i'm opposed to the move but you can see what i mean, it's not actually new money. Money on 'trees' isn't real military spending etc. I mean i get that it's important to give the impression we're hitting our nato targets for political reasons but that doesn't actually benefit our soldiers. I heard they were getting a raise, don't know if that happened, but that would be nice. But where's the AA systems, the armoured personnel stuff, and how much of what we bought went to the ukraine? That's where the aa and wheeled vehicles we bought previously went. I'd be fine with spending 2 percent on our miilitary ir we were actually getting more 'military' out of it, new gear and guns and such, but i don't think that's what's happening by and large. If you approve, then what's the problem.... because it's a liberal government. You don't believe the accounting, you don't understand that planting tree's are part of bases' related upgrade expenses, you haven't bothered to look that the military received pay increases in November, you don't understand that military procurement isn't like Amazon and picking equipment and weaponry from a magazine to ship the next day, and you certainly can't back things up factually by saying "I don't think that's what happening by and large". 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: He also cancelled the order for the sea king replacements Immediately upon taking office in 1993, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien cancelled a -billion contract to purchase 50 EH-101 helicopters (designed to replace aging Sea Kings), calling them a "Cadillac" in a time of fiscal restraint. This political move cost taxpayers roughly million in penalties, causing significant procurement delays So he cancelled more helecopters than he bought, and delayed the military getting replacements by a decade or more. Justin cancelled the purchase plan for the f35 harper started, and now a decade later they're just going to start buying them The liberals have a long history of cancelling purchases the Conservatives have made, waiting a decade then announcing the same purchases. They are NOT a 'net' spender on the military No, he cancelled the project that was going to buy SAR and Maritime helicopters in one combined procurement. And he was right to do so. The single type of helicopter for SAR and Maritime was not workable or doable. For SAR, the EH101 variant was an excellent choice (and turned out to be the one we got) but, the EH 101 for ships was completely wrong. The ships we had could not be easily or economically be modified to carry the EH 101 so it would have been cancelled anyway. No, he did buy the Cormorant (EH 101 variant) and he did buy the Cyclone (S92 variant) for Sea King replacement. No, Justin did not cancel the F35 procurement. It was Harper that did that. "Stephen Harper's Conservative government announced in 2010 the intention to purchase 65 F-35 fighter jets via a sole-source contract. However, due to immense controversy over costs, a lack of competitive bidding, and an Auditor General report, the government backed away from the final purchase in 2012, placing the procurement on hold" Once again, you are wrong...the conservatives had not made any, or very few Military purchases and the Liberals did not cancel any of them with exception of the omnibus EH101 procurement.... Edited March 27 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
User Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: It just so happens that anyone who disagrees with you gets called a liar, so only liars disagree with you I guess. What a child-like grasp of reasoning. In addition to me and "my pal Beaver", why don't I start a list of all the people you cry liar at? Maybe after the first few hundred names you'd start getting some actual perspective on your behavior...but no. That's unlikely for someone like you. 🤡 People disagree all the time, it’s when they lie I call them out. Once again, you don’t like that, don’t lie. Instead of dealing with the fact that your pal Beaver here lied repeatedly in this discussion, all because he can admit he was wrong about the stupid trees, you cry about my calling him a liar. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 41 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: If you approve, then what's the problem.... because it's a liberal government. Sigh. You're not listening, this is why you get your ass kicked so much. I'll say it again. I don't disapprove of folding the coast guard into the umbrella of the armed forces. BUT - you cannot pretend that the coast guard budget represents "increased military spending" if you do that. It's spending we've always done, not a penny in new spending has taken place, and it doesn't actually change our 'military'. Is that not easy to understand? 43 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: You don't believe the accounting, you don't understand that planting tree's are part of bases' related upgrade Sigh, We went over this. A big hunk of the money was part of the 4 billion the liberals promised in tree planting and had nothing to do with the bases. Go back and read. So i understand the accounting just fine. Now if nato changes the rules and allows that kind of tomfoolery and it makes the Americans think we're hitting our nato commitments then so be it, BUT... you CANNOT pretend it was an ACTUAL increase in military spending. 45 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: ou haven't bothered to look that the military received pay increases in November I literally mentioned the increases very specifically. FFS. 45 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: you don't understand that military procurement isn't like Amazon and picking equipment and weaponry from a magazine I understand fine, what you don't understand is that Carney promised he'd make it happen by now anyway. 