Normally I try to steer clear of "gotcha" thread titles and "gotcha" commentary (well unless it is an opportunity to see if I can make Maysie blow coffee out of her nose)... but hell, if I am really being missed I can jump back in.
If you require any further explanation, I would strongly suggest going back and reading post #73 - I believe any "meanness" on my part is fully explained there.
Oh oh -- now we have kitty litter.
DP
Oh oh -- now we have kitty litter.
Maybe I should start using that phrase.
I don't think anyone was saying anything at all bad about you before you decided to bring that up out of the blue.
Another response from bagkitty about my post
You want more of the meanness towards me by bagkitty and company?
You know, TT, usually people here have a problem because they think personal attacks are valid criticism of ideas. I think perhaps you have it backwards.
The bottom line remains though: no one was saying anything about you at the time you brought this up. Now only Doug Woodward is keeping this thread on track.
(edit: ah, and Sean. Good!)
How about this: if you think you are being treated unfairly say something directly to the person, or if that doesn't work, call a mod before you imply that others are only here to attack you and take off as soon as the fun is over.
So mocking me about being shocked over Mulcair F-35 decision, that is okay according to you. OK got it.
How about this: if you think you are being treated unfairly say something directly to the person, or if that doesn't work, call a mod before you imply that others are only here to attack you and take off as soon as the fun is over.
I have and you don't how many people on this board have been suspended because of their personal attacks against me. Yet I have NEVER been reprimanded or suspended by the mods. Not once.
Sean, I'd buy that, except that this is an election, and all parties are using these issues to point out flaws in each others' responses. Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau and Harper here are not only fair comment, they are not out of order at all, and have some foundation. You don't agree, fine, but as I said upthread, the time for cooperation is after October 19.
Actually terrytowel, the first time you did was when you accused me of being mean to you because I said I don't care what you think about who comes and goes here.
Back at the start of this thread you called it "jokes", not vicious, and made no indication it was bothering you. Now apparently it was a big crisis.
There are more than two positions in this thread.
I do not think the NDP is really leaving the door open to buy these planes so I reject that contention.
However, I am critical of the NDP response to Trudeau which came off as unnecessary and over the top given the positions of the parties are actually similar: Both consider some kind of replacement likely following some kind of review and both are hostile to the expense and process behind this plane.
I would add that of the two it is the NDP which should be the most hostile since it is the most likely to see that we do not need an offensive plane if this is not the focus of our international engagement. The NDP was traditionally advocating a more independent guarding of our territory and less military intervention outside Canada.
So while I do not consider the NDP to have left a door open to the plane I was disgusted by the NDP rhetoric in response to Trudeau. I think the NDP should have spent the day talking about something more important at this point in the campaign and if the desire was to go after Trudeau to do it on healthcare since the Liberals are offering something between diddly squat and nothing on health. As I said before I don't mind Angry Tom but don't like Petty Tom all that much.
Back at the start of this thread you called it "jokes", not vicious, and made no indication it was bothering you. Now apparently it was a big crisis.
Some comments take time to sink in.
On the comms point of view: when you step in front of the mic -- you need to know what your key message is and be able to deliver that. It shoudl be compatible with the public understanding of the issue. Politicians who decide they want to educate the public during a campaign do not get elected. The public has seen a for and against debate on this plane for years. For Mulcair to jump in and attack an "against" position and presume he would not be labeled as "for" is amateur. This is how you lose elections.
Nobody should pretend that Mulcair does not have better things to attack Trudeau on than his promise to cancel the F-35 procurement process.
Sean, I'd buy that, except that this is an election, and all parties are using these issues to point out flaws in each others' responses. Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau and Harper here are not only fair comment, they are not out of order at all, and have some foundation. You don't agree, fine, but as I said upthread, the time for cooperation is after October 19.
I disagree -- if you cannot indicate an ability to bridge differences in a reasonable way -- you will be in no position to do so after the election. The NDP is about to learn this.
Highlight your differecnes certainly but I am not hearing Mulcair do that. When I look at his comments on the plane I see lots of lather attacking Trudeau and nothing suggesting a real difference other than what looks like a contradiction of NDP positions and some bit about process that I do not agree with anyway (if you exclude the basis for the plane you are not opening yourself up to a lawsuit -- you are liable if you show prejudice against a company not if you disagree with a purchase over cost and purpose)..
The NDP position on F-35s is now completely confused in the minds of the public. Mulcair has served to do this by debating issues he did not need to address at all.
The NDP is running a campaign that is too busy reacting and not disciplined enough to identify its best issues and highlight them. Trying to expose a difference with Trudeau on the Plane was a waste of time: the public understand FOR and AGAINST on this -- an argument about process leaves the public confused about which side of the divide the NDP is sitting on. The loud attack on Trudeau implies the NDP is now open to the plane even thoguh this is really not so. Any communications expert would have told Mulcair to either agree with Trudeau generally and perhaps clarify a detail or to talk about something else. But to blast Trudeau about a detail was stupid.
Anything other than FOR or AGAINST is a detail in the mind of the public.
Mulcair ought to have known that or someone should have told him. Any issue with Trudeau's specific incompetence on this could have been left to the Conservatives while the NDP scored points on another topic. Instead Mulcair blew up his own position, came off as petty, and looks incoherent. That is not a good communications day.
Oh oh -- now we have kitty litter.
Maybe I should start using that phrase.
I don't think anyone was saying anything at all bad about you before you decided to bring that up out of the blue.
Another response from bagkitty about my post
You want more of the meanness towards me by bagkitty and company?
