[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

You forgot Mulroney beginning the gutting of the CF.

Don't you mean Trudeau sunshine?

Nope.

Mulroney did all of these things;

Sold the Chinooks

Started early retirement/buy-outs that shrunk our manpower from 80,000 to 60,000

Cancelled 6 Halifaxes

Cancelled new MBTs, arctic APCs

Cancelled a new heavy icebreaker

Cancelled 12 nuclear submarines


Had those purchases been made, many of today's defence problems would NOT exist. Trudeau was a peacenik, but he bought Halifaxes, Leopards, CF-18s, C-130s, and tons of equipment. The decade Mulroney was in office wasn't any better than Chretien's time. Both of them were huge factors in why the CF is under-funded, under-equipped, and under-staffed.

It's you Cons who conveniently forget that Mulroney was as bad (or worse) than Chretien on the defence file. It's takes someone from the centre to actually see the truth.

[uwish]

I haven't forgotten..... I hated Mulroney, still do. There hasn't been a strong conservative leader in decades. I think Harper is one of the better ones. Like the guy or not, I just can't in good concience put that theiving corrput party back in.

Never mind I don't support 50% of their platform, and they have to be the most irritentinly arrogant party primarily since crooked face.

the socialist and the communist can say Canada didn't want a CPC majority thanks to us, I take it as the WORST liberal result in our history. To me that speaks volumes.

And I don't buy the 'splitting the left vote' per say, the liberals fell 20 seat, the NDP only gained 7 of those, the rest went Conservative. So the lefties can try to spin it any way they want. Times are changing, people don't believe in the grits, and don't trust them Dildo as a leader or not.

[StuntmanMike]

DerbyX DerbyX:

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

Your exact point is...pointless. I never said the average voter cares about Chretien's misdeeds. I just reminded you of them. The "Con Hacks" can post whatever they like. Most of it's partisan drivel anyway.

The fact is nobody in Canada cast their vote this election based on anything Chretien did ,positive or negative. You're right to say Chretien's misdeeds are old news. You're wrong to suggest that the postings of Ruez or Ridenrain are at all representative of the average Canadian voter.

Martin was and so did Dion to some extent. The only reason the CPC isn't being faced with the ghosts of the past is because they change their name every 3 years or so.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

It cost them votes, but from whom? Throughout the 90's the Libs were never in danger of losing power, and they knew it. They occupied the centre of the political spectrum. In case you don't know, Canadian parties on the centre of the spectrum ALWAYS WIN. That's why the Conservatives are kicking ass at the moment.

How about alot of people who voted NDP and Green? They were clearly following a fiscal conservative policy out of necessity. They lost the left hand support that wanted money for social programs but didn't gain right votes crying about military cuts.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

The Libs in the 90's ran a government that was to the right of Mulroney's conservatives on most issues. They had sensible fiscal management, restrained government spending and sensible tax policies. On the right, they had the Reformers demanding cowboy right wing crap, and on the left they had the NDP calling for Marxist class war.

So now your point is pointless.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

The Libs were good at occupying that space for awhile, but now it's someone else's turn.

Oh, its turns is it? In that case then the NDP should be governing since its clearly their turn.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

Don't worry Derby, the worm will turn eventually.

Far sooner then Harper thinks thats for sure.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

To be honest, nope.

I can honestly say I don't recall one Brit, Aussie or European that I ever met who had any input on the Canadian political scene whatsoever. I don't even recall one who could name our Prime Minister at the time.

I did, but then I was associated with university students, some of whom had studied in Canada. I think they qualified as at least having a decent knowledge of our politics. Hell, I had 2 good Brit friends of mine sit by my side and watch referendum 95 on TV with my quad while I answered all their questions.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

And I find it a little hard to believe that you found Danish Backpackers in Cairns Australia who were interested in the Canadian House of Parliament.

If I were basing it on that then you might be right. I'm not and you are not.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

Actually, no, that's not right. A public inquest was unable to officially link Chretien to Adscam, although Gomery was very critical of him. (That finding was however, overturned on appeal.) But the Civil Court judgement against Chretien regarding the Auberge Grand Mere was unequivically critical of JC and has not been challenged by his lawyers.

In other words no evidence against him equals guilt? Guilty until proven guilty is it? Gomery was critical of him not for guilt but lack of control similiar to blaming the victim of theft because they didn''t take adequate security problems. Chretien is disputing this and Gomery himself was found to be biased.

" A federal judge quashed the Gomery inquiry's conclusions that the former prime minister and his top aide bore responsibility for the sponsorship scandal, and ruled that Justice Gomery's public comments and newspaper interviews showed bias, and that he prejudged the issues before the hearings closed".

Swing and a miss. The other stuff is again a personal affair and far less of a concern then a sitting MP trying to bribe another for the sakr of a vote.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

We agree. The conservative myth of the "Great left-wing media conspiracy" is tired nonsense. I'm sick of it too.

You had me at myth.