46 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: you certainly can't back things up factually by saying "I don't think that's what happening by and large". I have literally backed up every single thing with facts. Why are you like this? You literally screwed up every single thing you just said and most of it was immediately available at your fingertips to know you were wrong before you said it? How the hell are you this stupid? If you have learned nothing else you should have learned that I don't open my mouth unless I know I'm right and make very few mistakes so if I said something you should have taken the time to see whether or not it was accurate instead of just opening your mouth and looking like a complete twat Do you think anybody anywhere is going to respect you for behaving like this? It's fine to have different opinions but you're just factually absolutely wrong when you shouldn't be Get it together man. Nobody's claiming you the brightest person currently on the planet but for god's sake surely you can do better than this? At any rate we didn't come close to 2% in actual military spending. We just changed the labels on some of the accounts in the books and that's my concern 3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: No, he cancelled the project that was going to buy SAR and Maritime helicopters in one procurement. No he canceled the order. I literally provided proof of that and we had to pay a huge expense as a result Honestly you and link solar are peas in a pod, you can be force-fed the facts right in front of you and still screw up in your response We had helicopters on order. He canceled the helicopters. We paid like 500 million for the cancellation. The military wouldn't get his helicopters replaced for over a decade as a result Simple fact 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
LinkSoul60 Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 17 minutes ago, CdnFox said: At any rate we didn't come close to 2% in actual military spending. You can't get out of your own way can you... 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 19 minutes ago, CdnFox said: .... No he canceled the order. I literally provided proof of that and we had to pay a huge expense as a result Honestly you and link solar are peas in a pod, you can be force-fed the facts right in front of you and still screw up in your response We had helicopters on order. He canceled the helicopters. We paid like 500 million for the cancellation. The military wouldn't get his helicopters replaced for over a decade as a result Simple fact Yes, he cancelled the procurement of the EH101 ..a SAR Variant and Maritime variant. (NSA/NSH project). Oh and you did not provide any proof, just your blather ...as usual LOL As I explained to you, The EH101 variant was great for SAR but was not good for Maritime so, cancelling was the right thing. Yes, it cost $500 million to cancel but that was because Harper did not fully allow the DND to do it's diligence and he just went ahead with the procurement. The Navy never wanted the EH101. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sea_King_replacement https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/a-government-blunder-teaches-us-how-not-to-buy-helicopters/ Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Army Guy Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 18 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said: You missed the words 'current projections'....meaning it's a forecast, not a factual number PBO noted that while NATO military spending targets are 2% of GDP, current projections, when corrected for GDP forecasts, suggest military spending will only reach 1.58% of GDP by 2029-30. Suppose you have to go with the NATO report given it's in dollars today, not in 2029-30 'projected' dollars. Yes it was forecasted....Based on what was actually spent to date, meaning as of OCT 2025 info...or do you think those numbers where just pulled out of thin air...and by some miracle you want us to believe that in less than 5 months they spent bils,that the PBO was not aware off... that is a stretch, first off the entire budget at the start of the year does not equate to 2 % of GDP, so where did the additional money come from....even the additional 9 bil does not take us to the 2 % mark....the next question would be what did they spend it on, what signed contracts have their been that would add up to the remaining bils ....... because in order to count it must be spent before march 31....forecasting or announcing your going to spend money does not count. IT must be spent , contract signed, before march 31 for it to count as spent... What it does show is there is a huge disconnect between official Liberal government numbers, and what the PBO office has... Quote Recent NATO Contribution Analysis (2025–2026) The PBO currently tracks DND's progress toward two primary NATO targets: This projection contradicted the federal government's own forecast of 1.76% for the same period. The PBO attributed this discrepancy to what it labeled an "erroneous" GDP forecast by the government, which assumed a four-year economic recession that significantly underestimated Canada's economic growthA recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) in October 2025 projected that Canada’s defence spending would reach 1.58% of GDP by 2029-30. 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.
