Leaderboard

Who cares? They aren't in positions of power. You put an unhinged loonie in a position of power.

My point was not about the phrasing of your point, it was about the logic. You labeled those who didn't like Trump winning as unhinged loonies. Since Trump didn't like Obama winning, and responded just as those you are labeling, logic dictates that he is an unhinged loonie. b.t.w. I avoided the other thread as it was getting way off track but to preempt some silly dialogue about the different words used we should look at the real definitions. First coup and coup d'état mean 100% the same thing, there is no difference, one is just shorthand. Both a coup d'état and a revolution can be violent or peaceful there is no difference there either. The only difference between the two is a coup d'état implies leadership from officials (could be a different branch like legislative or judicial or yes military as was suggested) and a revolution implies leadership from the people outside of the official government.

Um, who fought against the F-35, tooth and nail... after initiating the deal in the first place? Not to mention there is no gap. The RCAF has already said as much. Just another example of dishonesty from the Liberals.

An imaginary gap caused by the Liberals, which only they and you can see.

Sometimes, politicians manage to figure out the best solution to a problem. City of Surrey is passing new bylaws for aggressive dogs but has chosen not to include a breed ban. The bylaw wants to focus on dogs that are 'at risk' before they actually bite and to assume that all dogs have the capability of acting aggressively. I especially like that a requirement for problem dogs is that their owners seek 'professional' training and that there can be a serious monetary penalty for having a dog that exhibits dangerous behavior. Dogs that are well socialized are so much less likely to become aggressive and owners need to ensure their dogs get that necessary socialization, so I applaud this move by Surrey City Council. http://www.theprovince.com/surrey+skips+breed+puts+more+teeth+updated+bylaw/12861994/story.html

Agreed...this government has done nothing so far and has communicated even less. Sunny ways !!

Turkish Airlines the World's best airways keeps being sponsor for various organization and events all over the World. Have you ever flied with TA ? if not, you are just risking your life.

Actually there isn't much fuel savings having one engine when the F 35 uses about 2000 kg more fuel to go the same distance as the Super-hornet. There may be some savings in overhaul costs with one engine, if you can get the same TBO out of that one engine but the F 35 burns so hot I would tend to think it may be subjected to unscheduled maintenance. And of course if you do lose that one engine you lose the whole plane. From what I know from actual pilots, they like lots of engines. Especially if they are over the ocean or the freezing cold arctic. .