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

This is where you guys lose credibility Derby. And this is where the Liberals are losing support. I'm not some raving right winger. I've voted on both sides of the coin over the last 15 years. But the attitude you're displaying, that seems to say anyone who disagrees with you is a "gun-toting red-neck" turns people off.

Maybe the Liberals could try coming up with some policies that re-engage swing voters like me, rather than belittle and insult anyone who points out the flaws in your organization or strategy.

You do realize that my comment was a joke referencing the movie "Red Dawn" and the fact that the "Wolverines" were considered "Partisans" right?

An attempt at levity.

BTW, I have already posted my support of Canadians to own firearms.

That whole post was just mindless partisan drivel. I like to watch Don Newman's "Politics" on CBC at 5:00pm. One segment I generally turn off is when they bring on the party spokesmen from each party to "discuss the events of the day." What it invariably degenerates into is a bunch of party hacks just reiterating their pet talking points and warning of the calamity the country's about to suffer if their opponents get their way.

It's quite childish and so is your post.

[DerbyX]

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

That whole post was just mindless partisan drivel. I like to watch Don Newman's "Politics" on CBC at 5:00pm. One segment I generally turn off is when they bring on the party spokesmen from each party to "discuss the events of the day." What it invariably degenerates into is a bunch of party hacks just reiterating their pet talking points and warning of the calamity the country's about to suffer if their opponents get their way.

It's quite childish and so is your post.

Translation: You aren't intelligent enough to debate the points so post a dismissive message which serves only to show everybody you are incapable of accepting the fact somebody disagrees with you.

On Yer Bike sunshine.

[StuntmanMike]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Translation: You aren't intelligent enough to debate the points so post a dismissive message which serves only to show everybody you are incapable of accepting the fact somebody disagrees with you.

On Yer Bike sunshine.

Whatever. Interesting that as soon as someone disagrees with you, the instinctive reaction is to rely on insults and hostility. I really struggled with my decision at the voting booth this year. Dion struck me as a decent, but flawed leader, while Harper struck me as a nasty, manipulative, but capable one. I wanted to go for Dion, but I ended up trusting Harper.

But when I read shit like you just wrote, I feel really good knowing I'm helping to keep you guys out of power.

Keep up the attitude "Sunshine", see how far it gets you.

[DerbyX]

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

Whatever. Interesting that as soon as someone disagrees with you, the instinctive reaction is to rely on insults and hostility. I really struggled with my decision at the voting booth this year. Dion struck me as a decent, but flawed leader, while Harper struck me as a nasty, manipulative, but capable one. I wanted to go for Dion, but I ended up trusting Harper.

But when I read shit like you just wrote, I feel really good knowing I'm helping to keep you guys out of power.

Keep up the attitude "Sunshine", see how far it gets you.

Yet it is you who posted the insult simply because I don't automatically accept your opinion of Chretien as the only viable one.

My insults were not about your previous posts where you were debating but with your last post where you acted like a petulant child and called my entire post childish and dismissed it out of hand. I responded in kind and because you simply can't put your partisan hackery aside you are resorting to ad hominem attacks because you can't beat my points intelligently.

Take a good look at your behaviour in this thread. You can't possibly imagine how your opinion about Jean Chretien isn't being accepted as the only viable one so when someone actually out-debates you by using evidence and logic you resort to calling him names then accusing him of the very thing you are doing.

Next you give some sob story about some voting indescion which makes me think you hold the opinion that everybody should vote as you do for the same reasons as you do.

You started in with your whole BS about Chretiens corruption and I simply destroyed your argument.

If you can't handle that sunshine then I suggest you find a kiddie forum instead of jumping into the deep end when you don't know how to swim.

[StuntmanMike]

DerbyX DerbyX:

My insults were not about your previous posts where you were debating but with your last post where you acted like a petulant child and called my entire post childish and dismissed it out of hand. I responded in kind and because you simply can't put your partisan hackery aside you are resorting to ad hominem attacks because you can't beat my points intelligently.

Take a good look at your behaviour in this thread. You can't possibly imagine how your opinion about Jean Chretien isn't being accepted as the only viable one so when someone actually out-debates you by using evidence and logic you resort to calling him names then accusing him of the very thing you are doing.

Next you give some sob story about some voting indescion which makes me think you hold the opinion that everybody should vote as you do for the same reasons as you do.

You started in with your whole BS about Chretiens corruption and I simply destroyed your argument.

If you can't handle that sunshine then I suggest you find a kiddie forum instead of jumping into the deep end when you don't know how to swim.

I supported my "opinion" of Chretien with links from CBC news, something you've quite tellingly, failed to do.

Regardless, I'm not into bickering. Believe what you like. The Liberals, much like the Republicans in the States, are in trouble. If guys like you want to mirror the Sean Hannity crowd, ignore the problem and attack your critics, rather than recognize the problem and address it, then so be it. Enjoy oppostion.

I won't be responding to you about this anymore.

