?Impact

The problem as you point out with the F-18L was that no other nation was committed to it so we would be funding development. The F-16 was winning all the contracts, and Canadian military brass had an aversion to a single engine fighter. I agree that at the time the F-18L was the better aircraft from a technical standpoint for Canada, but economics and project risk were the deciding factors. The legal issues between McDonnell Douglas and Northrop at the time didn't help matters. Politics of course played a major role as well, with all the various contenders having differing industrial benefits both direct and indirect.

I haven't heard about the wood stoves. I know our standards are way, way, way lower than the US EPA so I suspect that there will be tightening of the emission standards. Montreal did however come closer to 'banning' wood stoves last year, so perhaps there is something similar happening in Ontario. I suspect however, like the 600, we have someone looking at some changes and then exaggerating them a billion fold to come up with terms like ban. I would think the good news of the recent jobs report, and GM making investment in high technology engineering in Ontario would be what they would focus on instead of banning. Maybe this is more about Levant/Lilley and their agenda to make up stories in order to ignore the good is happening.

As I was saying the other day about stealth, this article also quotes Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations saying I am not sure however that we want to work with a US navy program, for the same reason the F-35 is such a dog. The US navy requires that aircraft be able to takeoff and land on aircraft carriers. While this is not quite as bad as the VTOL requirement from the US marines that completely destroyed the F-35, it generally dictates much heavier landing gear and larger wing surface. If there is enough volume from non-navy purchases, then perhaps variants will be created to the basic airframe. Canada would be better to partner with other airforces that have similar requirements to our own.

From what I read, the initial price in 2017 (first year it is introduced) will be $13.72 per metric ton and then raise 5% plus inflation for each year thereafter. So yes, in about 50-60 years it will be about $600/ton. Of course you could buy your credits on the open market as well. I have argued against cap & trade for years, we should have gone with a sovereign managed carbon tax but it seems that the federal Conservatives argued against that in 2008 to hide their lies in the fall election.

Vega didn't say MMP, but MMM or sometimes called SM (Supplementary Member).

To prove it's capabilities, the Pentagon plans to have the F-35 face off against the Supermarine Spitfire. The test will be limited to 15 minutes in duration, to minimize the chance of the F-35 software rebooting in the middle of battle.

Yes, we don't need those right wing reformers with 30% of the vote having 100% of the power, yet that is what the corrupt FPTP system gave us. I would rather have 10% of the vote having 10% of the power.

Yes, I have an issue with them preaching in public - that is why I debate what they say. I am not advocating throwing them in jail or anything, just making sure that their ill conceived ideas get proper opposition. Do you have a problem with my right to free speech? I will expose their 'evidences' as the BS they are.

What does stealth (5th generation, next generation) really mean? A lot of noise has been made about this 'requirement', but what is really being delivered. We already know that this feature is compromised if the aircraft actually wants to do any useful work (ie. carry more than a couple of fire crackers, or fly further than across Aunt Sally's corn field), but even when the aircraft is 'stealth' does that really mean anything at all? Probably the most successful stealth aircraft was the SR-71 blackbird. Not a single one was lost in combat, but did that have anything to do with its stealth capabilities? What many people don't realize is that it (and the F-35) still show up on even WWII radar. The advantage the SR-71 had was speed, altitude, jamming, and speed, speed, speed. The only one of those advantages the F-35 will have is jamming, and with autonomous missiles that is no longer as important as it once was. What many people don't realize is that the SR-71 was engaged over 800 times in combat, it's stealth capability was meaningless, it was still seen. The advantage it had was first the high altitude (80,000 ft) meant that the surface to air missiles (of the enemy at the time) exhausted most of their fuel just getting to the aircraft, and then it could easily increase speed to Mach 3.2 (official, there are unconfirmed reports it was able to sustain Mach 3.5). The F-35 will not be flying at those altitudes, and nowhere near those speeds (Mach 1.6). There is no magic stealth capability, that is a Star Trek fantasy.

Where am I trying to control what people say in public? I very clearly stated that if betsy wants to make her creationist arguments, then they will be debated. That is not control. It is disappointing that you would make up stories about what I said. If you are talking about schools, what I said is don't tell fairy tales in science class and call them science. Do you think we should allow our schools to teach 2+2=5 just because someone with an agenda wants it that way? Science is science, and fairy tails don't belong there.

The best source of information I could find is the Stackley/Bogden report to the House armed services committee (March of this year). On page 10, they say that 171 aircraft have been delivered. 151 of them are operational, including test aircraft.

