blue_gold_84 Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, Mark H. said: You have no evidence to show that politicians do or do not work hard. I provided an anecdote, you disagreed with it - for no reason other than salary increases. A single example of anecdotal evidence doesn't substantiate anything. That's a logical fallacy, BTW. I also never made the claim they don't work hard. Where did you get that? #strawman Go re-read what I actually posted. I said they should work hard to represent their constituents based on the remuneration/compensation they receive. I provided a link to their salaries to show how well compensated they are, not because I disagree with your anecdotal evidence.
Atomic Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said: Yeah, I can see how wanting to engage in discussion makes one "unbearably obnoxious"... Solid contribution. As always. Not once have you shown a desire to engage in discussion. You are Mr. Strawman. You constantly argue against points that no one has made while liberally sprinkling in eye rolls, self-righteous affirmations and condescension. It is impossible to discuss with someone like this. kelownabomberfan 1
blue_gold_84 Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 1 minute ago, Atomic said: Not once have you shown a desire to engage in discussion. You are Mr. Strawman. You constantly argue against points that no one has made while liberally sprinkling in eye rolls, self-righteous affirmations and condescension. It is impossible to discuss with someone like this. Oh, the richness of this comment coming from you. I'm pretty sure you don't even know what the term strawman means. What points not made by others have I "constantly" argued, anyway? Maybe you can throw in a "LOL" for good measure. Or tell me to "step outside the echo chamber" again. Hypocrisy is not a good look. And if you don't like what I have to say, here's an idea: ignore it. And get over yourself.
Atomic Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said: Oh, the richness of this comment coming from you. I'm pretty sure you don't even know what the term strawman means. What points not made by others have I "constantly" argued, anyway? Maybe you can throw in a "LOL" for good measure. Or tell me to "step outside the echo chamber" again. Hypocrisy is not a good look. And if you don't like what I have to say, here's an idea: ignore it. And get over yourself. I just thought you might like to know why everyone keeps walking away from your "discussions". Clearly though, you aren't interested. LOL. kelownabomberfan 1
blue_gold_84 Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Atomic said: I just thought you might like to know why everyone keeps walking away from your "discussions". Clearly though, you aren't interested. LOL. Since when are two people "everyone"...? One actually did return and continue to the discussion, BTW. Clearly, though, you aren't paying attention.
Atomic Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 Just now, blue_gold_84 said: Since when are two people "everyone"...? One actually did return and continue to the discussion, BTW. Clearly, though, you aren't paying attention. What, with a Monty Python video mocking you? Yeah I guess that's considered returning to the discussion. sweep the leg and kelownabomberfan 2
blue_gold_84 Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 40 minutes ago, Atomic said: What, with a Monty Python video mocking you? Yeah I guess that's considered returning to the discussion. Reading isn't your strong suit, eh?
Atomic Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said: Reading isn't your strong suit, eh? Not obnoxious at all, not at all. kelownabomberfan 1
Mark H. Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said: A single example of anecdotal evidence doesn't substantiate anything. That's a logical fallacy, BTW. I also never made the claim they don't work hard. Where did you get that? #strawman Go re-read what I actually posted. I said they should work hard to represent their constituents based on the remuneration/compensation they receive. I provided a link to their salaries to show how well compensated they are, not because I disagree with your anecdotal evidence. No need to 100% substantiate anything, just some evidenc to back up opinions would suffice. I did go back and read what you wrote - including what you and others wrote before my original post. kelownabomberfan 1
Mark H. Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Atomic said: What, with a Monty Python video mocking you? Yeah I guess that's considered returning to the discussion. Should've posted The Ministry of Silly Walks...
sweep the leg Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 18 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said: Sure, many of them put in long hours. But's it not "difficult" work, per se. And they get compensated handsomely, too. Define "difficult".
blue_gold_84 Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Atomic said: Not obnoxious at all, not at all. There's that hypocrisy again. 13 minutes ago, sweep the leg said: Define "difficult". Arduous. Burdening.