Army Guy Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 20 hours ago, Army Guy said: How so, they are not armed, or equipped to protect the country...nor is it being planed to be armed, or equipped, they do not play a role in defending the country, they can't even do a fisheries patrol all that has happened to date is they budget is folded into the militaries...to boast our % of GDP in NATO spending ... it is a political move that accomplishes nothing.... Flyer you do know this is a discussion forum, dropping your little red arrows does not add to the discussion, it kind of says your to lazy to reply...which I'm wondering why your here if not to discuss things...Or maybe you can't answer the questions i asked, no one knows because the red arrow says nothing...So are you to lazy, or can not comprehend the question... 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.
Army Guy Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 13 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said: 1.9% or 2.1% it doesn't matter, we're spending on our military which is long overdue, including under your guy Harper. You probably won't like how it will be paid for, but can't have it all. It does matter a lot it equates to hundreds of millions of dollars, which could go to training , courses, recruitment etc,.....And while i do truly apricate all the extra dollars, Canadians want to be told the truth, we are tired of being told lies, Carney was suppose to be a much different guy " he is not Justin"....this is not the first lie he has told.....Now i know that may not be a character trait you aspire to, but it is one i hold on to. 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.
Moonbox Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 1 hour ago, User said: People disagree all the time, it’s when they lie I call them out. No, it's your fall-back position where you don't like where the argument has gone. It's such a consistent, almost automatic pattern of behavior that you've repeated literally thousands of times on this forum in your brief existance here. 1 hour ago, User said: Once again, you don’t like that, don’t lie. It's no skin off my back if you want to continue this sort of infantile behavior. All you're doing is ensuring that nobody takes you seriously. If you don't like that I keep making fun of your for it, grow up and start debating like an actual adult. 🙃 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Carney was suppose to be a much different guy " he is not Justin"....this is not the first lie he has told.....Now i know that may not be a character trait you aspire to, but it is one i hold on to. He is a much different guy. He's much more qualified. He's much more flexible, and he's much more cooperative. The truth is it really wouldn't matter what he did or said. You're so blindly partisan that you'd be saying the same thing no matter what. Case in point is this topic here, where Carney is the first PM probably since I was born who's spending +2.0% of GDP on the military, and rather than celebrating that you're still b*tching about Justin. Edited March 27 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Army Guy Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 Just now, Moonbox said: He is a much different guy. He's much more qualified. He's much more flexible, and he's much more cooperative. The truth is it really wouldn't matter what he did or said. You're so blindly partisan that you'd be saying the same thing no matter what. In what way is he different, he does not own a sock collection, nor does he have the hair....and to be truthful my sons pet gopher was better qualified than Justin....He certainly has a long list of previous jobs and qualifications....And not everyone agrees with his performance in those jobs...You may think he is cooperative, but still we have no trade deal with the US, and i don't think CUSMA is going to turn out the way we all think it is going to...and he really has not done much, except travel.... And the truth of the matter partisanship is a two edged sword....and your as blinded by Carney as any other liberal on this forum.. 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.
User Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 34 minutes ago, Moonbox said: No, it's your fall-back position where you don't like where the argument has gone. It's such a consistent, almost automatic pattern of behavior that you've repeated literally thousands of times on this forum in your brief existance here. Once again, you continue to avoid the verifiable fact here for what Beaver has said, how he lied. You don't want to talk about the facts; you just want to dismiss the accusation out of hand. The fact that you and others behave dishonestly so much is on you. Not me for calling it out. 35 minutes ago, Moonbox said: It's no skin off my back if you want to continue this sort of infantile behavior. All you're doing is ensuring that nobody takes you seriously. If you don't like that I keep making fun of your for it, grow up and start debating like an actual adult. 🙃 And yet you feel you have to cry about it over and over and over again. I was debating this, but Beaver kept running away and lying. Quote
