Derek 2.0

Wow, the NDP must have really buggered up there......I don't know that they're hated even that much in Alberta yet. A renaissance? Interesting, last time I had the misfortune of going through Winnipeg, late 80s I guess, parts did seem a little feudal..........so now all the learned people, oracles, wise men, minstrels and other gentry of the province are converging on the city.......last I heard, the city had a problem with stabby first nations teens and biblical flooding ......they sort that out?

Only if you consider the Alberta NDP biased.......

A "force", wanting to be downtown, huge growth.......for a minute I thought he was referring to Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. People actually go to Winnipeg, and then stay, on purpose? What's a one bedroom condo cost, we talking Mercedes Benz range? ----------- Any polls out on who is expected to win the Manitoba election?

His book was an attempt by the Liberals to play Pontius Pilate with the Afghan war they started.......its nothing more than trash.

First, my questions are as serious as a heart attack........Second, you speak to sincerity....I apologized for suggesting you were making things up, you've since stated you have read a book......... ........A book written by the chief of staff of former Liberal Minister of National Defence John McCallum and then his replacement, Bill Graham (Graham was the one that recommended Hillier)........perhaps if you want a measure of credibility, you'd refrain from passing off a self-serving Liberal diatribe, published in the run-up to an election, as a historic document.........your cited book is as credible and unbiased as one of the panelists on CBC's Power and Politics. I would suggest in future you refrain from passing off the partisan words of others as your own.....well claiming to be gathered from a verified source(s).......in good company, that could get you labeled a fraud or a charlatan. I will say this, despite your passive aggressive barbs, I'm still grateful that you elected to forgo your self imposed rule of not responding to parsed quotes......you're actually a very malleable person when it suits you. -------------------------- In regards to the review, your responses go further to proving my point...... intellectually dishonest people, professing an agenda (or passing off another's agenda as their own) would be far more damaging to this nations defense then even an ignorant person's opinion. Simply put, an ignorant person just doesn't know any better, those with hidden agendas have zero qualms distorting the truth to suite their purposes........ My question of course is why certain people, or political parties, feel the need to obscure their agendas from the unwashed masses........could it be they know if the truth came out, those they were attempting to hoodwink would be none too pleased?

I assume both authors took part in the discussions between the Government and the military? None the less, it appears that you're attempting to suck and blow here....first you suggest the military is but one of many opinions to be considered by the elected Government when making policy......but now, you're suggesting the head of the military hoodwinked the elected Government.....did not the Government listen to all of your other suggested opinions that you said they have available to them? Likewise, would not the elected Government be to blame for the poor choice, doubly so, since they selected Hillier to head the military themselves? I thought you just made the case that you've based your opinions on a book? How do you know the authors facts are verified and that either/or author spent time in the field? I tend to agree that you're not "making things up", for that I'm sorry, is now clear that your opinions are from a book......

I'm curious, what information has given you this opinion of him? Historic factual evidence would indicate that policy of sending Canadian forces to Afghanistan (poorly equipped I might add) was made by the then elected Government (prior to Hillier being CDS).....further to that, historically, it was yet again the elected Government that decided to up the ante by putting Canadians in a more involved combat role......Hillier didn't decide that, but the Martin Government.... Are you suggesting Hillier lied or made an error? Methinks you're making up things to justify your argument, an argument that poorly defends the bad public policy put forth by this Government with its defense review.

But the Government isn't doing that......they are attempting to herd cats.....doing what you suggest would entail presenting concrete policy positions to the public, positions that explained why we need "x" to accomplish "y", and gauge their response.......... This Government's Defense review is akin to a school teacher asking her students what they want to learn and how they want to learn it.............. Hold on, weren't you the one saying the Government should base public policy on the uninformed public's opinions.......that's not governance, that's populism......like the crap being shoveled by Trump and Sanders for example.........or the sunshine and unicorns promised by this Government in the run-up to the election

I don't know about Mulcair, but I almost feel sorry for Premier Notley and the Alberta NDP....... what with a mantra like keep "Alberta's oil in the ground", at a convention in Alberta.....what a dumpster fire From the little coverage I've watched so far, to me, its seems they are consigned with not being reelected in Alberta and shrinking their federal footprint to the benefit of Trudeau.......oh well, I'm sure in 20-30 years, the previous mandate as the Official Opposition will be looked back as a high watermark like the Broadbent years....

Huh? Where did I do that? A tool like the census for example versus this survey are two different beasts...... You consider leadership the gauging of opinion polls? By all means, explain why this Government is seeking the public's opinion on maters that very few Canadians (the spoken to "experts" ) would be equipped to offer anything of substance........ When I go to my Doctor when I'm sick, I don't seek the opinions of the lady at the coffee shop, the janitor in the hallway or the old guy waiting for the handydart...... Now I would hope this Government isn't actually seeking said opinions, and that this is but political window-dressing and fluff.......

