Maybe people who don't like Harper should waste less time on critiquing his singing and more on critiquing his politics. YouTube (not to mention American Idol, et al) is full of people singing shittily and no one tells them "you don't fuck with the ghost of John Lennon".

It's a stupid political stunt, but making a big deal of it makes the complainers look more stupid than Harper.

Couple observations and points.

Bad singing and awful song selection does not necessarily make a bad PM. Harper doesn't need any help in that regard, but he shouldn't be judged solely on a friggin' soundbite.

Must be embarassing walking around with a permanent hard-on for John Lennon all the time.

The tag "outgoing" is presumptious and likely inaccurate. Opinion polls show that the majority of voters didn't want this election, it's Harper's to lose, and based on his performance in the recent debates and the public reaction to them, he's pretty much assured to be re-elected.

So, no upvote, sorry.

Warmonger Stephen Harper, kept the Canadian military engaged in Afghanistan past pull-out dates, made deals to purchase F 35 fighter jets at $300M each above cost and without any engines...

So it isn't surprising that Yoko Ono had the video of Stephen Harper butchering her husband's music pulled.

Don't f*ck with the ghost John Lennon?

The man was hardly a saint, I don't think he needs to be worshipped.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Firstly, calling Harper a warmonger when it was the Liberal government who first sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan is ignorant. Further, the only firm pull-out date set by the Canadian government is December 2011. Harper, with the support of the Liberal party in a parliamentary vote, did extend the mission beyond 2009, but Feb 2009 was never a firm pull-out date but merely a date set to review the situation.

Second, while the Conservative government has made deals to purchase the F-35 (which is the only real replacement for our ancient CF-18s) your pricing is so insanely out of line and the "without engines" myth is pure moronic propaganda. As was shown in today's Ottawa Citizen:
"Lockheed Martin makes planes, not engines. The engine for the F-35 will be supplied by Pratt & Whitney. The government will purchase the engines from Pratt & Whitney, just as will every F-35 customer, because that company will provide the guarantee and ongoing support for the engine. Thus for purposes of the contract with Lockheed Martin, the engines are "government furnished equipment." However, the cost for the engines is built into the $9-billion overall acquisition budget."


As for $300 million each, where could you possibly get such skewed numbers?

"The Canadian acquisition price of $75 million is for the aircraft only (and yes, it does include an engine). American cost figures tend to include other program elements like spare parts, weapons and infrastructure. This is obvious; 65 aircraft at $75 million each costs $4.9 billion total -much less than the acquisition budget. If you use the overall $9-billion acquisition budget, each Canadian F-35 would appear to cost $138 million because it incorporates all those other costs."


In your haste to spread lies you not only doubled the cost of the aircraft, but you took away the engines that were included in the original budgeting.

Having a strong opposition is an important part of democracy, being ignorant is not.>> ^notarobot:

Warmonger Stephen Harper, kept the Canadian military engaged in Afghanistan past pull-out dates, made deals to purchase F 35 fighter jets at $300M each above cost and without any engines...
So it isn't surprising that Yoko Ono had the video of Stephen Harper butchering her husband's music pulled.

@^Skeeve



I'm not going to bother quoting your facts. It is not necessary. They are not really applicable to my original comment nor to my point. It also does not mean that King Steve is any less of a monger of conflict. Not identifying others as warmongers also does not mean that Harper is not one. (Sure there are worse people in history and in the world but I see no reason to compare Harper to them--A list of people better leaders would be longer and more fun anyway.)

Nevertheless, King Steve is placing the biggest push on expanding military spending since World War Two. Our troops were supposed to be gone from Afghanistan in 2011. They are still there. Harper wants to extend the misson. It is a drain on our tax-dollars that we cannot afford. They should be leaving. Period.

Now, as far as my math on $300 Million I'll walk you through that:

29 Billion divided by 65 warplanes is (about) 446 Million per warplane. Subtract the price of the warplanes (I used the average price from the wikipedia page for my ballpark but we can use your numbers and see how they work out) $138 Million equals (about) $308 Million dollars.