Moonbox Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: He certainly has a long list of previous jobs and qualifications....And not everyone agrees with his performance in those jobs. When did we need everyone to agree? There's always going to be dissenters for almost literally everything, especially when it comes to politics and bias. There are still idi*ts that think the Earth is flat, that the moon landings didn't happen, and that outer space is actually made of jello instead of just empty void. The track record and progression for Carney speak for themelves. From lauded BoC governor, to the first non-British BoE governor, to executive leadership at one of the world's largest Asset Managers, on his way to PM of Canada. Compare that to Justin Trudeau. Anyone trying to paint these two as even remotely similar are just making fools of themselves, and their agreement on the matter isn't very relevant. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
BeaverFever Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 23 hours ago, Army Guy said: The Liberal government has constantly added to what is counted towards the 2 % of GDP goal, going back a full decade, PBO office which has accounts for all government spending differs from how DND accounts it contributions towards NATO spending. PBO office calculates our % of GDP at only 1.58... Recent NATO Contribution Analysis (2025–2026) The PBO currently tracks DND's progress toward two primary NATO targets: This projection contradicted the federal government's own forecast of 1.76% for the same period. The PBO attributed this discrepancy to what it labeled an "erroneous" GDP forecast by the government, which assumed a four-year economic recession that significantly underestimated Canada's economic growthA recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) in October 2025 projected that Canada’s defence spending would reach 1.58% of GDP by 2029-30. Parliamentary Budget Officer +1 Current Liberal government reporting has expanded in the last decade to include the following. When reporting to NATO, the Department of National Defence (DND) includes expenditures that meet the specific NATO definition of "defence expenditure," which often results in a higher reported amount than what is strictly found in DND’s own internal budget. In March 2026, it was reported that Canada met the 2% GDP spending benchmark for 2025 with a total investment of just over $63 billion. HillNotes +2 Core DND Budget Inclusions The majority (approximately 80%) of reported spending comes directly from DND and covers these primary categories: RBC Wealth Management +1 Personnel Costs: Salaries and benefits for members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Operations and Maintenance: Funding for military operations, missions (e.g., Operation REASSURANCE), and equipment sustainment. Major Equipment (Capital): Purchases of new assets such as the River-class destroyers, F-35 fighters, and P-8A Poseidon aircraft. Infrastructure: Construction and maintenance of military bases and facilities. Research and Development (R&D): Costs for defence-related R&D projects, even if they do not result in final production. www.nato.int +5 Eligible Other Government Department (OGD) Costs To meet NATO's reporting standards, Canada includes "elements other than pure DND spending" from other federal entities: HillNotes +1 Veterans Affairs Canada: Direct payments and pensions to retired CAF members. Global Affairs Canada: Contributions to NATO’s military and civil budgets, and UN peacekeeping mission costs. Canadian Coast Guard: Activities specifically related to national defence. Communications Security Establishment (CSE): Cyber defence and signals intelligence. Shared Services Canada: IT support provided directly to DND and the CAF. Military Aid: Financial and military assistance provided to allies or partners, such as military aid to Ukraine. Parliamentary Budget Officer +6 Direct NATO Contributions DND specifically earmarks funds for direct NATO-managed budgets: Canada.ca +1 Military Budget: Supports international military staff and NATO's command structure. Security Investment Program (NSIP): Funds capital costs for communications and infrastructure like airfields. Common Funding: Canada’s agreed-upon share (roughly 6.7%) of NATO’s collective operating costs. Canada.ca +2 RCMP portions of their budget are also included... Relation to NATO Spending Targets While they are separate budgets, some portions of RCMP spending (specifically related to international or national security operations) can sometimes be included in Canada's reporting of total defence expenditures to meet NATO's 2% of GDP target. However, this is a reporting categorization for international comparisons and does not mean the RCMP is part of the DND's internal organizational budget I think the government has shown that it will grab at any opportunity to increase spending when there is no actual increase to the Military over all budget...but rather what is reported to NATO. SO while liberals are celebrating the news of hitting our 2 % GDP commitment, when it was them that had signed on to a commitment to reach this goal in 2014....to meet 2 % by 2024 ....to which they got close 1.42 % of GDP in 2024...and now PBO office is saying thats not true....that we are way short at 1.58 % of GDP...Who do we believe....PBO office, or a NATO report that relies on Liberal figures... 