What data? When did unfounded opinions become "data"? For example, how does the opinion of a barista in Toronto or a pig farmer from Manitoba lend guidance to our Government on 21st century Peacekeeping/Peacemaking operations? Are a grade 3 teacher from Halifax and a bus driver from Victoria going to lend a measure of expertise to Government on the subject of shared continental defense with the Americans via NORAD? Let me guess, a long haul truck driver and a visual arts graduate would be your go-to option for seeking advice on recapitalization of modern and near term military equipment? Or do you think an unemployed rig-pig and a single mother on welfare are the best equipped to determine our future role in NATO and the implication of collective defense?I'm sure the pimply faced kid at the McDonalds running the deep fryer has an opinion on the importance of the Arctic in the 21st century.....just as the immigrant cab driver is best suited to help set cyber-defense policy for the DnD......... ........So again, what data? If they are not bound by it, and its of little to no value, why bother collecting it?

Why yes it has

How is that clear? I think the opposite, tone alone is a major difference. Though I respect (and read) Ivison, I think this is a case of either trying to sell papers or he's got a lousy source.....Without a doubt there would be detractors of MacKay, but a Mackay leadership isn't going to fracture the party.....I just don't think its going to happen regardless.

For failure? In my view, that would be the Liberals giving more weight (and in turn base policy) to the uninformed public then experts......very simple. What information was being sought, and in turn, used as a guide, with the 2014 opinion poll you cited?

Said questions have already been quoted......

I've done near the exact same routine, better yet, claim your computer keeps restarting or is loading an update so they have to wait

No, he was actually too young for the Second World War, but served East of Suez (Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm) in the later 40s through the Korean War.

Of course I can't state the survey's weighting.......as I said numerous times, that is not forthcoming from the Liberal Government.............. I think its you that needs the review........clearly the member stated the claim the war would be won inside a couple of months, and my response was to said claim, as an example among the many statements made in his original post. Where is the hypocrisy? None the less, your cited report is apples to oranges with this current Government's survey........one is an opinion poll, the other, a survey asking for uninformed opinions to foment government policy.........that is, unless what you suggest is true, and this is but a feel-good exercise.

I think its fanciful fiction and I doubt former Prime Minister Harper would be the slightest bit interested.........but the prospects of a defeated Prime Minister returning to lead his party back into Government is not without precedent....

How am I to "declare my weightings"? I didn't write the survey, nor am I conducting the review, this is the Trudeau Liberals "thought exercise" Yes, vice the uninformed. Yes, but then, this is not a new phenomenon. Why would I qualify such a statement, when I never suggested it? Where did I claim the Bush administration ignored (or sought) anybody's advice over their (political) decision to invade Iraq? Per norm you play the part of a pseudo Riddler, espousing the virtues of Word Salad.......why don't you riddle a point?

I've stated clearly several times that I don't know how much consideration the public's input will play into this Government's review..........if it is of little importance, then the exercise is a waste of time and money, and is nothing more than political theater. Which "experts" in the context of dre's claim? Again my response was to dre in context to his statement of "experts" versus elected officials...........in response to you, the choice to invade Iraq, yet again , was political......the manner in which the war was fought was made political (like Vietnam) as opposed to the releasing of the proverbial "dogs of war" to achieve the strategic aims of the civilian leadership. ......In other words, if the Waldo decides to reno his bathroom that is in his purview, that he will have to fund, via a contractor. It is reasonable to assume that in the initial stages, the Waldo will offer to the "experts" his detailed objectives of what he wants to accomplish (color of the tiles, style of the fixtures etc) as his end game...said experts will inform the Waldo what is required and from there the Waldo can choose to listen or ignore said experts.......said experts will then carry out their assigned task and yet again the Waldo can choose to interfere or not, there could be satisfactory results or the end result could be a disaster.....again it all reverts to the Waldo..... The Bush Administration was allowed to bugger up the works for their hired contractors.......... ------- With this defense review put forth by the Liberal government, it appears the Government is asking for anybodies advice on how to tell the experts to do their jobs.........

Giving pink slips to one of the largest armies in the world, to say nothing of gutting the Baathist Government bureaucracy and public/private sector workforce........they didn't just ignore advice, the ignored the formula used in the denazification of post-war Germany........... Sprinkling the seeds of democracy (on paper) is popular among the public (until the "hard work" kicks in)......installing another puppet isn't, but its effective and good public policy......The Bush administration chose what was popular well seeking reelection. The Trudeau Government, with this review, is attempting to do what is popular.......like the Bush administration did in Iraq.

You're wrong, the "experts" never offered said advice or opinion........in each one of your examples, politics superseded the "experts" advice, politics aimed at the uninformed public that you feel should have further input.

Try living in a community without a Tesla service center...........one thing I will give Tesla, they hold up in resale value compared to most other high end cars..........

I'm sure Tesla will sell a whole bunch, but if we're talking 100s of thousands in North America, I question whether Tesla will be able to provide timely support to customers...........in my experience, if one were looking towards a buying a ~50k electric, I'd suggest buying from a more established car company like Chevy, Toyota, VW etc......