This was one question, not every single question asked every single day until he finally broke down in tears. Rempel got the answer she deserved, if she asked the question as a serious question and not some snarky mocking manner like she did then perhaps a serious reply would have followed.

They are appealing the award. In the tech sector, many companies just pay up these big jury awards and move on because time is even bigger money but in this case the award is basically the company.

I think the most telling statement in the comparison mentioned above is the following: UPDATE: Leading aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia pointed to me that the procurement prices per plane are dodgy. The F-35A is priced at $80 million, which is the ambitious but no longer implausible target that program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the plane will reach around 2019. But the F/A-18F Super Hornet is priced at a whopping $122 million, when the Navy’s official figure is $57 million and prospective sales are often priced lower.] The term dodgy is perfect for describing pricing. Remember when our own F-35 program cost $9 billion back when Peter McKay was holding photo-ops in a cardboard mockup, and after review suddenly became $45 billion. In the comparison, one of the biggest factors talked about is the life cycle costs based on an estimated 8,000 fight hours for the F-35 compared to 6,000 for the F-18. Do we really believe that this new plane will last longer than the tried and tested F-18?

I think most of us are tolerant of people practicing their own religion. The issue is when they begin to preach it publicly, want 'creation' to be taught in schools as if it were a science or push creation in public pretending they have 'evidences'. I support freedom of religion, but when you bring religion into a public forum it will be debated.

We all know the fairy tales that Oliver used to tell. I suggest you read the Parliamentary Budget Office report of November 10, 2015 that looked at the budget based on the old Harper model (ie. not looking at the new Liberal government programs). It stated: 2015-16 - $1.2 billion surplus 2016-17 - $3.0 billion deficit 2017-18 - $4.7 billion deficit 2018-19 - $5.0 billion deficit 2019-20 - $4.6 billion deficit 2020-21 - $4.2 billion deficit This is the baseline to which the Liberal performance should be measured.

Certainly Indira Gandhi would be the best example, although she was 'Prime Minister', but it was her own guards. There have been many leaders of state that have been assassinated by state forces (e.g. army), even if their direct body guards were not personally involved; Anwar Sadat is probably the best known of those.

From Merriam-Webster mogul noun mo·gul capitalized : an Indian Muslim of or descended from one of several conquering groups of Mongol, Turkish, and Persian origin; especially : great mogul : a great personage

So it is written, so it shall be done: Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Of course Christians will quote John 8:1-11 saying Jesus forgives us our sins. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. ....go, and sin no more

My imaginary evidences are better than scientists rational hypothesis. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

Zero, you couldn't purchase a phone in 1960 - period. They were supplied with the service, just like the $0 phones with far more capability are supplied with the service today. When phones did become available for purchase however, they were very expensive. Local phone service in 1960 was under $10/month, phone service today is about $25/month for basic (about a bazillion times more capable than in 1960). Long distance service has decreased by well over an order of magnitude. The $1 million computer of 1960 has less processing capability, memory, storage than the $0 phone of today.

Since before the Union government, there have been zero power transitions in Canada. The Liberal and various incarnations of 'Conservative' government are all controlled by the same monied interests. We need a true people oriented party. To put this in plain language: In Canada, the corporatists have held power for over a century. The closest the socialists ever came to power was being in opposition for the recent 4 years. In Germany, the corporatists have held power about 60% of the time (since 1949), and shared it with the socialists another 20% of the time. The rest of the time the Socialists have held power with the help of others. When out of power, the corporatists or socialists were always the primary opposition.

That would depend on the representative power base between the different parties in the coalition. In the case we were talking about (Germany for the rest of you that haven't followed this thread - Thanks Tim for moving it to the right forum, hopefully the moderators will reward you) the second party was from a low of 43% that of the primary party and a high of 97%. I agree that there will still be some legacy connections to the dominant party that might be abused. Going back to the comparison between Germany and Canada, even if we adhere strictly to a change of the dominant party then there were 3 transitions for both countries between 1982-2015, or 4 transitions between 1982-2016 for Canada and 1981-2015 for Germany (ie. cherry picking dates makes a big difference).

Actually Canada has had 4 complete power transitions, and Germany has had 5 during that time. If you made the comparison from 1981 to a year ago then Germany would have 6 complete power transitions compared to 3 in Canada. A new coalition is a power transition, and you are ignoring them. --- Sorry, I just noticed that we are really drifting away from the topic - I blame overthere at 10:52 this morning for getting us off on this tangent.