Dialamah you want to push the topic? Well PIK in fact was the one who used the generalization " give THEM an inch ". Uh yah that's a generalization about all Muslims. True. Someone could ask though for the exact same point you are making why did you used Jewsin your example not Christians, or Buddhists, or Bahaiis, or Hindus? Accusing people of singling out religions is funny that way. The people who question others for doing it do I find and its probably because I am a Jew, Jews in their response. On this board any discussion about Muslims or Islam sooner or later turns to Jews. Why you think that is? Coincidence? Seriously Why you think that is? You had all kinds of religions to choose from. You didn't use Christianity the majority religion of Canada or the religion of PIK or Argus. Why? See how that works? I am no comfortable generalizing an entire people. Your initial point was right but even in your selection of Jews as your counter example, you engaged in the same thing whatever you claim the intention was. People generalize. Sometimes for negative reasons, sometimes to make a valid point. I myself do think there are Muslims claiming to be mainstream and representing mainstream Muslims that do not. That is all I will say on the point of the Muslims singled out in this thread. I don't think they represent mainstream Muslims. Me personally I think mainstream Muslims, the majority, and I am generalizing no different than PIK or Argus, don't want special treatment, just the same treatment as everyone else. I do think a certain segment of Muslims get angry and say things expressing their anger that comes out in political expressions demanding certain rights of others they don't necessarily give to those others. I think some Muslims expect people to tolerate them while reserving the right to be intolerant of others under the pretense of their religious and cultural rights. I think it has to b e two way. That said there is a reason people don't react to visible minority ultra orthodox Jews or Amish people or nuns the way they do say Muslims who are visibly wearing and loking different. The reason is the three groups I mentioned are not at this time associated with terrorism. If they were, I think you'd have the same expressions being thrown at them s I am not sure how much of that is deliberate bigotry and how much of that is people claiming they can't tell the difference between non violent and violent Muslims. When there was Siekh violence in Toronto and British Columbia, and for that matter the India flight was bombed, hate expressions against Siekhs went up. In my neighbourhood some idiots were yelling at Siekhs telling them to return to Afghanistan because they see one turban or head wrap they mistake it as another. Some bigotry is deliberate and hateful and ignorant, some of it is based on people making negative assumptions because they blame an entire people for the bad behaviour of a minority. Its wrong of course. Its negative generalization and stereotyping. Its illogical. However its a fact and the people who often respond to it to challenge it do the same. Its a vicious cycle. Myself I think stereotypes get torn down when people have a chance one on one to meet people of the entire group they are stereotyping negatively and have an opportunity to interact with them long eough to see, hey they ant so different they pee just like me. Now I was watching one young woman today making a speech about how Muslims want rights. She was speaking collectively. Interestingly you really think anyone would have the negative reaction they have if they had no terrorism in their minds? Let's face it, terrorism smeers all Muslims in on bad colour of death. It creates a huge pretense for stereotype. Muslim terrorists want you and I to hate all Muslims and not distinguish good from bad. In so doing we necessarily alienate them and make hem easier to recruit. The most effective tool against Muslim terrorism is recruiting Muslim moderates. We have Muslim moderates in Canada/ There is no shortage of them. So how do we get non Muslims to speak with them? That's the question maybe we should ask. I come from Reform Judaism. We believe and believed the only way we would be able to effectively deal with anti-Semitism was not to hate or fear Christians which we had good reason to, but embrace them. See our biggest ally were and still are righteous gentiles-the ones that hid us in WW2-the ones that support Israel today and even volunteered to go to Israel and work on collective farms. Those righteous gentiles we met, we embraced we still do, and we form alliances and coalitions with and pray together and work together. It was not that hard. The very precepts of Christianity are the teachings of Jesus who took the Talmud and put it into everyday practice. It wasn't hard to find common ground. Our only difference was that Christians refer to Jesus as THE son of God, Jews would say all humans not just Jesus are a son of or daughter of God. Its not that big a difference when you sit and talk. Many Christians like Jews today define the word Messiah as the potential in each individual to save the world through positive behaviour and injure the world through negative behaviour and believe when doing positive things, that positive energy that is spread is the spreading of "God". That belief is in Hinduism, or the non religious philosophies of Buddhism Taoism and its found in all religions. Interesting how its a common theme and yet everyone acts as if its not. Now with Islam it has that belief. Its just at its stage of development. mainstream Mullahs and Imams of the Sunni and Shiite faith tend to focus on les abstract concepts than positive and negative energy being spread by our very individual and group actions, called Teekam Olem in the Talmud and the golden rule by Christians. Its there, its just not the central focus at this time. Its because like Christianity not too long ago and Judaism in ancient days, its now dominated by a form of war mentality that judges and invokes punishment and very rigid harsh pronouncements. Oh you bet fundamental religions all do that including Judaism and Christianity not just Islam. Its just we don't see say a Reform Jewish or Protestant Christian movement in the Islam world at this time. Its moderates have not formed major movements yet. Its starting but progressive Muslim reformists are in a stage of development where they don't exacly feel safe. They get smeered by non Muslims as terrorists and by Muslim terrorists and fundamentalists as infidel. So what do people expect? When they speak and try to be heard will the same people saying all Muslims are bad acknowledge them? Maybe we should mention that in these discussions. http://www.apmo786.org/?page_id=2535 http://www.mpvusa.org/ Irshad Manji is no terrorist. She is a progressive Muslim in Canada. I challenge anyone to call her a terrorist or anti Canada or anti democracy. Is the Mayor of Calgary a terrorist? Naheed Nenshi could conceivably end up the Premier of Alberta or Prime Minister of Canada one day. Is it so crazy to say by supporting Irshad Manji a Muslim woman who questions intolerance in Islam this is far more effective than just assuming all Muslims are bad? I challenge that in these discussions. Giving credence and attention to malcontents as if they speak for all Muslims, I think just empowers them.

