Wilber

Remarks like this show that I am winning so I take them with a certain amount of "pride" for lack of a better word. Does this mean you were clearly losing 10-15 pages ago when you were calling everyone in this thread a "moron" and an "idiot"? Don't forget "liar". Another delusion.

ok.I was thinking of Kosa and Bhalru case in Vancouver many years ago. I thought they got off but it appears they were convicted but were given absurdly light sentences. They were but because they weren't Canadian citizens we were able to send their butts back to India despite the judicial system. The guy who killed Jimmy Ng got two years less a day and that was considered a tough sentence. Probably didn't serve much more than half of it. His accomplice got probation. The guy who ran down an vacationing doctor from New Zealand last summer and ran, then broke bail twice including running out on his sentencing hearing to Toronto where he was arrested with a rented car, was just sentenced to 11 months today. The defense was asking for 9 and the prosecution 21. One of the victims relatives who turned up for the sentencing hearing that the guy ran out on is an attorney in Seattle. Her disgust with the Canadian judicial system is intense to put it mildly. Canadian maximum sentences are a cruel joke on victims and complete BS.

I think it is a great idea. We have had too many innocent people killed by these morons in this part of the world, including one police officer who was T boned by one of these wankers who then jumped in another car and took off. As to whether any charges are justified, that is what we have judges for. Mission Raceway runs Mopac Street Legal nights every Friday where anyone can bring their car and for $25 get 4 to 6 passes down a real 1/4 mile in a controlled environment against anyone they choose.

Hull was born, raised and has lived all his life in the US. The only thing Canadian about him is his parents. Even so, he only decided to play for the US after he wasn't picked for Team Canada. I don't see him as a traitor at all. Cherry is entertaining and occasionally has some good insights but for substance, I'll take Kelly Hrudey any day.

Your ignorance of Canada's military history is nothing short of breathtaking.

Magna is much more than just auto parts. Magna Steyr

What the hell do you think happens when you crash a real aircraft?

I don't cliam to be a pilot or aeronatical engineer but their explantions wrt G forces (and this is very determinable from the flight path) , etc sound reasonable. There are lots of expert pilots that say it was impossible. You have already shown that you will believe anything put out by the government - no matter how ridiculous. Poly, you are an idiot. I have never contributed to your wacky threads except when it comes to my own expertise or what I have personally observed because I don't claim to be an expert on many of the issues surrounding 9/11 and so, won't comment on them. The number of expert pilots who you say may believe it is impossible are vastly outnumbered by those who believe that it was not only possible but did happen. That is a fact. You latch on to anything that fits your obsession no matter where it comes from and reject that which conflicts out of hand. Anything that fits your obsession will sound reasonable, anything that doesn't will be rejected regardless of its source. I promised myself I wasn't going to do this again because it is a waist of time. Why didn't I listen?

I've played on flight sims and done suicide missions. Its against my grain too. That's right, you've played. What we do isn't playing, it's our profession. Crashing is absolutely the worst thing we can do, even in the simulator.

One more thing. You may have your internet pilot authorities (who's qualifications you can't verify) who claim it couldn't happen but in the five year post 9/11 period that I was still airline flying, I never met one airline pilot who agreed with them and you better believe that we all analyzed the hell out of it because any of us could have been next.

These guys listed have flown F22's, instructed on F22's, flown F-15's in combat. You are not their equal. Don't pretend to be. Yes and they probably know as much about airline flying and B767's as I know about military flying and F22's. The difference between me and them or you is that I don't claim to know about things I don't.

As a civil pilot who was flying B767's at the time I can tell you it is entirely possible. The terrorists would be the only ones on the aircraft who were armed, cockpit doors at that time were often not locked in cruise and often left open for minutes at a time. Regardless, they were very easy to force even if they were locked. Basically they were designed to keep passengers from mistaking it for a washroom door. Since 9/11 they have been made bullet proof, are kept locked all the time, have deadbolt locks and there are strict protocols for the times they are opened. There is no reason the crews would have divined the terrorist's intentions because an aircraft had never been hijacked with the intention of destroying everyone on it. Techniques taught to deal with hijacking at the time were designed to defuse the situation, not aggravate it with the use of force. As far as flying the aircraft into the Pentagon goes, a pilot hits a particular spot on a runway every time he lands, hitting the largest building in the world would be no problem at all. Of course you are assuming that the person flying that aircraft hit the precise spot he was aiming at although why you would assume that I have no idea. I won't deny there may have been some luck involved but he just wanted to hit the building somewhere. If any pilot had difficulty with such a maneuver it is because deliberately crashing an aircraft goes against everything he has ever trained for or is in his nature. A pilots mindset in a simulator differs little from the real aircraft and a simulator crash really deflates one psychologically, even though there are no physical consequences. Pilots run simulations to see if they are survivable, not with the intention of killing themselves. To do otherwise goes completely against their grain.