Bag Kitty was using humour. So was I. My comment about Kitty Litter was about a truck dumping -- not a criticism but an effort to make light of it.
You need to walk this back into the domain of humour where it needs to go. Some of the posts here were sarcasm and some humour. I think you are taking things in such an extreme way that you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you take this and force it to the conclusion you fear, it won't be what you want - derail the process -- consider this:
"Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny"
“A man often meets his destiny on the very road he took to avoid it.”
If someone says something mean and you take it as humour you may derail the meanness and make the exchange about humour. If that person meant to be humourous and you take it as mean then you can derail the humour and make the exchange mean. If in doubt -- go with the better option becuase your reaction may define it as much as the original intent.
Once again Sean in Ottawa the voice of reason here. OK I'll try to take it as humor, than an attack against me.
Wonderful article. One thing it doesn't discuss is whether Canada should have any fighter aircraft at all.
My starting point is that Canada doesn't need fighter aircraft. My reasons have been posted and are very clear, but just to reiterate, Canada does not need fighter aircraft for defense because the only countries that we have worry about defending ourlselves from have capacities that are so far above ours that our Air Force woud be destoyed almost immediately.
I disagree that we need fighter aircraft as offensive weapons because the only countries we'd be a threat to are a handful of impoverished nations where we wouldn't do much more than kill a few civilians. The evidence from both Lybia and Syria suggest exactly that. In addition to that, the Canadian Air Force, in it's subsidiary role with the US Air Force becomes complicit in the war crimes and crimes against humaniity commited by the USA. That true, of course, for the military as a whole, but it's no argument for buying fighter aircraft.
So my suggestion is we go back to the beginning, and instead of arguiing over which useless piece of junk we buy that does nothing for us, or anyone else for that matter, let's have a discussion about the necessity of fighter aircraft.
Once again Sean in Ottawa the voice of reason here. OK I'll try to take it as humor, than an attack against me.
It is always easier for the person outside the conflict to make a suggestion like this than for the person in it. People need to do this for each other at times.
oh good grief tt is making unsubtantiated claims all over the place about being mistreated.
i'm still waiting for him to give me an example of me being dispicable towards him.
he's still trying to deflect from his fabrications all over the board.
Thanks, Sean - for the analysis, and for the wisdom in matter of human relations - in the face of much provocation.
oh good grief tt is making unsubtantiated claims all over the place about being mistreated.
i'm still waiting for him to give me an example of me being dispicable towards him.
he's still trying to deflect from his fabrications all over the board.
I withdraw my 'claims' because I'm following Sean in Ottawa advice on this matter.
For those with questions about these F-35 lemons, feel free to ask the bloody butcher in charge of the Canadian operations..
http://www.aiac.ca/en/member.aspx?id=386
Canada's Parties United in Urging Military Spending Hike
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/09/26/cana-s26.html
"Defence policy emerged as a major issue in the Canadian election campaign this week, after Liberal leader Justin Trudeau announced that he would scrap plans for Canada to purchase a fleet of F-35 fighter jets should be become prime minister.
Mulcair and his NDP oppose ruling out Canada's purchase of the F-35, saying it should be among a handful of fighter jets included in 'a revised bidding process.'
Regardless of the disagreements over the F-35, all four main parties are fully behind strengthening the capacities of Canada's armed forces so it can continue to serve as a major partner of the Pentagon."
Canada's Parties United in Urging Military Spending Hike
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/09/26/cana-s26.html
"Defence policy emerged as a major issue in the Canadian election campaign this week, after Liberal leader Justin Trudeau announced that he would scrap plans for Canada to purchase a fleet of F-35 fighter jets should be become prime minister.
Mulcair and his NDP oppose ruling out Canada's purchase of the F-35, saying it should be among a handful of fighter jets included in 'a revised bidding process.'
Regardless of the disagreements over the F-35, all four main parties are fully behind strengthening the capacities of Canada's armed forces so it can continue to serve as a major partner of the Pentagon."
There is one difference: If the NDP were elected -- in spite of this kind of scrambled communications -- NDP party members would line up to pull each of Mulcair's beard hairs out one-by-one if he actually put that kind of money in a warplane while delaying or not going through with NDP priorities.
One of the things that is part of the necessary context is the community within a party. Even when the running from the left Liberals and the absurdly running from the right NDP may sound similar there is a difference underneath. This is evident in the individual MPs and the members. I reject the suggestion all the parties are the same. In this case the NDP is trying to run from everywhere. There are on the table critical NDP proposals. You can bet that post election if the NDP were to win there would be a huge fight to see those proposals come to the top.
Almost half of Canadians approve of Liberal plan to scrap F-35 purchase
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/2015/10/01/almost-half-of-canadians-approv...
We've been screwed: The Gravy Plane it is...!
Government's Quiet Dismantling Of PWGSC F-35 Secretariat Means Fighter Jet Acquisition Plan in Place: Experts
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/2015/11/03/governments-quiet-dismantling-o...
"Industry participants had learned of rumours that, although Stephen Harper's full Cabinet may not have yet approved any contracts to begin acquiring F-35 planes in 2020, following an initial plan to begin acquiring the aircraft in 2017, the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet had approved an acquisition plan..."
Canada Don't buy F-35 Lemon Jets!
F-35 Less Capable Then Russian Figher Jets: Analyst (and vid)
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/02/05/448860/Michael-Maloof
Watch Newly Deployed SU-35S Multi-Role Jets in Syria (and vid)
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/02/06/448875/Russia-Syria-SU355-Daesh...
Please don't allow Justin Trudeau to waste many millions on useless fighter jets we neither need nor can afford.