Now, I guess that's WITH engines. But Canadians are still going to be paying about $308 Million dollars in costs above and beyond the purchase price announced advertised by "The Harper Government" to own and operate these warplanes. A total cost of nearly $1000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

If you want challenge some real lies, try www.harperlied.com you can tell them how wrong, wrong and wrong they are.



* Being ignorant of the real costs of those warplanes does not make them a defensible purchase. *

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by notarobot.

P.S.

Critiques of King Steve's politics are so abundant in this video and on the web that you would have to have your head in the sand not to notice. I'll help you out. Try http://www.shitharperdid.ca.*

*note: it's the website this video is talking about.
>> ^Skeeve:

Maybe people who don't like Harper should waste less time on critiquing his singing and more on critiquing his politics.


>> ^Retroboy:

Couple observations and points.
Bad singing and awful song selection does not necessarily make a bad PM. Harper doesn't need any help in that regard, but he shouldn't be judged solely on a friggin' soundbite.

Again, you are using old information. Kevin Page's estimate is for the cost of the planes over the course of 30 years. The government's estimate is the cost over 20. Plus, those last 10 years, by the very nature of aircraft, are going to cost more money than the previous 20.

Of course the planes are going to cost more over 30 years than over 20. Page's estimates have been ridiculed by most independent sources for this very reason.

As for Harper's military spending, the Canadian Forces were decimated by the previous government in what many have called "the decade of darkness". Massive military spending was necessary to ensure Canada was able to maintain a military at all. And, after all that spending, Canada still spends less on the military as a percentage of GDP than nearly every western country, a measly 1.5%. Believe it or not, but nations need a military that is able to maintain their sovereignty - no amount of bubblegum and rainbows can protect a nation.
>> ^notarobot:

@^Skeeve

Now, as far as my math on $300 Million I'll walk you through that:
29 Billion divided by 65 warplanes is (about) 446 Million per warplane. Subtract the price of the warplanes (I used the average price from the wikipedia page for my ballpark but we can use your numbers and see how they work out) $138 Million equals (about) $308 Million dollars.
Now, I guess that's WITH engines. But Canadians are still going to be paying about $308 Million dollars in costs above and beyond the purchase price announced advertised by "The Harper Government" to own and operate these warplanes. A total cost of nearly $1000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

blah blah blah

private prisons, mandatory minimums, extremist criminilization of marijuana, abortion and generally being a cunt.

those are all the reasons I need to do my part to make sure harper loses in my riding.

Did I suggest the the military not be funded? Quote me.

The reality is: even if Canada is going to put 29 Billion or any other dollar amount towards the military, it can be better spent than on 65 warplanes.

As it is, we have a "The Harper Government" sized deficit to dig our selves of first. Why do you think "the decade of darkness" happened? Could it have something to do with an attempt to dig the country out of the gaping deficit the previous government caused? I wonder.

Get this country back in the black and we can revisit the necessary equipment upgrades that our hard-working folk in the military deserve. For now, putting that gear on the nation's credit card is poor leadership and bad economics. >> ^Skeeve:

Believe it or not, but nations need a military that is able to maintain their sovereignty - no amount of bubblegum and rainbows can protect a nation.

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by Zifnab.

Actually, no.

While the Liberals under Chretien and Martin took the credit for balancing the budget it was former Conservative finance ministers Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski who undid the financial catastrophe created by the Trudeau Liberals. The Mulroney government's institution of free trade and the GST (as horrible as it is) are what truly balanced the budget. The Liberals, on the other hand, gutted the health care system - rolling back transfers to the provinces - and decimated the military to make short-term political gains with the "military is evil, peacekeeping is teh win" crowd.

There is a lot about the Conservatives I don't like (Matthu pointed out a few good ones) but, as it stands, their policies have ensured Canada has, arguably, the most robust economy in the world and is back on track to have a respectable military (one that is taken seriously abroad, something seriously lacking under the previous administration).

