Harper defends MacKay over VIP jets
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
Only if you're an idiot.
Unless you can back that stupidity up with some quotes from Macleans quotes from question period to support that idiotic claim.
No, convoluted bullsh!t is what you post.
The NDP have voted against increases in Military funding or allocation/procurement. Consistently. Since they did the same thing under the Liberals. It isn't about the Conservatives, it's part of their ideology.
As to the Macleans article. There is nothing in the quotes mentioned by Mcleans, that even remotely support their headline.
Okay, upon retrospect the title is somewhat misleading.
A better title would be: Peter MacKay supports the troops, suggests opposition member doesn't, therefor opposition member's point is moot.
But there is some evidence that instead of responding substantively, MacKay say he has done all he can to support the troops, and in doing so, suggests the opposition member does not. Since the opposition member is questioning and criticizing him, he sticks to the "you don't support the troops as much as I do" insinuation.
Here's the timeline stumpy.
Now, do you see how I had said what the headline should have been and the quote taken from Mcleans was in support of that, as that is what you asked for.
Hellooooooooooooooooo... anyone home???????????
Also, voting against increases to the military is not showing a lack of anything. It is showing that the NDP, which I personally support, feels that our military should be for defense only and therefore does not require the moneys or hardware to go out of country.
Now, do you see how I had said what the headline should have been and the quote taken from Mcleans was in support of that, as that is what you asked for.
Hellooooooooooooooooo... anyone home???????????
Also, voting against increases to the military is not showing a lack of anything. It is showing that the NDP, which I personally support, feels that our military should be for defense only and therefore does not require the moneys or hardware to go out of country.
The fact that you think it's 'somewhat', says you have no objectivity.
Because it's true. Although I think it tacky to use it as an excuse.
Not on your end Abtfet.
Tacky? It's intellectually dishonest to completely evade a question, and instead use it as a mean to claim another member doesn't support the troops.
And in the larger picture, it's intellectually dishonest to equate wanting a smaller military with not supporting the troops. It's on the same level of intellectually dishonesty as calling them unpatriotic, or un-Canadian or something.
And in the larger picture, it's intellectually dishonest to equate wanting a smaller military with not supporting the troops. It's on the same level of intellectually dishonesty as calling them unpatriotic, or un-Canadian or something.
What's to fold? Your silly claims? Make believe commentary that isn't in the Macleans article?
Sorry dude, I don't live in your make believe version of reality.
Yes I'm sure they'll throw their vote right into the lap of whoever might be running the NDP or Liberal Party in four years or so.
Somebody call Jack Palance and get a camera crew out here ASAP. I just agreed with EAO.
That would be great, if you actually read what I said, and replied in kind.
I'd agree, if they merely voted against procurement of large scale purchases. Since they consistently vote against military spending that covers basic needs, I don't.
May I see some evidence for this?
Maybe you should make yourself clearer, then. You said it was true that the NDP supports the troops less than MacKay, correct?
Then you went on to say it's tacky to use that as an excuse to... avoid a question, correct?
Are you kidding?
I went back and reread what I typed. The issue is yours.
Yep.
Nope.
When you resort to calling me "abfet/aoe/etc.... obviously you have folded your hand.
As for my quote, it was directly out of the Mcleans article supporting what I said. Maybe have someone read the article to you if you are having comprehension problems.
No. I call you Abtfet/EAO/OB, when you start posting like them. Suck it up buttercup.
And I addressed it Abtfet.
Maybe if Jenn reads it to you, you might get it. Maybe if she illustrates it with some crayons. She's used to working with kids and the mentally infirm. Although I bet you'll pose a little challenge.
No, because I can recall two pretty big military expenditure they voted for, initially: the Libyan invasion and the Afghanistan war. Of course, later on they changed their mind and wanted them to end. But their record is hardly consistently against 'basic needs' of the military, unless you care to provide evidence.
Well, that's what it was used for. It was used to evade a question. What were you trying to say?
Do you think the NDP just sprang up last election?
Do you know what kind of effort I would have to put out, to allocated that archived material?
Would you stop voting NDP, if I did all the leg work?
No it wasn't, it was used to attack the opposition and emphasize an excuse given in defence of some of Mackay's flights. The xcuse was already given. The opposition attacked the excuse. The Minister attacked the opposition.
Its called politics.