1) What you e citing is AN OUTDATED ESTIMATE 2) For the hundredth time NATO DETERMINES WHETHER A COUNTRY HIT THE TARGET OR NOT. Not Carney. Not the PBO. NATO has confirmed that we hit the target. PERIOD. GAME OVER. There’s nothing more to argue. Here's how Canada hit its NATO defence spending target By The Canadian Press Opens in new window Updated: March 26, 2026 at 5:51PM EDT Published: March 26, 2026 at 5:49PM EDT OTTAWA — Canada spent $63.4 billion on national defence in 2025, meeting its NATO commitment to spend two per cent of GDP on defence for the first time, the alliance’s annual report said Thursday. Speaking at an event in Halifax, N.S., on Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney called it the “single largest year-on-year increase in defence investment in generations.” Some details of the Carney government’s defence spending spree won’t be public until it publishes its full accounts for the year in the fall. Here’s a closer look at where some of that money is going: — The government added $9 billion to the fiscal framework in summer 2025 to help meet the NATO spending target. That included $2.6 billion for recruitment and retention and nearly $1 billion for maintaining infrastructure and equipment. — Ottawa ordered a major salary hike for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, with some members receiving pay bumps as high as 20 per cent. That was part of that $9 billion sum, although the government did not provide a detailed cost breakdown for the pay raise. — As part of a flurry of announcements in March, Ottawa announced $200 million for a space launch pad in Nova Scotia to send satellites into orbit. — The government recently set aside $1.4 billion for producing munitions in Canada, such as 155mm artillery shells. Of that sum, $356 million is going toward setting up a factory in Quebec to make nitrocellulose, an ingredient used as a propellant in artillery shells. — $307 million is going to Colt Canada for new modular assault rifles to replace army rifles and carbines that are more than 35 years old. — $753 million went to Bombardier for a fleet of Global 6500 VIP jets. — The Treasury Board said in February, close to the deadline for the fiscal year, that National Defence needed “$1 billion to cover urgent and unforeseen defence requirements.” It did not explain why the funds were urgently needed. In a recent interview, Defence Minister David McGuinty said to speed up the process, a lot of the spending was broken down into small projects — such as one to expand Wi-Fi access at military bases and another to overhaul the bases’ water and wastewater systems. He did not say exactly much each project would cost. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/heres-how-canada-hit-its-nato-defence-spending-target/ Quote
BeaverFever Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: A big hunk of the money was part of the 4 billion the liberals promised in tree planting and had nothing to do with the bases. Go back and read. You need to go back and read because that is completely false 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: what you don't understand is that Carney promised he'd make it happen by now anyway. Also false. He did not say material would be contracted, designed manufactured and delivered within 1 year and if you knew anything you would understand hoe ridiculously unrealistic that would be. Contracts are being awarded amd projects are being expedited at an unprecedented pace amd scale 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: How the hell are you this stupid? If you have learned nothing else you should have learned that I don't open my mouth unless I know I'm right and make very few mistakes LMAO you are the most notorious BULLSHITTER on this site!! There are other right wing nutjobs who are dumber than you and repeat fake news and conspiracies that is far crazier than yours but you’re unique is that you completely make up your own shit when you’re completely out of your depth. I am sure you think you’re right when you say it though. Quote
Legato Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 23 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: 1) What you e citing is AN OUTDATED ESTIMATE 2) For the hundredth time NATO DETERMINES WHETHER A COUNTRY HIT THE TARGET OR NOT. Not Carney. Not the PBO. NATO has confirmed that we hit the target. PERIOD. GAME OVER. There’s nothing more to argue. Here's how Canada hit its NATO defence spending target By The Canadian Press Opens in new window Updated: March 26, 2026 at 5:51PM EDT Published: March 26, 2026 at 5:49PM EDT OTTAWA — Canada spent $63.4 billion on national defence in 2025, meeting its NATO commitment to spend two per cent of GDP on defence for the first time, the alliance’s annual report said Thursday. Speaking at an event in Halifax, N.S., on Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney called it the “single largest year-on-year increase in defence investment in generations.” Some details of the Carney government’s defence spending spree won’t be public until it publishes its full accounts for the year in the fall. Here’s a closer look at where some of that money is going: — The government added $9 billion to the fiscal framework in summer 2025 to help meet the NATO spending target. That included $2.6 billion for recruitment and retention and nearly $1 billion for maintaining infrastructure and equipment. — Ottawa ordered a major salary hike for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, with some members receiving pay bumps as high as 20 per cent. That was part of that $9 billion sum, although the government did not provide a detailed cost breakdown for the pay raise. — As part of a flurry of announcements in March, Ottawa announced $200 million for a space launch pad in Nova Scotia to send satellites into orbit. — The government recently set aside $1.4 billion for producing munitions in Canada, such as 155mm artillery shells. Of that sum, $356 million is going toward setting