- Reaction score
- 40,485
- Points
- 1,210
The CAF should be a source of skilled personnel. Move away from "retain everyone" to "join the CAF for 5-10 years, get skills , then join the civilian workforce".

The CAF should be a source of skilled personnel. Move away from "retain everyone" to "join the CAF for 5-10 years, get skills , then join the civilian workforce".
Some point in time: "Deficit is project to be X".Counter point.
If every revenue surprise just gets recycled into new spending the deficit stays structurally high.
This is what I tell people at recruiting events. Wanna stay in till retirement? Pick what ever you want. Want to stay in 5 to 10 max? Pick a trade you get civilian transferable skillsThe CAF should be a source of skilled personnel. Move away from "retain everyone" to "join the CAF for 5-10 years, get skills , then join the civilian workforce".
I'm with @Halifax Tar on this one. If the bar for discussing behaviour is criminality, let's just shut down this part of the forum. Attempts to limit discourse with legalizing everything is just gatekeeping dressed up in pedantry.and thus in lies the problem, it not about actually being something wrong with the situation, a lot of the attacks on the government right now are all about using the average canadians ignorance of the system to push half truths to stoke anger at the liberals. It may not be a bribe but enough buzz words and they can convince canadians about the illusion of bribe could be there, is enough to stoke anger with public opinion even if it isn't true.
Legal definition, or text book definition both are dubious. Which is my act point, people think its one thing when its not, its become another buzz word devoid of actual meaningI'm with @Halifax Tar on this one. If the bar for discussing behaviour is criminality, let's just shut down this part of the forum. Attempts to limit discourse with legalizing everything is just gatekeeping dressed up in pedantry.
There is a difference between saying "that's bribery", and saying "the RCMP must investigate the LPC for criminal bribery". Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
People can be bribed without crossing a legal line. People can be treasonous without meeting all of the requirements of the specific act of parliament. Outside of a courtroom, bribery is commonly understood to be the use money or gifts to encourage someone to take your side or take a specific action.
Legal definition, or text book definition both are dubious. Which is my act point, people think its one thing when its not, its become another buzz word devoid of actual meaning
Our government has a lot of experience setting up the game board so they don't fall too hard.Corruption is corruption, it's doesn't have to be criminal.
And there is actually corruption and precieved corruption. The CPC is fantastic at spinning the later. Has the LPC committed the former? Sure has, and covered its butt well enough to prevent an rcmp investigation. Not everything actually is corruption of any kind though, just opportunists seeding doubt based on past events both to undermine the LPC and in some cases our democratic institutions. As example the attacks on elections canada during the last election that were completely unfounded accusing the LPC of rigging the vote.Corruption is corruption, it's doesn't have to be criminal.
And there is actually corruption and precieved corruption. The CPC is fantastic at spinning the later. Has the LPC committed the former? Sure has, and covered its butt well enough to prevent an rcmp investigation. Not everything actually is corruption of any kind though, just opportunists seeding doubt based on past events both to undermine the LPC and in some cases our democratic institutions. As example the attacks on elections canada during the last election that were completely unfounded accusing the LPC of rigging the vote.
And yet here we are still voting for them, scum or not. We have many MPs who should of resigned long ago, such as our current public safety minister, or Andrew Scheer for that matter, he should of been forced out 10 years ago after lying about being an insurance broker.I say this coming from a headspacing of comradeship and love.
Twist yourself into what ever knot you'd like to make yourself comfortable my friend.
I understand you are a devout follow of the church of Carney in the Archdiocese of LPC. When this all crumbles, and it will, and he runs away to his American house, family, money and business I want you to remember this.
These people, politicians, are all scum bags. And they exist to solely siphon from this country.
Tick tock.... Tick tock...
And yet here we are still voting for them, scum or not. We have many MPs who should of resigned long ago, such as our current public safety minister, or Andrew Scheer for that matter, he should of been forced out 10 years ago after lying about being an insurance broker.
I resent that you make the CPC seem like the fun ones in this scenario, however incompetentMaybe you do. I don't think I could make my mark if an election was held today.
Let's look at my options:
LPC: Old, tired, caused this mess, trying to take my property away..
CPC: Couldnt organize gangbang in a whore house with a thousand dollar bill.
NDP: Thinks dudes are chicks and chicks are dudes and wants all my money.
Bloc: Actually not bad, but hates Canada.
PPC: Racist xenophobes.
Not a one of them deserves my vote.
I resent that you make thw CPC seem like the fun ones in this scenario, however incompetent
It is unfortunate the rules make it incredible difficult to start a political party and actually challange any of the big three in an electionNo one is more fun to party with that a sinning conservative.
It is unfortunate the rules make it incredible difficult to start a political party and actually challange any of the big three in an election
I understand you are cynical and pessimistic however the alternative would be something akin to an autocracy.What we don't need is more political parties. They're way to full of politicians.
If we’re talking plain adjective use of the terms in bar-chat-level discussion, 100%.I'm with @Halifax Tar on this one. If the bar for discussing behaviour is criminality, let's just shut down this part of the forum. Attempts to limit discourse with legalizing everything is just gatekeeping dressed up in pedantry.
There is a difference between saying "that's bribery", and saying "the RCMP must investigate the LPC for criminal bribery". Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
People can be bribed without crossing a legal line. People can be treasonous without meeting all of the requirements of the specific act of parliament. Outside of a courtroom, bribery is commonly understood to be the use money or gifts to encourage someone to take your side or take a specific action.
If we’re talking plain adjective use of the terms in bar-chat-level discussion, 100%.
But if someone’s calling for or implying judicial punishment from said “bribery” or “treason,” (especially when folks on the socials talk about “we know what happens to traitors”) the bar needs to maybe be higher than “you KNOW what I mean by x.”