login

thats another good point, I can't imagine what would happen to Canada's economy if it were forced to produce its own goods. Suddently garbage dumps around canada would stagger their growth rates.

thats a good point dre

We're sorry your intenet is under sanctions... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20445637

Your going to fight overseas with Hornets when the Russians and Chinese have 5th Generation fighters? The US is becoming Energy self sustaining, who needs the old world now? http://news.xinhuane...c_131877402.htm They are selling petro cans oil for 5$ a barrel in Syria, not sure the price in Libya.

no it could have been accomplished bythe ambassador and photoshop. Then you wonder why austerity fails. That and spending 5 billion more cause the rest of the g8 was performing poorly and Canada wanted to fit in with the crowd.

The OP is Americana BS

I agree the guy deserves kudos for taking a fair wage on par with his countrymen.

The issue isn't black and white, it is posturing. I'm really fed up with war. However my position isn't supported.

Its coming

So, it seems undobuted that Palastine is due for statehood....at the upcoming UN assembly on the 29th, the same way Israel got statehood. Comments... This is a real game changer http://www.guardian....uropean-backing "Israel has been intensively lobbying EU states against recognition and has issued threats against the Palestinian leadership, including saying it will seek to overthrow the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas,"

If one premier let alone 10 can't sort it out they are doomed with Stephen Harper as the brains of the operation you want more money stop wasting it on flights when something called telecommunications and letter mail was invented over 100 years ago. I applaud the PM for not showing , he probably saved tax payers $5000-10000 keep up the good work.

The OP is a false dichotomy.. the CPC can't claim to be a federalist party if they don't support Canada first. The firewall Alberta party is just a diambiguation of the Bloc, a provoncial party dedicated to nothing but the oil patch in Albetra. McGuinty spoke the truth. If Alberta policy ain't a policy that benefits Canada it is cow dung. The CPC is just another Bloc Albertoil It not Canadian. Supporting Albeta Oil is one thing but putting it before Canada is justnplain wrong, and that is what McGuinty meant no doubt. I applaud him for kicking the Albertan supremacists and boo for not backing up a Canada first policy. If its not about Canada go home, you belong in Provincial politics. Sure both the Bloc Albertoil and Qubeqois would fart on me for saying it but it is the truth of the matter even if absent from reality.

but canada created 800 000 new jobs what more do the provinces need *wink* canada has a plan.... I'll save the pm the time Premiers of canada tune into Canwest... http://www.globalnews.ca/politics/6442755364/story.html here is your solution

yes because Chinese planes can reach Canada... http://whitedwarf.egloos.com/m/3727379 They have 1 aircraft carrier... this discounting the chinese ufos

Everyone who has assets has investments... currency is an investment who you bank with is an investment what goods you buy is an investment... So don't say he has no investments, because unless he is eating out of the soup kitchen and a practicing nudist he has investments. To say he is pennyless and doesn't even own the clothes on his back seems unlikely. Even words and actions are investments. How much air he breaths, how he works out, or sleeps is an investment.. life is an investment. An investment is the return of all endevour whether intentional or a byproduct of economic activities

I'm not sure why you are refering to me as "William", none the less, first off you make an airplane that doesn't crash. Second you make it so that it can crash safe. Nuclear power is remarkably safer today than it was in the 1960's, especially among microreactors. Also, we simply arn't living in the same nuclear reality for a Nuclear Powered Bomber that existed in the 1960's. It is also easy to make a nuclear reactor crash proof or ejectionable. You don't seem to understand crash safety for devices like black boxes, and or nuclear power systems, as well as the difference between 1960's large installation based nuclear plants versus small aircraft based systems. Three mile island is an 800 MW faciliy, which is over 40 to 400 times the power output if not more than the microreactor that would be on the aircraft. Understand that nuclear thrust is not power generative it uses nuclear heat to replace electric or petrocarbon fuel source exhaust propulsion. That is compressed superheated oxygen and other gasses from the air itself. Meaning that while a conventional fuel supply can exist.. rotor or turbine based primary stage electric power can be used in combination with nuclear exhaust second stage as well as self feuling via air filtration and compression systems to allow scramjetting and wake riding. Basically no fuel need apply. It makes the system much safer. In a crash like an ejection seat you can encase the reactor in crash proof aerogel or other foam ontop of a super hardened carbon composite shell for survival. the fuel itself can be deactivated in miliseconds. And all that remains is heat.. these "3 mile island scenarios would be impossible... but in the event of an explosion sure there could be some contamination.. but not a lot.. now if you intentionally armed it to cause contamination sure. Perhaps a less than 20 crashes record, my gosh if the 60 f35's were to have that record on their one engine model that would be 1/3rd of Canada's airforce gone... at a cost of what 6 billion dollars in crashes.