According to this more Americans would prefer to have Trudeau as leader than Trump. http://globalnews.ca/news/3231630/trudeau-over-trump-more-americans-prefer-pm-as-their-president-ipsos-poll/ It's hard to know when he is lying and when not when his story seems to flip flop almost daily. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

What do you call it when somebody repeatedly misspeaks, even after being corrected many times? He misspoke the same misinformation during the election and was consistently corrected. Yet he continues to misspeak and rely on other people to relate their "alternative understanding" of what he really, really meant.

Yes, Rosie O'Donnell certainly qualifies as unhinged. I promise you I will never vote for her.

No, I'm saying you seem to be the one with a problem understanding English. I already explained about coup, go back and reread it is not that difficult. I didn't know about Whoopie Goldberg but just looked it up and she did not call for martial law. She was saying that Trump's statements on Chicago sounded like he was calling for martial law.

Well then, we can kiss that money goodbye.

Scotland. And they came here dirt poor. Worked until they were able to buy a chunk of land, where they built a barn, plowed the ground, fed themselves and others and sold the extra to pay the bills, made a lot of friends. paid a lot of taxes, and raised six kids who did pretty well. That's my story but it's certainly not a unique one. Screen immigrants, but don't ban them.

I suppose hundreds of thousands of welfare cases would hurt our economy. But what does that have to do with Canada's history of immigration. Or have you got some "alternative facts" from Argus perhaps? Temper your response with the fact you are talking to the son of immigrants who has been working since I was 14.

Both of which flourish thru immigration.

Speaking of assumptions. And as usual. totally unfounded ones. Carry on Argus.

That was clearly articulated in the Liberal platform for the 2015 election: We will immediately begin an open and transparent review process of existing defence capabilities, with the goal of delivering a more effective, better-equipped military. The Canada First Defence Strategy, launched by Stephen Harper in 2008, is underfunded and out of date. We will review current programs and capabilities, and lay out a realistic plan to strengthen Canada’s Armed Forces. We will develop the Canadian Armed Forces into an agile, responsive, and well- equipped military force that can effectively defend Canada and North America; provide support during natural disasters, humanitarian support missions, and peace operations; and offer international deterrence and combat capability. We will continue to work with the United States to defend North America under NORAD, and contribute to regional security within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We will ensure that equipment is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight. We will put a renewed focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and will increase the size of the Canadian Rangers. Last spring they launched a major review on Canada's defence policy. It was supposed to report to Cabinet by the end of 2016, and be released to the public early this year. I haven't seen the actual document released, so I am not sure what 'early' means. I have however highlighted a bullet point you can attack them on.

Because CANADA !!!! F*CK YEAH !!!!

What is with you Liberals, and your reading comprehension.....The General of the Airforce Has stated there are "NO" Capability gaps, that our F-18 fleet is capable to fly past 2025.....How does that translate into our planes are having problems with serviceability, now i know alot of things, our Airforce are magicians when it comes down to fixing planes, and keeping them flying......the only thing that could slow down the process is parts availability.....that's a funding problem....perhaps the liberals can produce serviceability stats on our F-18's....but that's just going to prove the liberals are lying again.......Seems to me everything they touch turns to shit lately..... Now in the back ground the Liberal government is changing all our numbers to all our commitments....Can they do that, They can change any number they want , or rather yet they can tell you the gullible anything they want....have you heard of Canada increasing it's commitments any where......NO.....because that would be news worthy......so they are changing internal documents only....adding to the numbers to create a scape goat, a cover story for this stunt here........They have also placed all pers involved with the purchase of these 18 F-18 super hornets with a gag order, for life,they can't talk about costing, details, even the Cons reported all purchases, and followed the rules, .....that sound like a clear and transparent thing to do..... The best choice.....How would you or the rest of the liberal Cabinet know what is the best Aircraft Available, Was there a competition "NO", Is there an experts in the liberal cabinet, "NO".....Have they used any of the info or testing results submitted by DND ..."NO"....So how does the super hornet come up the winner....Nobody knows.....everyone else is asking WTF except the liberals.....the 2 engine thing.....already been debated and debunked.....welcome to 2017 my friend.....tell me how the F-16 can patrol northern europe for 25 years now.....2 engines is another liberal myth..... SO lets run though it again , because you liberals are a little slow.......Airforce general says there is NO capability gap.....Our jets will last to 2025 and beyond.....liberals order gag order to cover up purchase of 18 CF-18 Super Hornets, they don't release any info on the project, to prevent debate......and confusion....Who is lying.....can you point them out for the rest of the forum......It's that french guy over there your honor.....that guy called trudeau...