There are big problems with the "Harper Government" (and believe me when I say that I hate that term more than you do) but their stance with regards to the military is the only intelligent one put forward and as close to the best thing for Canada as our problematic system gets.
>> ^notarobot:
Why do you think "the decade of darkness" happened? Could it have something to do with an attempt to dig the country out of the gaping deficit the previous government caused? I wonder.

I'm sorry? Which "decade of darkness" are you talking about? Are you going back to the 1982 recession--which has nothing to do with this discussion--just to find a point to defend the Conservatives on? You don't even like them! Even the Mulroney government didn't do all that well balancing the books...--what am I doing? Back then the Conservatives were progressive. It was a different party! It has nothing to do with our current discussion.



"The Liberals inherited a $40-billion deficit from the Conservatives when they came to power in 1993. So, talking today about 10 years of darkness, I don't think it's appropriate. I think it's highly political and I am very disappointed by it."


I will restate:

Being ignorant of the real costs of those warplanes does not make them a defensible purchase.

Get this country back in the black and we can revisit the necessary equipment upgrades that our hard-working folk in the military deserve. For now, putting that gear on the nation's credit card is poor leadership and bad economics.

Until the debt starts going the other direction, I'm firm in my opinion here.

Canada's debt is currently 561 Billion and rising.

>> ^Skeeve:

Actually, no.
While the Liberals under Chretien and Martin took the credit for balancing the budget it was former Conservative finance ministers Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski who undid the financial catastrophe created by the Trudeau Liberals. The Mulroney government's institution of free trade and the GST (as horrible as it is) are what truly balanced the budget. The Liberals, on the other hand, gutted the health care system - rolling back transfers to the provinces - and decimated the military to make short-term political gains with the "military is evil, peacekeeping is teh win" crowd.
There is a lot about the Conservatives I don't like (Matthu pointed out a few good ones) but, as it stands, their policies have ensured Canada has, arguably, the most robust economy in the world and is back on track to have a respectable military (one that is taken seriously abroad, something seriously lacking under the previous administration).
There are big problems with the "Harper Government" (and believe me when I say that I hate that term more than you do) but their stance with regards to the military is the only intelligent one put forward and as close to the best thing for Canada as our problematic system gets.

>> ^notarobot:

I'm sorry? Which "decade of darkness" are you talking about? Are you going back to the 1982 recession--which has nothing to do with this discussion--just to find a point to defend the Conservatives on? You don't even like them!


Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I agree that Mulroney's government didn't do a very good job balancing the budget, but it was their actions that set the stage for the balanced budget under Chretien and Martin. While the deficit was shrinking under the Liberals they were gutting the military. This period from 1993 to 2006 is what I referred to as the "decade of darkness" because, even with a budget surplus, the Liberals all-but-destroyed the Canadian Forces.

So far, only the Conservatives have made it clear that they wont let the same thing happen again.

As for the debt, while Canada has fared better than the rest of the west, we are still in a recession. Deficit spending is one way to improve the situation and end a recession. I don't like the debt any more than anyone else but ending all government spending, especially a program that is expected to provide around $5 billion US to Canadian industry is silly.

Anyway, I know we wont agree on this issue so I think we should agree to disagree. It was nice sparring with you.

>> ^Skeeve:


Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

Naw, you made yourself clear. (I linked to articles discussing the "decade of" thing in my comments above.) I just didn't want to drift too far from what we were actually discussing and wanted to stay on point.

Thus far, I am pretty unwilling to trust King Steve on his word. He's broken his word too often and shown that he can't be trusted. I won't list the lists of reasons to point to that. You seem well informed enough to know the criticisms against him.

You are welcome to your opinion, and I do hope we get some upgrades to the airforce when the time is right (I see you like helicopters but we disagree on that time being the present.

Nice chatting with you.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, April 19th, 2011 8:46pm PDT - promote requested by notarobot.