blueblood

CTV Wow! That's the power of a silent majority right there. All I can say is that's one effective way to get rid of a crackhouse.

lets hope the judge trying this clown is not like that one quebec judge who reduced the sentance on a similar sicko, it would negate the job the cops done.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines........... I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts. The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards. They wanted missle cruisers, they got frigates. They wanted real subs and they got obsolete crap that killed sailors. The military knew what they needed to do the job that was given to them by the government who then gave them less than what they needed and endangered their lives in doing so. Once again it is a question of force composition, what we have is barely adequate for peace keeping and completely 2nd rate for entering into an aggressive engagement. Listen fella, the stuff needed to play in the big leagues is far from cheap and second hand and second rate equipment can get you killed. I am not keen on the idea of sending my fellow citizens into a gun fight packing a knife. Our guys are good, so good that they would be downright awesome if they had the right equipment and the proper political support. All I am saying is that we should crap or get off the pot. You can say that about health care, roads, etc. over here, thats the story of Canada

If true, then the Taliban are making a major tactical error in shifting from close quarters, hit and run light infantry tactics to conventional ones. I'm curious about this alleged shift: do you have a citation? Indeed, Soviet armour got murdered in their war because the mujahideen favoured close quarters tactic which played to their strengths (mobility, familiarity with the terrain) and nullified the Soviet advantage in firepower. And a tank that can bring its firepower to bear is a liability on the battlefield. What threat would these subs be countering? But that doesn't mean we need to have subs in the first place. Why would subs negate the need for surface ships? You can't launch helicopters from subs, you can't transport any quantity of men or material in a sub. Also: why do we need a competitive navy on the world stage if the threats of the future are coming from groups like the Taliban? Wait: if subs can go where ships can't, why do we need them? It stands to reason that teh same limitations apply to anyon etrying to violate Canadian soverignty, which means they'll have subs (which means our subs will be spending all their time beneath the ice playing cat and mouse) or they'll travel on the surface (which means we can counte rthem on the surface). We are never going to be invaded. It's a geographic impossibility. Well we never know, I can't predict the future, and those after world war 1 thought germany was finished and well look what happened, i don't know of a threat, but a good sub fleet would provide employment, deterrence, etc. Also an N-sub can hand most sea vessels its ass in a naval engagement. Surface warships are outclassed by nuclear attack subs, that is why they were created in he first place, better to stay ahead of the curve. I am talking about replacing warships of course, from what i've seen of our warships they look like cannon fodder. I don't see much of a need to launch a chopper from a warship in a naval engagement. Canada is just as likely to get invaded as anywhere else, we're one of the richest and most poorly defended countries in the world, yes we have an advantage of geography, why not base our armed forces around these advantages. Your ideas sound good for our coast guard which we already have and has a function, the navy is for war at sea, the navy and coast guard are two different things.

Mines can take them out and the Russians had quite the time with tanks in afghanistan, they even said it was better to just walk. Tanks are good in the open, not in valleys and mountains. Nothing the Taliban has can stop a CF-18 either. About the subs I'm going to say this 1. Nuclear attack subs, are effective, a nuclear attack sub has a much better chance of winning a naval engagement than a surface ship. 2. If we are going to have subs, they might as well be the best. 3. Even though N-subs are expensive, they are highly efficient which would negate the need for surface ships, and the threat of being blown out of the water at any given time out of nowhere is deterrent enough. Also it is an efficient way we can have a competitive navy on the world stage. 4. In the arctic, the subs can go anywhere which gives them a tactical advantage over ships which are limited to ice flows. With the subs, those ice breakers don't have to be armed as as they will be covered by subs. 5. If ever we were to be invaded, with our land army being so small, why not take out the invading army while in transport, again subs are most efficient at this. I'd like to see good reconnaisance so the subs would be immediately deployed to said threat. I'd once again say that the CF-18s in afghanistan would make much more sense than tanks

I see no problem with getting better equipment, i'd personally like to see us get nuclear powered subs. Tanks at 350 grand a pop thats a steal, some new farm machinery costs more than that. 20 tonne drawbar, cat tracks, a cannon for those pesky varmints - where can I get one? but seriously one can never predict the state of the world, so upgrading our tanks plus crew is not a bad thing. I wouldn't send the tanks to afghanistan though, they'd be death traps, theres no room to manouver and use proper tank tactics. I'd say your honestly better off with loads more infantry from other countries helping out and with the fighter jets doing runs and providing air support, they tend not to get wrecked. Biggest thing though, get that afghan army up to competance as soon as possible

Lord is still leader of the opposition and an MLA in New Brunswick. Danny Williams as leader? Hmmmmm, don't think his French is so good. Not sure if his level of 'outspokenness' has endeared him to many within the Federal party... Prentice would be a great choice. While the Liberals can have consecutive PMs from Ontario are Canadians really open-minded enough to have consecutive Conservative PMs from Calgary? what about Baird?