Exactly. Anyone can make mistakes. That's why pencils have erasers...

"The murder rate in a number of cities, however, has been ticking up, something President Trump routinely discussed on the campaign trail. That increase in the homicide rate between 2014 and 2015, rather than the rate itself, is the largest in almost 50 years." Maybe he simply meant "the increase in homicide", either way the point is the point. We could argue about whether Carter's time in office or Clinton's presidency was the most violent - or even Obama's last couple of years, but Trump's point is still valid.

Well, at least the public don't have to worry of selling secrets to China..Clinton or becoming a drug dealer, or fooling around with the interns.

Contempt is simply a matter of who has the seats in parliament. If the Liberals were in a minority I'm quite sure there'd be contempt findings now. In any event, the demands for information was nothing more than political games, and I don't care much about political games.

Derek you are fun. You were given a comparison of an older Gripen D to an F35 and Super H and uh know you want the latest Gripen E comparison. Now you act as if the Gripen E is untested so you don't have to comment on it and do I detect you think there is something sinister about the delay in its being tested? Uh sorry no.... http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-11-30/saab-postpones-gripen-e-first-flight-good-reason Yah I know how when info doesn't agree with you, poof you ignore it but try these aren't on the blog you now arbitrarily censor: https://www.aerosociety.com/news/evolution-of-the-fittest-saab-rolls-out-the-gripen-e/ http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34292:saab-successfully-completes-flight-test-with-irst-for-gripen-e&catid=35:Aerospace Interesting. The older and newer Gripens match with the F35 and Super H and even Rafale. Nothing in the Gripen E makes it different than the Gripen D it simply adds to it with speed and newer software. But hey it hasn't flown yet so let's actually ignore it while the F35 does fly with repeated faults and defects as if that makes it a better jet. Lol. Right Derek. You won't respond to the blog. Of course not, you have nothing to counter it other than to say the Gripen D which matched well is being replaced by the Gripen E which has not been tested yet. Rubbish: http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-launches-first-gripen-e-aircraft-4896511 http://defaiya.com/news/International News/Europe/2014/04/08/saab-completes-flight-test-with-irst-for-gripen-e Someone please tell Derek that the F35 was conceived 25 phacking years ago, 25! In 25 years it still has not fixed its defects. 25 years! 25 years to develop a friggin craft with no actual definitive cost per jet even finalized while the Gripen E has in fact been tested and its complete version will be tested this March. Let's be very specific and not avoid the facts Derek: 1-its already too expensive and its price continues to soar as the delays in production continue on and on; 2-the Gripen E is most certainly a viable option; 3-South Korea,Turkey, Holland are all second guessing the F35; 4-Turkey is looking at a minimum 50 BILLION as the preliminary price quoted on purchasing and building 200 F35's and buying 100 more from the US; 5-he price of the F35 is continuing to rise as we speak-no one lue how much it will actually cost...none of us do.. 6.the pilots testing the F35 have warned its still not ready to fly: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22530/pentagon-tester-f-35-combat-testing-delays/ 7. the amount of defects with the F35 grows and is not diminishing: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222380-the-pentagons-official-f-35-bug-list-is-terrifying; and here is the most recent report on its defects: https://www.rt.com/usa/373891-f35-report-flaws-delays/ 8.do NOT assume the F35 being purchased by Canada is the same as the one Israel will have IF it sticks with this jet: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/israel-can-customize-americas-f-35-least-now/ 9.Don't even assume by the time this is done the IAF will continue on with the F35....because....back in November of 2014 the Israeli cabinet rejected the purchase of an additional 31 F35's and reduced to 13-think about that-Israel is the no.1 tester and developer of the craft and it reduced its order after committing its entire future to this craft? Never before in the history of the State of Israel has its ministerial committee in charge of defense spending reversed a previously approved air force request. Never. It didn't just over-ride the Air Force, but former government and the Israeli National Security Council. T hat means all of them had to agree. Israel has 19 F35's on order at about 2.74 billion. Israel was supposed to purchase a total of 50. Israel quite simply can't handle the expense and keep in mind the US offered 2.4 BILLION in credit. As it is Israel was relying on 3.1 billion in military aid from the US which would be used to purchase these craft. That aid by the way is paid back by Israel with interest or in collateral deals exchanging back new improvements to the craft back to Lockhead which then in turn sells that new technology. Bottom line, Israel can't afford the soaring costs. Also something very strange happened. The Minister of Intelligence Yuval Steinitz who avoids the public and media made this public statement about the purchase of the F35: "We are not rubber stamps for the [ministry of defense] and air force." That is because in Israel there is wide spread belief the Air Force and Ministry of Defence are being pressured by the US areonautics industry and are not actng in the be interests of what Israel actually needs. Steinitz is on record at five different meetings with the panel on defense procurement dealing with the F35, openly questioning its effectiveness and referring to articles from Aviation Week from 2003 and 2008. Those articles contained leaks from guess who. a "Senior Israeli official," a euphemism for an Israeli Air Force General not allowed to speak out saying: "For maintaining stealthiness, this aircraft has compromised maneuverability, shorter operational range and significantly less payload capability," a senior Israeli official told Aviation Week. "We shouldn’t be buying so many of them when it is unclear whether the stealth is effective, or there is a countermeasure that would negate it. There are vast gaps in performance between the F-35 and fourth-generation fighters." 1o. Egypt and Saudi Arabia refuse to bu the F35. Egypt has gone with the Rafale, the Saudis with an F16. For them to do that you et someone in Israel told them to pass on the F35. Jordan's air force which is traditionally run by Britain's, is non committal on the F35 because the British are not exactly jumping for joy over its soaring price and like Australia and Canada are now examining the European fighters or Super H as aternatives. In the interim and its not so crazy, someone may look at the Chinese fighter and ask if its a better cheaper alternative as well. Stranger things have happened. Right now China won't sell the craft but it might if it thinks it can make good money. I personally would not touch the Chinese version but some countries might such as Pakistan. India looks like its settling on the Rafale not the F35. I suspect Morrocco is leaning to the Rafale. The only reason Israel has not split from the F35 consortium is because it can't. Its completely captive of it like Canada. Israel gutted its own air industry like Canada did. Israel ditched its Kfir jet like Canada did its Arrow in favour of American manufacturers. Now its haunting them both. Its never good to allow your independence to be given up even to your allies.

