|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:13 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock: Zipperfish Zipperfish: EyeBrock EyeBrock: The people of Canada in 2004 couldn't get the aid or DART out to Sri Lanka until 2 weeks after it hit.
The people of Canada in 2010 can get DART to Haiti in 24 hrs with the C17. That's not cheap or partisan. It's fact.
Having been on disaster relief missions when I was in the military, I know that a well funded and equipped military is key to a flexible response. Now we have that ability to respond.
On the prorogue, I think the Economist needs to study the 14 prorogues of Trudeau and Chretien in more detail before they make further off-the-cuff and unbalanced comments from their British offices on the other side of the Atlantic. Well, I think the Economist references previous prorogues in the article. Do try to keep up! What's cheap is the insinuation that liberals are somehow indifferent to the suffering in Haiti, because we are concerned wiht the proroguing of Parliament by Harper. I'm concerned with both these situations. Maybe it's true what the Economist says about Canada's Conservatvies though--they can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. And in Martin's defence--it's easy to beef up the military if you spend like a drunken sailor like the Conservatives have been. Martin actually had a sense of prudence and it was the LIberals under Chretien and Martin that dragged us out of a sorry eocnomic situation brought about by the largesse of previous governments, including Conservative governments. Some tough deciiosn were made, and the military had some wretched years. But hey, the good times are back now. WE can buy all the military gear we want and shell out millions of taxpayer's dough to fat-cat banks! Zip, if my tone looked like I was dissing the Libs for not caring, I apologise. I know you guys care as we do. It must be an accent thing! And really, I'm not trying to score points on military purchases. The C17 can be generally agreed on both sides as a good purchase, just as Mulroney selling our Chinooks can be viewed as a bad move. Really I think the whole prorogue thing has got many of us who generally see eye-to-eye on things digging our collective heels in and the debate has foundered. I reckon this is well past it's popcorn date too but if anybody else wants to flog this decomposing equine-like beast, feel free! And I likewise apologize for getting my hackles up. All right, we're square! 
|
Posts: 15681
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:22 pm
Awww, give us hug!
|
Posts: 23084
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:23 pm
gigs gigs: People are more upset over the idea of paying 3.99 to use facebook. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=inf ... 7327758871All these comparisons are BS anyways, as they look at matters that might affect all Facebook members. Given that they are over 300 MILLION Facebook users (more people than there are American citizens), the 'argument' that the number of users who want Facebook to change back to the old layout or are against paying $3.99 belittles the anti prorogue group in any way is a specious argument. For example, last year, when the anti-coalition and pro-coalition sides were compared it was a fair comparison, but this is apples and oranges. It's just like someone saying that because they are 275,000 people against paying $3.99, that the Conservative Party (less than 10,000 members) is a joke too. Not that I would ever say that... Get back to me with a group that is solely dedicated to a Canadian issue and then maybe you have an argument...
Last edited by bootlegga on Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
ttruscott
Active Member
Posts: 128
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:24 pm
Where do I post to tell these dweebs to 'get a life?'
|
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:28 pm
bootlegga bootlegga: gigs gigs: People are more upset over the idea of paying 3.99 to use facebook. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=inf ... 7327758871All these comparisons are BS anyways, as they look at matters that might affect all Facebook members. Given that they are over 300 MILLION Facebook users (more people than there are American citizens), the 'argument' that the number of users who want Facebook to change back to the old layout or are against paying $3.99 belittles the anti prorogue group in any way is a specious argument. For example, last year, when the anti-coalition and pro-coalition sides were compared it was a fair comparison, but this is apples and oranges. It's just like someone saying that because they are 275,000 people against paying $3.99, that the Conservative Party (less than 10,000 members) is a joke too. Get back to me with a group that is solely dedicated to a Canadian issue and then maybe you have an argument... ahh lighten up In the same context who says all those people who joined the APG are all Canucks? There are no geographic restrictions for any group. The Liberal Party is an even bigger joke http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2 ... 8890038..1
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:10 pm
ttruscott ttruscott: Where do I post to tell these dweebs to 'get a life?' Just join up. You'll be adding one more member to our cause, but the plus side is that you can tell us to get a life.  One guy on there called Harper "the new Stalin." You should have it out with him!
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:16 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock: Awww, give us hug! 
|
Posts: 23084
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:05 pm
gigs gigs: bootlegga bootlegga: gigs gigs: People are more upset over the idea of paying 3.99 to use facebook. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=inf ... 7327758871All these comparisons are BS anyways, as they look at matters that might affect all Facebook members. Given that they are over 300 MILLION Facebook users (more people than there are American citizens), the 'argument' that the number of users who want Facebook to change back to the old layout or are against paying $3.99 belittles the anti prorogue group in any way is a specious argument. For example, last year, when the anti-coalition and pro-coalition sides were compared it was a fair comparison, but this is apples and oranges. It's just like someone saying that because they are 275,000 people against paying $3.99, that the Conservative Party (less than 10,000 members) is a joke too. Get back to me with a group that is solely dedicated to a Canadian issue and then maybe you have an argument... ahh lighten up In the same context who says all those people who joined the APG are all Canucks? There are no geographic restrictions for any group. There isn't any geographic limitations, but I hardly see an American or a Brit or pretty much any other nationality joining a group specifically dedicated to the oh, so exciting topic of Canadian politics. However, I can see people from all over Facebook joining a group designed to thwart a move by Facebook to charge $3.99 per month.
|
Posts: 9895
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:57 pm
|
Posts: 23084
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:31 pm
|
poquas
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2245
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:52 pm
I'm often conflicted with CBC TV considering it has one hand in my back pocket, but I have to admit that every rant I've seen Mercer do is dead on.
|
FieryVulpine 
Forum Elite
Posts: 1348
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:00 pm
I have to admit that Rick has a point about Harper using the Canadians' indifference to politics to prorogue parliament, and I must say he deserves what he gets. However, the anti-proroguement camp reeks of so much of partisan hackery, I can not help but laugh out loud at their feeble attempts at protest. In the end it will accomplish nothing, an election will be called sooner or later, and the voters will decide if Steve gets the boot and the country gets another twelve years of Liberal corruption.
Isn't it a wonder how I have a flippant attitude towards the issue?
|
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:01 pm
FieryVulpine FieryVulpine: However, the anti-proroguement camp reeks of so much of partisan hackery, I can not help but laugh out loud at their feeble attempts at protest. Please explain. A group that strives to be non-partisan which reeks of partisan hackery? Do tell.
|
FieryVulpine 
Forum Elite
Posts: 1348
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:27 pm
Simple. Because I have an inkling that they wouldn't be half as loud if it were Iggy and the Liberals doing it.
|
|
Page 12 of 18
|
[ 257 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests |
|
|