up a factory in Quebec to make nitrocellulose, an ingredient used as a propellant in artillery shells. — $307 million is going to Colt Canada for new modular assault rifles to replace army rifles and carbines that are more than 35 years old. — $753 million went to Bombardier for a fleet of Global 6500 VIP jets. — The Treasury Board said in February, close to the deadline for the fiscal year, that National Defence needed “$1 billion to cover urgent and unforeseen defence requirements.” It did not explain why the funds were urgently needed. In a recent interview, Defence Minister David McGuinty said to speed up the process, a lot of the spending was broken down into small projects — such as one to expand Wi-Fi access at military bases and another to overhaul the bases’ water and wastewater systems. He did not say exactly much each project would cost. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/heres-how-canada-hit-its-nato-defence-spending-target/ However, this target was achieved by incorporating the Canadian Coast Guard and other "other government department" expenditures, not by excluding them. Coast Guard Inclusion: The government included about $2.5 billion of the Canadian Coast Guard's budget—roughly 60 per cent of its total funding—in its NATO spending figures. "Creative Accounting" Criticism: Critics and defense analysts noted that this milestone relied partly on transferring the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to "under the auspices of the Defence Department" for accounting purposes. Other Inclusions: In addition to the Coast Guard, over $14 billion in spending from other departments—including Veterans Affairs, the Communications Security Establishment, and Global Affairs—was included in the 2025–26 total, accounting for a significant portion of the increase. Quote
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 6 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said: You can't get out of your own way can you... Kid just saying stupid things that have no meaning and aren't true isn't making an argument. It just makes you look dumb. IF you have an ACTUAL point or rebuttal or information then change your diapers and make it. Can't you have ONE adult conversation? Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 6 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Yes, he cancelled the procurement of the EH101 .. So I was right. And his reasoning at the time specifically was that Canada couldn't afford to be spending that much money on the military at that time because money was tight and the military didn't need the 'best' helecopter anyway. He called it the 'Cadillac' of helecopters and the military didn't deserve that during tough economic times. I don't know why you insist on pretending you disagree with me and then post that i was absolutely correct. Yeash. Anyway chretien was no friend to the military that's for sure. Broken down used subs that never did work and "no 'Cadillac ' helo's for you!"' And he flushed a billion bucks of taxpayer cash down the toilet doing it. Here's a non paywall link. Story's very old of course so the formatting is a little off How Chrétien fumbled the helicopter mission - The Globe and Mail 4 hours ago, Moonbox said: It's no skin off my back if you want to continue this sort of infantile behavior. All you're doing is ensuring that nobody takes you seriously. Almost everybody takes him seriously. Almost nobody takes you seriously. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, BeaverFever said: You need to go back and read because that is completely false It's 100% true, and we did provide the evidence and links and I'm sorry that you missed that and that it upsets you but that doesn't make it not true They looked for every nickel that they could to shovel into military spending that had already been spent to give the appearance that we met our commitments Lying about it won't help. And you really need to stop with that shit, this is serious business. We're talking about the lives of our soldiers, obviously you don't care about that terribly much. You're more interested in protecting the liberals that are fighting men and women Many many billions of that 2 percent were NOT spent on anything anyone with even a quarter of a brain would consider "military", and much of it was money already in the budget in general and was previous spending relabeled. You can accept that or lie to yourself. I'll leave it up to you. But at the end of the day it means the libs did NOT dp what they claimed, which is pretty par for the course but it also means that our military is not actually substantially better off. Nice trees tho. Quote Also false. Entirely true. And he really wasn't that much pressure to make that comment. Honestly I just don't think he knows what he's doing Quote LMAO you are the most notorious BULLSHITTER on this site!! No that's what people who constantly lose arguments pretend to make themselves feel better. Again I've proven everything I've said here. None of it is secret none of it is controversial none of it requires some sort of ultra right media source. What you don't like is that I don't let it go when you lie. I keep coming back with facts and truths and it makes you angry but that doesn't mean they're not facts and truth As Legato has also pointed out she's very little in the way of new spending. You're just going to have to learn to cope Edited March 27 by CdnFox 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 2 hours ago, Legato said: However, this target was achieved by incorporating