I appreciate and understand their struggle. But now it is against people who had really nothing to do with it in the first place (well unless you go back centuries) So because European nations screwed up, Palestinians have been paying the price for 60+ years. Does that make sense to you?

Maybe they should have checked out the neighborhood before they bought. One cannot move out to the wilderness and then complain about bear attacks.

Yeah, I checked his web site after posting. I don't like his immigration policy. In particular, where he writes: I will introduce smarter immigration policies, using tiered security screening and increased terrorist surveillance, while saying No today and forever to a values test for citizenship.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-passes-law-legalizing-thousands-of-west-bank-settlement-homes/ Israel has retroactively approved of all settlements in the West Bank. Apparently the government is divided over this news. Nothing more than legalized land theft in the name of 'security' for Israelis. Time goes on, Israel grabs more land. Many give them a pass on land grabbing, but when other nations like Russia do it is seems to be bad. One day Israel will rule over all of that, that seems inevitable. What is the real cause of this conflict? Not Muslim antisemitism. If it is really still a reason, it no longer the biggest reason for the conflict.

And from CHANTAL HÉBERT: Also: As I've said earlier, Bernier, Scheer and O'Toole are going to be my top three picks.....Bernier will be my top pick (likewise most of my extended family that are party members, absent my brother that is going O'Toole first). Last year, my wife and I (and my father and mother) all maxed the donation limit on Mad Max, and are holding off until the end of the month to donate again.......for this year, we were thinking of donating ~$500 to each of our top three, but now we're considering $500 to Max and the balance to one of O'Toole and Scheer as a plan "B".

