Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    IT, History, Military History and Religious conflict

HistoryBuff44's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. I have seen several people make comments about the building of new prisons and complaining about increasing criminal population. My first thought is well, where do we put them if not in prisons? building a prison does not make more criminals, people do that on their own. letting criminals out too early cause they have no room for them doesn't mean they are done being a criminal. so please tell me what do we do with them? just not arrest them cause we have no room for them?
  2. I think it curious that in general we never get any information about how they would manage their finances as an independent state. All we hear is how it would be great for Quebec. um, how? overburdened with debt and deficit spending as well as having to deal with the relocation of businesses outside of your province because they don't want to deal with your socialist bureaucracy. it would be great for about 2 years after that the reality of the situation would kick in. the worst part about all the talk is that it doesn't illustrate the side that wants to stay. they lost the vote 2 times, which means a bigger part wants to remain. the PQ leadership simply ignore the results as if it didn't happen; laughable since they are the reason the vote happened in the first place. The part of the province that wants to stay need to speak up and let the others know they are sick of their banter. Unfortunately, the PQ are the only ones doing the talking in Quebec. The pro-Canada side needs to tell them if they want to leave Canada so bad then pack their stuff and go. That Quebec is a part of Canada which despite our issues is one of if not the greatest nation on the planet.
  3. I think you have misunderstood what i was writing. SAMs use radar or heat signatures for homing in on its target. Radar missiles are partially avoided by stealth (reduced radar signature). Missiles using heat sources (like the hot exhaust out of a jet) to home in on can be sent off course by dropping super hot burning flares from the jet stealth characteristics (reduced radar signature) by radar energy absorbing coatings and a design that reduces the ability of radar to get bounced back energy waves. A fighter jet might be able to fly home and land on autopilot... but it cannot do it without an engine and thats what i spoke of in my comment. at best you might get a 3:1 ratio of forward movement to altitude loss out of it.
  4. I think a big issue is being missed here. The issue with the older birds is that they are too easily spotted by current hand held and mobile SAMs. The reach and power of those systems would blot those jets out of the sky too easily. The newer Jets have a much reduced radar signature so that enemy forces cannot engage them so far out. thus allowing our guys to get in close enough with HARMs and other weapons to deal the first blows. Part of the question with these jets is what does the future tactics call for. Do you really need jets to deliver the weapons in the future? There are railgun style weapons in development now that will shoot projectiles hundreds of miles and speeds of mach 5+ and use GPS guidance. Personally, i think some new jets are needed as the next generation tactics are still too far out; but they are coming no question. One issue with the f35 that i dont like is that it is a single engine craft. twin engine units allow the pilot to get home if one engine quits on mechanical failure when he's patrolling up north a 1000 miles from base.
  5. Molly, there will always be an auto industry, its just a question of who is it. if GM or Chrysler falls, other will step in buy up the pieces and continue on. so long as people demand vehicles there will be companies to supply them. Therein lay the fundamental argument, you dont build something and then try to create a market for it, you spot the demand and build something for it. As soon as you remove the true nature of what competition does for us, you reduce quality and allow prices to be higher than need be. So if other companies can do it profitably, why should we support those who can't seem to?
  6. i would take anything the union says with a grain of salt... or a pound of it. Can GM Canada survive if GM goes under? GM has lost 84 billion over the last few years according to the independant audit ordered by the US government. thats what scared the obama administration from giving them the last 16 billion they requested.
  7. Yes they lose money from lost income tax, but is that lost tax more than they pay out to the company to keep it running? unless it is the case, its an inefficent use of resources. I dont believe it is because if you follow that logic through to the end, it would make sense for a government to spend forever to earn even more back.
  8. G&M article First, I am glad that the government is saying they will let them fall. For sure it sucks for those who could lose jobs but the government needs to think at a macro level. how is it fair to the country to prop up those failing businesses and not all the other industries failing as well. not to mention how is it fair to taxpayers to get saddled with debt from companies that were failing in some of the best economic times in the last 30 years. I do find it funny though that ol' GW said they should be helped and we pumped money into them. Then Obama, after the audit that scared most, says no to their next request and then we again follow suit. while i like the direction were going, you definately cant say we are leading the pack...
  9. Until there is a sure way to prevent people from brining handguns into the country the concept of the registry and what they hope to prevent by creating it won't work. I'm not a policeman or criminologist but im pretty sure people who want to kill someone arent going to register their weapons. it really is that simple.
  10. Im ok with it if the same thing cant be purchased for a better price and similar or better quality elsewhere. I dont care if its Union made or not, just if the price is higher because of union labor costs are high by comparison to other potential candidates. The same goes for non union items as well.
  11. No we dont need them. You say your a realist, if that were true you would know that they are only now making concessions because of the REALITY that they would all be out of a job because the companies they work for will be bankrupt and out of business. those companies would still need and use workers whether they were unionized or not, yes they would probably earn less money but then i completely disagree with the wages they make. there have been lots of articles lately stating the average amounts they make, its rediculous for what they need to do.
  12. Im not blinded by hatred of unions... you made that up. I see what these unions have done plain as day and i dont believe it is beneficial to canadians at all. driving up wages is not beneficial, making it virtually impossible to fire useless people or people that simply arent needed at a position is not beneficial. I expect the government of canada to get the best value for my tax dollar, not piss it away on some union wage driven up project that will cost more just because its made here in canada, so that they need to tax me more for more money because they bought here.
  13. what a hypocritical load of garbage from these union heads. They spent the last 20 years driving up wages to rediculous levels and then they try to force everyone to buy canadian? why so they can drive wages up even higher? they have done as much to destroy manufacturing as any government has done in this country. there is no place for unions in today's Canada, they are far more of a liability to prosperity than an asset. PS did you notice in the pic from G&M the one union head wearing that nice gold watch... must be hurtin times.
  14. we cant back down. The US is deliberately trying to play down our claims and brush us aside. The thing to remember is its not personal, its politics; its all give and take. we cant back down on this, they're not going to invade us over it because we sell to them anyway. so let them know we wont get brushed aside and bargain for something we want, joint northern action, rights elsewhere, whatever we deem we need.
  15. if nations would stop trying to control exchange rates and just let the market handle it then a good portion of this trade imbalance problem would not have come about. it is a rediculous myth that canada's currency should be worth 20% less than america's and I do agree that trying to keep it there would wreck us, so why do it? how are rich people expoiting everyone around them? seriously its like people get mad at successful people because they are successful... but thats socialists for ya, equal results for all no matter how much effort you put in. And then they sit and wonder why canada cant compete with the more productive countries.
  • Create New...