Signals.Cpl

I took our F35 conversation and replaced planes with ships boats and voila...

We would be in the same basket as the US which means it will be solved pretty fast... Seeing as this will be the backbone of the US Military and any problem that develops will be fixed pretty quickly... Can't imagine the US buying 2400 F-35's and then not fixing any problems should they arise which means that when they fix the problem they fix it for us as well...

I stopped reading his posts days ago...

So are we going to replace the Destroyers and Frigates with thousands pleasure craft and canoes that the MPs will operate in their spare time armed with all sorts of weapons and maintained by people who are voluntold?

Why are you continuing with this argument? You know very well that the problem is not the F-35 itself but rather the Conservatives wanting the F-35. It is irrelevant to this argument wether it is the best aircraft for us or not, what is relevant is that most of the people opposing the aircraft purchase don't care about getting the best bang for our buck or the quality and abilities of the aircraft but rather they care about the politics, if the Conservatives started favouring Super Hornet or whichever other aircraft the opposition will oppose the choice on political grounds not technical.

You are right, this is F-35 argument all over again...

Really? What happens when there is a deficit as is seen in Ontario and the provincial government decides to raid the funds in EI? What happens when a province cannot afford to support the program because there is a disproportionate amount of unemployed in that province? So either this will become another price tag to add to equalization or provinces will start to cut the benefit as a way to save money while the provinces with a surplus will not be looking out and planning for the future instead they will be spending the money here and now instead of building up a reserve fund for EI incase the times get bad. The atlantic provinces will be buried by this, Quebec and Ontario will manage simply because of the size of the workforce and anything west of Manitoba will be ok for now and will likely have a surplus. So to sum this up we will see either benefits cut in some provinces, rules to get EI tightened to such a point as it becomes inaccessible to most people who would otherwise qualify or the Federal government will have to assume the balance for the provinces that have a deficit any way you look at it everyone get's screwed.

And what happens when say Nova Scotia experiences higher unemployment than Ontario or Alberta? One province will have a surplus while another will have a deficit... Provinces that have higher rate of EI use will have to put money in to the program to equal it while others will use the excess as government revenue.

So whats the problem? A government agency decided one was cheaper than the other and went with the cheaper product...

Difference in comparison, this is not a house and we should not be looking at the potential resale value if the government tries to sell it 10,20,50 or 100 years down the road we should do what is necessary and make it look presentable at the cheapest possible price.

But my question is who is footing the bill? Is it the tax payers or a private funding? If it is paid for by tax payers it is the government and they did the right thing going cheaper if it is a privately funded project it is none of our business where they purchased their building materials from.

On whose behalf is Public Works doing this?

Well if it was my house I would ask myself wether I need it to look all pretty and spend more money or if I could spend the money somewhere else to better my life. If the answer is that I need to or can afford to make my house all nice and pretty I will go ahead and do so otherwise I would concentrate on things that touch the lives of everyday Canadians instead of making things look nice for the political leadership. I don't see any negatives other than the not so authentic look to the addition I would go with the cheaper source. At some point people will have to make decisions pretty quick rather than spending millions on determining where we will buy from and negate any savings by throwing the money in to the selection process.

And if they chose the more expensive source you would be complaining about them wasting money? If there is a significant price difference go with the cheaper source after all this does not involve questions about the safety of the structure rather it involves the appearance.

Knowing your disdain of mathematics and the english language it was taken at face value that you meant Tourette Syndrome but couldn't be bothered to spell it properly.

The whole equalization payment process should bring a "have not" province to an acceptable standard and once it becomes apparent that the standard has been met and in fact surpassed the province does not remain a have not province. Certain "have not provinces" provide higher level of services to their population than "have" provinces thus defeating the entire purpose of the equalization payment... I can think of a few places where the equalization payments could be invested to serve a more productive purpose than allow "have not" provinces to exceed the services rendered on the backs of the people of other provinces.

What happens when one of the "have not" provinces provides better services than the have provinces? A province that receives equalization payments only to provide higher level of services should stop receiving the equalization payment because its surpassed the equitable standard enjoyed by the other services?