[DerbyX]

Good, then I get the last word. You started the insults, hell even after you misread my joke about Red Dawn and said I think everybody who disagrees with me is a "gun toting red neck" I still posted a point by point post.

It was you who when unable to make me simoply adopt your opinion as the only possible one launched another insult.

Its you who just can't stand it that I don't think Chretien is the corrupt monster you want to paint him as and its you who voted for a man you think is nasty and manipulative over a decent one.

Your evidence consists entirely of a personal matter for which I hold a different viewpoint of. If I thought so badly of Mr Chretien then I wouldn't have voted for him. Why would I support a corrupt politcian let alone a nasty and manipulative one?

I base my support on a parties stance on the issues for which I place greater importance on social issues. The Liberals fit my beliefs better then any party so I support them. You can claim I'm brainwashed and accuse me of attacking my critics (ironic because thats what you are doing) but in the end I suggest you look in the wirror.

[Wally_Sconce]

LOL Derby has been owned, and he is still claiming victory.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's you Cons who conveniently forget that Mulroney was as bad (or worse) than Chretien on the defence file. It's takes someone from the centre to actually see the truth.

Chretien better than Mulroney???

See the truth my ass.

[uwish]

well

roller derby is a true liberal. Can't see the forrest for the trees, never wrong, etc etc etc

thats fine. Soon enough the liberals will get cooked and perform even worse than they are now. People don't want them, and most Canadians don't trust them.

Hence the 13 seat gain by the CPC and the 19 seat loss by the liberals.

He can play he is right as much as he would like to, from the faaaarrr back benches of anyone who gives two shits.

[StuntmanMike]

uwish uwish:

thats fine. Soon enough the liberals will get cooked and perform even worse than they are now. People don't want them, and most Canadians don't trust them.

Hence the 13 seat gain by the CPC and the 19 seat loss by the liberals.

I don't know that that's true just yet. Certainly, the Liberal party is crippled at the moment. They're stuck with an ineffective leader who won't go, they don't know where they stand on the issues, railing against Harper's policies to the media, only to vote with the government inside the house.

But most importantly, they're financially devastated. Their fundraising is in the red, and this election buried them even deeper. The upcoming leadership convention will only serve to heighten their woes on that front, as leadership conventions cost money.

Still, they have a solid brand in Canada. And they have a fair bit of talent waiting to take over. Personally, I think if they're smart, and they end up putting a star like Frank Mckenna at the helm, they've got a shot.

Most importantly though, the party first needs to accept the fact they are capable of getting it wrong, and they aren't necessarily "Canada's Natural Governing Party." But as one of the posters on this thread brilliantly illustrates, the Liberals are still full of people who can't see that. Unless those who "can't see the forest for the trees" come to terms with it, they'll remain a sideshow for a long time to come while the Conservatives continue to use them for sport.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's you Cons who conveniently forget that Mulroney was as bad (or worse) than Chretien on the defence file. It's takes someone from the centre to actually see the truth.

Chretien better than Mulroney???

See the truth my ass.

Translation = I don't know any better (and either can't or am too damned lazy to find evidence to support my original claim about Trudeau) so I'll just mock your answer.



Say what you want, but Mulroney was a total disaster for the CF. He got the ball rolling for Chretien, who merely continued his work. I said "Mulroney was as bad (or worse) than Chretien on the defence file". Mulroney was at least as bad as Chretien. Who was worse is up to interpretation from a variety of angles.

Who cut more people? Mulroney.

Who cut more projects? Mulroney.

Who cut more money? Chretien.

Who disbanded more units? Chretien.

And so on...

If you can't see it, you need to take off the blinders and look at what happened to the CF in the past 20 years.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Translation = I don't know any better (and either can't or am too damned lazy to find evidence to support my original claim about Trudeau) so I'll just mock your answer.

You're right, I had much better things to do than sit in front of the computer and google search. My bad.

What Trudeau did to the Forces is common knowledge, he wrote off a carrier that just came out of a multi million dollar refit (thereby ending Canadian Carrier Operations for good) and the Canadian Forces in Europe atrophied to nothing more than a token force.

Sure he bought us tanks, obsolete Leo 1's despite the fact that the Leo 2 had just come on the market. That's sure a feather in his cap, buying equipment that was top of the line 15 or 20 years ago.

You credit him for giving the Forces Halifax frigates, but Trudeau had only ordered six. Mulroney had to boost the order to 12. Granted its not the 18 he had promised, still much better than Trudeau's six.

The CF-18 was a must buy, they let the Air Force fly CF-101's until the Americans had their all their 101's in museums or the boneyard. It was hopelessly obsolete years before it was replaced.

The RCAF received 75% of its eventual Herc fleet before Trudeau got into office. But I suppose I should give him credit for not chopping them into scrap like he did with HMCS Bonaventure.

That's just what I know off the top of my head, no research required.

[DerbyX]

How many bases did Mulroney close including Lahr and Baden, 2 bases that represented a signficant contribution to NATO and added a great deal to the CF in general as 2 of the most sought after postings available.