Atomic Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 Just now, blue_gold_84 said: There's that hypocrisy again. Goes both ways. kelownabomberfan 1
Mr Dee Posted June 6, 2017 Report Posted June 6, 2017 48 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said: Arduous. Burdening. I think you mean Adarious Bowman. Very easy to get them mixed up.. blue_gold_84 1
Wideleft Posted June 7, 2017 Report Posted June 7, 2017 28 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: This is what happens when your neighbour to the south can no longer be trusted to act responsibly, cooperatively or sensibly. wbbfan and blue_gold_84 2
Atomic Posted June 7, 2017 Report Posted June 7, 2017 30 minutes ago, Wideleft said: This is what happens when your neighbour to the south can no longer be trusted to act responsibly, cooperatively or sensibly. Not sure this makes any sense and is more of a cop-out for the spend-happy liberals. What are they worried about? Getting invaded? Or are we planning to wield our military might to make Trump do what we want? kelownabomberfan 1
The Unknown Poster Posted June 7, 2017 Author Report Posted June 7, 2017 Im all for military spending. But didnt the Liberals whine about the Cons' spending on new equipment for years? And this announcement where they get the PR of investing in the military but dont actually spend the money until after the election is a bit disingenuous. How on earth will they pay for this? As a result, it says defence spending is actually closer to around 1.19 per cent this fiscal year, and that it will increase to 1.4 per cent of GDP by 2026-27. In real terms, that will mean an increase in cash spending from about $18.9 billion this year to $32.7 billion in 2026-27, with the biggest jump — at least in the short term — in 2020-21. That increase, officials said, lines up with when the government plans to begin spending in earnest on 15 new warships, which are now expected to cost up to $60 billion to build instead of the previous estimate of $26 billion. The government also plans to buy 88 new fighter jets at a cost of between $15 billion and $19 billion, which is significantly more than the $9 billion the Conservatives budgeted for 65 F-35s. But the defence policy also puts off much of the spending until after the next election in 2019.
blue_gold_84 Posted June 7, 2017 Report Posted June 7, 2017 Seems to go against what the Liberals set out to do during their campaign. Although, in light of recent events in the neighbourhood, this development is not surprising. I have no idea how the gov't expects to afford this. Yikes.
Wideleft Posted June 7, 2017 Report Posted June 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Atomic said: Not sure this makes any sense and is more of a cop-out for the spend-happy liberals. What are they worried about? Getting invaded? Or are we planning to wield our military might to make Trump do what we want? Because Trump can no longer be trusted to defend NATO allies, the NATO commitments have to be accelerated. Of course we can't win a war against the U.S., but we can no longer trust their government either.
Wideleft Posted June 7, 2017 Report Posted June 7, 2017 1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said: Seems to go against what the Liberals set out to do during their campaign. Although, in light of recent events in the neighbourhood, this development is not surprising. I have no idea how the gov't expects to afford this. Yikes. Trump wasn't elected until after they were. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Trump is that much of a threat to destabilizing the world. blue_gold_84 1
Atomic Posted June 7, 2017 Report Posted June 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, Wideleft said: Because Trump can no longer be trusted to defend NATO allies, the NATO commitments have to be accelerated. Of course we can't win a war against the U.S., but we can no longer trust their government either. Trump will almost assuredly be out of power by the time these spending increases begin to take effect. And I'm not sure why Canada should be expected to fill any void in NATO vacated by the U.S. Are the other allies stepping up their spending as well? kelownabomberfan 1
blue_gold_84 Posted June 7, 2017 Report Posted June 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Wideleft said: Trump wasn't elected until after they were. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Trump is that much of a threat to destabilizing the world. Exactly what I meant to imply. Reasons changed, so I can understand the rationale even if it contradicts previous statements. On a sidenote, I do wonder if this decision has any bearing on the whole "Arctic Sovereignty" thing and if Canada ups its military presence in its more remote northern regions.
SpeedFlex27 Posted June 9, 2017 Report Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) On 6/7/2017 at 0:25 PM, Atomic said: Not sure this makes any sense and is more of a cop-out for the spend-happy liberals. What are they worried about? Getting invaded? Or are we planning to wield our military might to make Trump do what we want? Russia flexing its muscles in the Arctic. They don't recognize our claims of a 200 mile territorial limit. Lots of oil, natural gas & other resources at stake as well as our sovereignty as a nation. We should be establishing Arctic bases & investing in icebreakers & nuclear subs. Nothing like a few air & army bases in the high Arctic to show we're serious to the Russians. Somehow, as this is Trudeau... I think this new military spending will be deferred & delayed & as the years go on. Trudeau is all about feeling good. Ploughshares vs guns. Edited June 9, 2017 by SpeedFlex27 wbbfan 1
wbbfan Posted June 10, 2017 Report Posted June 10, 2017 23 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said: Russia flexing its muscles in the Arctic. They don't recognize our claims of a 200 mile territorial limit. Lots of oil, natural gas & other resources at stake as well as our sovereignty as a nation. We should be establishing Arctic bases & investing in icebreakers & nuclear subs. Nothing like a few air & army bases in the high Arctic to show we're serious to the Russians. Somehow, as this is Trudeau... I think this new military spending will be deferred & delayed & as the years go on. Trudeau is all about feeling good. Ploughshares vs guns. We used to actually have subs up north, but they defended illegal water crossings north of the provinces. Not nuclear of course old diesel subs. To be honest, with the current nature of russian politics, and the fact we cant manage to deal with norway at hans island we are in no position to step up to russia. It also doesnt help with trump leading the US, other wise putting up a base at russias closest point of entry and a gentle reminder of article 5 in NATO would be enough. Its a careful balancing act. We are seen as the ned flanders of the world. The current generation of voting masses need to consider if we want to continue that or push towards a tougher more militarily active society.
Recommended Posts