There is an easy solution... tie the language laws of TROC to those of Quebec so when Quebec decides to marginalize the English language TROC does exactly the same thing to French speakers in their provinces, there does not need to be any actual change it might be enough just to suggest such a thing to see a change.

So we are back at this? How is there anything even remotely fair about many people paying in to a benefit they will likely never see only to have few people use said benefit year after year? What about workers who pay in to EI year after year and work at or just above minimum wage for 50 weeks of the year and likely make less during the full year than many seasonal workers? EI should be for those who lose their jobs rather than those who work only part of the year, every year for their entire working life. I am all for EI knowing that it serves a very important purpose, but that purpose should not be to supplement someone's income every year for their entire career because they choose to work only part of the year. EI, welfare and other such benefits should be based on need rather than choice, meaning that you need EI because you lost your job rather than you chose to work only part of the year, you need welfare because of a variety of reasons rather than because you choose to make a career out of it...

And what happens when you suddenly need the military to assist BC after an earthquake? Disbanding the military is a great suggestion if you lack common sensem and foresight...

We have to do something, because putting all of your eggs in one basket has rarely turned out too well for anyone.

Not even close to what they consider eastern Europe thus they will not go to war or risk going to war in order to protect a regime that is already gone... They do not have any interest in invading Syria and occupying Syria for the next 50 years simply to have a port in the Mediterranean. Seeing as Afghanistan has so many quality ports I can see that made such good sense... And what is Russia going to do? Fight NATO over a port that they will have no access to once Assad is gone? So? It might be critical but it does not make it likely that Russia will throw itself in to a war exclusively for the port. They would do the exact same thing they always do which is shut down any UN intervention, throw around tough language and move on, there are certain offences they will go to war over and this is definitely not one of them. NATO has not intervened with troops on the ground because Turkey does not want to go in without the US and the US has bigger problems at home without having to sustain Iraq War 2.0... Just as easy for NATO to do everything in their power collectively to make Russia's situation pretty tough so I don't see what Russia has to gain from wasting resources fighting a battle that is already lost when all they have to do is wait a few years and throw some aid in the new regime that replaces Assad which would most likely get them access to any port they want...

Yeah that is the reason right? So if they received market value they will be ok and with a nice surplus? I doubt that at least for longer than a year or two. Are they seriously investing for a future with no oil revenue? If not then they are blowing their resources on the here and now without thinking about life after oil revenue. And again, now is the time to plan for something rather than waiting until the situation deteriorates to unsustainable level. No one is panicking, now is the time to plan for and build an that does not rely completely on oil revenue so that when it runs out people don't have to panic because the province just lost a substantial portion of their revenue. Really? How is that working for them? Great...how does that diversify Alberta's revenue sources? I am not suggesting not to develop it rather I am suggesting that they should develop their oil industry concurrently with other industries so that oil is one revenue source of many rather than the biggest chunk of the provincial revenue. One way would lead to poverty for the province when oil revenue dries up the other would be minor thing because they have diversified their sources of income. Did I suggest they should not develop it? Well when the infrastructure becomes poor/unserviceable the money wasted could have been invested in repairing and improving the infrastructure all along. And for the longest time that could have been said about Ontario right? Should Albertans wait until they get screwed up like Ontario before changing? Really? Is that so? The discussion here is about Alberta rather than Quebec but nice distraction... You know Greece has infrastructure in poor repair should I talk about that one as well? The point here is prevention. You on the other hand are suggesting we fight the fire when it starts up but do nothing to prevent the fire from starting... Wasent Ontario the richest province at one point? I wish someone had worried about the economic wellbeing of Ontario decades ago but that requires some foresight but people like you seem to be lacking foresight. What is the big picture? Please enlighten me... does it involve sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that the economy of Alberta relies on a source of income that is finite and will runout eventually.The big picture is planning for an Alberta after the oil revenue is gone and they may have a year or them may have a century but the earlier they start investing and attracting businesses the more successful the transition will be...