The most consecutive minorities we have had in history is three. If the spring produces another minority I think we will definitely see some changes for the following election. Another minority and Harper probably resigns (win or lose) without a doubt if he loses. Whoever the new Conservative leader is will definitely not be as polarazing as Harper. MacKay? the Stronach thing hurts him and the sellout of the PCs doesn't help but he is moderate. Something tells me MacKay would lead the party to slaughter. Prentice? The only real strike against him is he is Albertan. Moderate on social issues, good resume, decent French. An honest, good man. Bernard Lord? His ship has probably sailed, but he could win a general big time. Can anyone think of a potential conserative leader who would be more polarazing than Harper? Two kicks at a minority government and an election with a new leader might be enough to allow people to trust the Conservatives with a majority. ***IF*** we don't win a majority in the spring. Well I'm just gonna throw this up in the air, but I have two choices but they are biased just because they are my favorite politicians. I see a leader of a party who demonstrates good leadership skills, can take a peppering from the press and other MP's and has good charisma. Choice 1. Danny Williams, the premier of N.L. Stands up for the little guy, which is an image the tories could use, has a sky high approval rating in his province and is doing a good job as premier, won't back down from a fight which is good because we shouldn't have pushovers running things, and an amazing public speaker, i think he'd attract some left wing votes due to some of his policies, i don't know how his french is though, also he likes running his province and i think that might be as far as he wants to go. Choice 2. John Baird. This guy is a very good public speaker, quick witted (harper knows he won't flub up during question period and interviews with the press), and displays good leadership qualities, i think he commands a lot of respect in the party, i don't think he's as extreme as the other MP's on moral issues, his french seems good, his record seems good, being from ontario might help out too. I am biased towards outspoken politicians though, they are the kind of people who would rather get the job done than worry what people think of them, and to me thats what a true leader is.

Yup the bad thing about all of this is that ALL of us are having to pay for mistakes that were made 50-400 yrs. ago. As far as I'm concerned everyone back then was a bunch of retards. Those treaties and incompentant fools back in the day have caused one hell of a mess. The people of Canada having to pay 9 billion dollars to Department of Indian affairs and the large amount of those on reserves living in squalor, both suck. This is nothing but a hindrance on the economy, 9 billion dollars that could be spend on something constructive to all canadians and a large workforce that is unused, wasteful. Yes, the land was expropriated, but we also live in the greatest country in the world because of it (the land should only have been expropriated and they should have had a crack at the 1/4 section like everyone else and a cheque to go with it, that's it, no residential schools, no b.s., and NO TREATY, just left as they were to do what they wanted with it, but hey the government flubbed that one, I can dream can't I?) and no, I don't approve of what happened in the residential schools and the rasict policies of previous governments, the country as a whole has suffered because of it. Nobody in our society today should be held accountable because of the utter stupidity of people 100 yrs. ago. That being said a person is going to have a hard time going forward if they keep looking back.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, THAT is a leader, what the hell is he doing running Newfoundland, he should be running the country

That's playing with fire, there is a large portion of the people of Saskatchewan that are free loaders, with an NDP government they are not going to ever have as good an infrastructure to exploit their fossil fuel reserves. Even so, its not permanent. I feel sorry for the average joes that have to support this, maybe with most of their schools shutting down and hospitals closing they have some extra money to play with. I guess they figure that their shitty roads don't need fixing too.

cripes give them 328 million for plane tickets for those seperatists, if they don't like the way we do things hop on a plane and git. hahahaha, seriously it makes no sense that the rest of canada should fit the bill for something going on in just quebec, theres other things to spend the money on that the rest of the country can use

either way there is a lot of ways to spend this money, just seeing what they did to the crime bill gave me an idea, one penitentiary to end all penitentiaries up in the arctic, and hopefully with that three strikes thing coming in we're gonna need more jail space.

I like the part when they tried to gut the crime bill with allowing house arrests still, theres another shot in the foot ctv

Oil is a finite resource, the price can only go up due to worldwide energy needs, those wells well be back on line don't worry about that, I'm surprised the oil companies don't invest in alternative energy needs to create jobs, create a buffer for WHEN the oil supply runs out so the cash train keeps coming, and so we can export more oil and make more money. I'd say invest when the investing is good.