Or made Peter Mackay the leader of the PCs over one of Prentice, Brison and Orchard......the later two became Liberals.

Uh huh. The kind of wheeling and dealing which gave us Joe Clark as leader?

I honestly think most of them should drop out. It's impossible to get a sense of people with so many candidates. Bernier, Lietch, O'Toole, Scheer, and O'Leary can stay. The rest need to go.

Kevin O'Leary doesn't "sell" party memberships, he, like the other candidates link to the CPC generic registration......maybe ~9000 people have visited his website? Or maybe ~9000 people have joined after he entered the race....granted, that could be people joining the party to vote against Kevin O'Leary. Let's assume though that he has got 9000 people to join that intended to support him, that would represent ~10-15% of party members........what regions and ridings are these supporters in? Are they concentrated or spread out? None the less, I will watch tonight's debate and see how O'Leary does

In the other forum, some leftists gave me likes....and I gave some likes to leftists too. Depends on what's being said. The like feature helps in different ways.

What's the point of devoting time, creating any threads....that's what I'm thinking now? I surely am not liberal, and I don't feel I have to appease others here by stifling myself....just so to get the "approval" of fellow-members. Surely, all my threads will be poorly rated! In other words, this is an attempt to cleansing views, forum-like.

No! What's "high quality," is highly subjective. It depends on who's reading, and who's pushing that button. As an example, I don't want to name names....but we've just had a slew of topics from someone who posted childish OP....and she is found to have high quality postings? Her rating is neutral! This reputation rating is an ASSASSINATION method for those who have opposing views from the majority in this forum!

Ivison, another commonsense Scot such as myself, see's it too: And his reason, of which I agree if the Tories are unable to form government in 2019 (as opposed to say put Trudeau in a weakened minority) is this: If its to take two elections to form government, Bernier is the man.......I doubt O'Leary would stick around if he "lost" an election, all the while, the party could tear itself apart. And that is why I'll be voting for Bernier and won't mark my ballot for O'Leary (or Leitch)

We'll see how temporary it will be but the point is, why aren't Saudis "temporarily banned" for instance? I guess money (especially oil money) Trumps even Donald's form of xenophobia.

Its a challenge by Turkiye and Russia against the World. These two countries openly declared that they are the decision authority about Syria, so World politics.

No, I just wanted to point out that Justin Trudeau has issues with manners and temperament as well. He is no saint compared to Trump.

Lol at the IRA not being a Christian terrorist group.

Yes it will.

And that, of course, is noted in the passage I quoted.....If O'Leary is able to raise over a Million in the next couple of months, and get such a diverse level of support as Bernier, then it will be a much closer race......I know he raised a whack of money during a 24 hour blitz, but what I don't know, is if this will continue and translate into party memberships intent on voting for O'Leary.

Bernier is blowing everyone out of the water on fundraising:

Any injustice done to anyone, regardless of their religion or ethnicity is wrong. There should be reparation. I'm all for it. The Asian Jews should be allowed to go back to their countries of origin. I have never said or thought otherwise. I also think the European Jews, who are the overwhelming majority of the migrants, should also go back or accept to live within one nation, with Muslims, Jews, Christians and any other religion. By the way, I just want to follow-up because you went off on a tangent: Did you read the link I shared with you? Have you replaced the wrong information from your head, re: a) how many Palestinians were driven out of their land and b ) Palestinian's legal claim to the land, with the correct information?

There are no other words. You simply don't know the basics of regional politics. When you're sitting there, claiming the Palestinian refugees have no legal claim to the land they were driven from or that only 35,000 of them existed, then you may want to do less posting and more reading. Here is one place you could start with: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/ref-qumsiyeh.html

I think all shamelessly hypocritical robbers love your logic. You'd better go back to high school and re-learn what is fallacy of ad hominem

Yes, it looks like another test of wills: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/navy-spratly-sail-threatens-china-sovereignty-151027062513637.html Beijing insists it has sovereign rights to nearly all of the South China Sea, even waters close to the coasts of other states. The sea is a strategically vital waterway with shipping lanes through which about a third of all the world's traded oil passes, and the dispute has raised fears of clashes.