the Canadian Coast Guard and other "other government department" expenditures, not by excluding them. Coast Guard Inclusion: The government included about $2.5 billion of the Canadian Coast Guard's budget—roughly 60 per cent of its total funding—in its NATO spending figures. "Creative Accounting" Criticism: Critics and defense analysts noted that this milestone relied partly on transferring the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to "under the auspices of the Defence Department" for accounting purposes. Other Inclusions: In addition to the Coast Guard, over $14 billion in spending from other departments—including Veterans Affairs, the Communications Security Establishment, and Global Affairs—was included in the 2025–26 total, accounting for a significant portion of the increase. So? All legit defence expenditures that are deliberately included by NATO and other countries but haven’t been included by Canada. . But there’s also net new spending being awarded constantly. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 Just now, BeaverFever said: So? All legit defence expenditure But not new spending and not really military spending That's the point. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted March 27 Report Posted March 27 14 minutes ago, CdnFox said: It's 100% true, and we did provide the evidence and links and I'm sorry that you missed that and that it upsets you but that doesn't make it not true No it’s not true. You have an established track record of not understanding the things you read, if you even read them at all. 15 minutes ago, CdnFox said: They looked for every nickel that they could to shovel into military spending that had already been spent to give the appearance that we met our commitments Lying about it won't help. And you really need to stop with that shit, this is serious business. We're talking about the lives of our soldiers, obviously you don't care about that terribly much. You're more interested in protecting the liberals that are fighting men and women Many many billions of that 2 percent were NOT spent on anything anyone with even a quarter of a brain would consider "military", and much of it was money already in the budget in general and was previous spending relabeled. You can accept that or lie to yourself. I'll leave it up to you. But at the end of the day it means the libs did NOT dp what they claimed, which is pretty par for the course but it also means that our military is not actually substantially better off. Nice trees You don’t know what you are talking about, plain and simple. You pick and choose what want to believe and make up the rest to fill in the gaps. My biggest complaint with just about every MAGA on this site is that you have no pre-existing knowledge or understanding of the subject you’re speaking to so you’re completely unaware of how wrong you are. I mean your claims aren’t just factually wrong, they are illogical and don’t make sense But since you hold these beliefs in an information vacuum, they “feel” reasonable to you and you people mostly operate in feelings rather than facts and logic. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 27 Author Report Posted March 27 Just now, BeaverFever said: No it’s not true. You have an established track record of not understanding the things you read, if you even read them at all. It is quite true in making false accusations doesn't change it any more than lying about it does I'm sorry you're having an emotionally difficult time coping with this but it is unfortunately for you the facts 1 minute ago, BeaverFever said: You don’t know what you are talking about, plain and simple. You pick and choose what want to believe and make up the rest to fill in the gaps. no, beaver. I know exactly what I'm talking about and so do the other people that are telling you exactly the same thing and so do the newspaper articles and other documentation which 100% supports that position This isn't controversial or open to interpretation. Things like the coast guard being transferred to the military budget is in no way shape or form new military spending. This is not something that can be argued. This is a simple fact. They took something that was not military and decided to call it military, it's not new military spending Do you have ANY idea what a delusional nutbar you sound like trying to pretend otherwise? Jezus kid, i get you love Carney that much but you need to wake up! THis is NOT HARD 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted March 28 Report Posted March 28 9 minutes ago, CdnFox said: But not new spending and not really military spending That's the point. Helmets and rifles and aircraft and military satellites and upgrades to military bases and building military housing isn’t military spending? And what do you mean it’s bit new spending? If it was spent this year but not last year it’s new spending, period, even for anything Trudeau may have announced in a previous year but never actively followed through with the spending. Or do you want to give Trudeau the credit and claim HE hit the 2% years ago? Either way the money is spent Liberals right? You have nowhere to run on this one And as I pointed out previously, you realize you’re trying to have t both ways right? When they announce new spending you claim it doesn’t count until the money is actually spent. When they actually spend the money you say it doesn’t count because it was previously announced. Trying to have your cake and eat it too. 2 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.