I like that idea, it makes sense, and a person in my boat would not have a problem with it, hell i'd be trying to pay it off as fast as i could. Some lefty though is gonna have problems with it. There are some people who don't make any money such as a hobo, they're part of the 35 million and they can't pay their share, who pays it guys like us. then you have your refugees that plug up the welfare system, then there is the others on the welfare system, they'd be paying off the debt with their welfare cheques, may as well cut welfare. Then there is the status Indians, I'm not even going to open that can of worms. So in reality the average Canadian would have to pay 100 bucks a month according to your plan and your low income earners are gonna be raising hell that they get docked 100 bucks a month. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

If someone did an outstanding job as President, but got a blowjob and tried to cover it up, would you want someone like that as president? (hypothetically speaking of course, Clinton may not be ioutstanding but neither is mackay) Hmm if said president ran a booming economy, reduced unemployment, had a foreign policy the envy of the world, and not fincancially corrupt, you bet your ass I'd take that and run, covering up a beej is a small price to pay for those great things and that is what a lot of people in our society miss the boat on. Better that than someone who is utterly incompetant and wouldn't cover up a beej if he got one.

I'll just pose this question, if Mackay did an outstanding job as foreign affairs minister, good enough to be accoladed in a history book, was a mover and shaker on the world stage, hell even prevented a war, overall got the job done, and done well, (as you can tell, pure speculation) but he made his potshot at his ex and tried to cover it up (which in my opinion is minor) what would anyone rather have a minister like i described, or an utterly incompetant minister, but he is honest and a nice guy? I'd take the lesser of two evils myself. I hope you can understand what i'm trying to get at.

6.7 billion divided by 30 million people, that's gonna amount to a couple of hundred bucks a person, if i'm spending thousands of dollars on tax, that's just a drop in the bucket, to others it would be significant, it would be fair to everyone to make our already existing programs better like the police force and military or to create jobs, just something that benefits everyone. If they were to give back say 10% i'd be with you saying give me my money. i was implying that if everyone was wanting money for provincial matters well then split it up and hand it out, not a fan of that with the case in point being the uneven distribution that comes with it, if it was even then i'd be okay with it. I personally would like to see the government invest it in a program that would result in positive net returns which everyone here could think of, why be rich when you could be richer.

Yup just like old John Paul II did to the communists and look at where the Soviet Union is today...

well if everything we want better falls under provincial jurisdiction, why not split up the surplus amongst the provinces. Or else we could make existing programs better that benefit the majority of Canadians, army or RCMP anyone? That being said there are still a lot of bad investments to go. I wouldn't say tax cut as 6.7 billion dollars over 30 million people isn't going to make any difference in my tax load, may as well spend it, and i think the gov't has allotted some money to pay the debt down too.

And to restore funding and programs cut and downloaded by the Liberals to appease the right-wing doom and gloom scenarios. And to build a real Green Plan by investing in alternate energy technology just to catch up to Germany, Denmark and China. It shouldn't be the taxpayers responsibility to fund post-highschool education, if you want to fund that lobby the feds to pass a law stating that banks should not charge interest on student loans and that every Canadian going to post secondary be given a shot at it. I'd say inject the money straight into healthcare, it's what ALL canadians use, make our system better. That green plan wouldn't be too bad either, put her all into biodiesel and ethanol plants which creates jobs and put all our alberta and newfoundland oil to export, nuthin wrong with more money in Canada and putting those terrorist oil exporting countries out of business. Funny I said not to invest it in agriculture, it's the whole special interest groups thing that i have a problem with.

Such as? - Running away from terorrists makes them like us and leave us be! - Telling al-Qaeda that killing more Canadians to encourage us to withdraw faster is the way to go - Proportional representation... no better way to increase Canadian regionalism. - Public health care (Cuba or North Korea style) is the only way to deliver services... any private company in health care is just for the 'rich'. - Paying people more EI will encourage them to get jobs. - The best way of dealing with our child care situation is to make massive child warehouses... afterall, parents can't be trusted to make good decisions, only an NDP government. - University students will do better if they don't have to pay for school... we need more fine arts folks! The best way to recruit new NDP members is to have more humanities and fine arts students. -no government funding for corporate oil companies - case in point proposed rig manufacturing plant in Roblin Mb. corporation went to provincial NDP for help with the start up costs, NDP gov't says go fly a kite, result, no new jobs created, blow to the local economy. Seems like they prefer handing out social assistance than allowing job creation smooth move.

Sure: why don't you come up with your own distinct language, customs, cultural traditions, etc. yah and everyone is equal just some people are more equal than others

yep typical Liberal Canada thinking all people are created equal some more equal than others. Puhlease