I think there is a feeling among people that she is one who likes to start at the top and if that proves to be unattainable, she loses interest. Hence, it has been difficult to take her seriously as real leadership material. Real leaders excel when the going is toughest. It would seem that feeling has not been unjustified.

How dare you muddy the waters by stating the obvious.

Was that for the entire regiment or just one battalion? A battalion usually numbers around 1,000 but a regiment can have several battalions. 4000 casualties for one battalion would be a lot, basically having to replace itself three times during the course of the war.

Two words. Incredibly simplistic 1. Assuming a worker enters the work force at age 25 and retires at 65 that comes to 40 years by my arithmetic. He also pays taxes on any pension and investment income he has after he retires. 2. You assume that a provincial government's income is derived solely from income taxes 3. You assume that a workers sole contribution to that income is through provincial income taxes. 4. You don't take into account provincial income derived from such things as sales (ex ALTA) and fuel taxes which that worker also pays, corporate taxes and resource revenues. You don't take into account the fact some provinces have MSP premiums. Just under $600 per year for an adult in BC. 5. You don't take into account provincial income from federal transfers which that worker also contributed to through such things as federal income taxes, GST and fuel taxes. On second thought, laughably simplistic.

DEl

Little Canada with its population of 12 million or so was the only country to assault a beach of its own other than Britain and the rest of its empire, population ? and the US, population 150 million. That is something extraordinary. Why shouldn't Canadians be proud of that. What kind of knowledge should be required for Canadian Citizenship if not that? The Great War may not mean much to many Canadians but the Belgians still play the Last Post every evening at the Menin Gate in Ypres to honour of the thousands of Commonwealth troops who died there during the three WW1 battles. Why is it that the Belgians and Dutch have more regard for the people who fought for them in the two world wars than those soldier's own countrymen? I don't know what the Belgians and Dutch feel about Waterloo but as here is a rather large monument there I assume it has some importance for them. Waterloo was a close run thing as Wellington said but his army was at least equal to Napoleons in quality if not size. He picked the site and although he had never fought Napoleon personally, he had beaten all of Napoleon's best Marshals every time he had fought them during the Peninsular Campaign, so his victory is not that surprising. The battle also ended what was really the first world war after nearly 20 years of fighting.

I don't dispute that the contributing base has to keep up with demand, that will be the case whatever system is used if people are not to be denied care. It has always been so. If you are prepared to deny that care to others and go without it yourself, so be it. Somehow I think your opinion will change when you or someone you love is the one in need. Ironic that you would want this personal information from me when you concede nothing in order to justify your own prejudices. Suffice to say that I have paid a lot of taxes for a lot of years on the understanding that I would one day have access to the services I was providing for others.

Who are those people and if they are paying less, who is paying the rest? Most health care funding comes out of general revenue, either from provincial taxes or from federal transfers. In some provinces people pay monthly premiums and some they don't. You have no facts, only a dogma, assumptions and opinions.

Hmm. it sounds like you are saying that you can't disprove my position unless you can mount a personal attack on my motivations. Funny, I haven't relied on your personal position to show the flaws in your position, I've only relied on the statements and facts and assumptions you've provided. I can see that you assume what makes sense to you. I can also see that you do it without facts. You haven't relied on anything other than your own opinon which you will not back up by stating how the consequences of that opinion will effect you personaly. As such they have no weight for me. All I get is that others being a "burden" on the system is wrong but you will have no problem with being one yourself.

You are just a voice with no substance because you won't say how your position will effect you personally? What does living with the consequences mean to you? Are you independently wealthy or do you just plan to crawl off to die alone like an animal because you won't be able to afford the help you will need? Some society that is. I can't take you seriously because of that and will assume what makes the most sense to me.

Really. We all make assumptions about others from what they put in their posts.

That is irrelevent to the argument and impossible to prove either way. It's not irrelevent. If you take a position you have to show that you would be prepared to live with its consequences. However, it would be impossible to prove here.

They do if you want credibility. Why shouldn't I just assume that you are whiner who wants to benefit from a system that others have built but want to opt out of until it is your turn to collect?