I think this is issued for Bernier because he is suppose to be the libertarian badboy brand of conservative. For him to appear as just an actor for the party sullies his badboy image. None the less, MPs have the prerogrative to do their job, and if they opt for talking points that is their business, it just shows them as a brand rather than an individual.

It does matter because election fraud bars you from office for life. Having knowledge of and not reporting would be abetting the act.

Canada isn't nuclear hating. You are clearly out of touch. sorry but its not hundreds of billions to develope 50 year old technology. development costs are mostly to develope new technology. the patents have expired \Your positions are negligent of the past 50 years Canada has exported its nuclear technology around the world http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media-room/news-release/2009-05/2124

exactly my gosh think of it a canadian aerospace industry... its great having parts and all but if you can't build anything with them...

snitches are great, burn the crooks laws that are bad need to be dropped but victimizers should be castigated people should be able to act transparently if you need to hide your good acts something is wrong.

I'm not so much refering to the content of the morality, that is the nature of the morality, but the premise of the basis of the morality, and how the structural implications facilitate a specific cultural concept of morality, not per se that cultures actual morals. I could however point out ethics within a specific social conotation of Canada's historical past, not to say that every or even a majority of the factors composing the whole would be deemed as superior in terms of content. However in regard to the structural implications of the formation of morals of that soceity for those further in the past they would in large part provide more clarity and substance. There is a particular chaos and indefiniteness to the modern Canadian society when speaking of the whole in terms of the basis of structural composition. However there are many specific items that could be seen as inferior or superior when applying my own personal values, this needn't be representative of modern Canada's view of inferior or superior. On a legislative context one would hope the majority position was represented in law. If that is not the case, then clearly it is a conundrum.

In regard to middle class values I think that at the onset Canada had a higher moral ground than we do today. Of course traditional values whether first or second wave morality is one where we have progressed on the side of social liberty, equality and removal to some extent of class injustice. But the basis of the kin unit has progresively declined to state and economic controls since its inception of times immemorable. While the destruction of kin solidarity is not universal, I think among many middle and low class, and even perhaps some upper class families, the strength of kin units cannot be compared to 100 years ago not the least 500 or 1000 years ago. The social responsiblity as an aspect of kin relations is something that has nuetralized social values, and mutual responsibility. I don't think that at a point of the whole we as individuals truely feel a duty to the public, especially in instances where it is not a professional occupation, and that is part of the problem right there. For many it has to be their paid occupation to care. I dare say I see the present Canadian society as deranged and morally baseless to a large extent, and retroactively feel very little due to progress the cancer along its expected trajectory. In that respect I act as an individual for my soceity as opposed to acting for the benift of the a whole supposed to a Canadian society. If that makes me criminal, atleast I'm moral.

I agree, that is a good place to start. I agree 100% Argus.

Maybe it has something to do with the adults these days compared to the adults when you were a kid? Hmm.. There use to be 1 cent candies and 5 cent bags of chips once upon a time too. It seems the price of respect has suffered under inflationary pressures. I agree to a certain extent though, the destruction of the family unit has led to moral and social decay. I'm not saying working moms are the spawn of all social evil, but I should say that in a just utilitarian society, where no one instill a sense of order, too much liberty without intellectual support leads to a rotted society, and a rotted society cannot reasonably expect to instill a sense of values through anything but the school of hard knocks. I concede though that a stranger can be a better parent than an unfit parent. It is not about who raises our kids but how well of a job they do. Of course with love of our children we want to be the guiding force in that, but that isn't universal, whether kibbutz or private school or other form of growth. There is no correct model, but it must be insured that it is a functional model. Where I question is any prohibition of a parent to be with their child if they do not represent a danger to that child. While I may have my ideals of what is a good upbringing that does not necisarily equate the values of any other parent, so a universal curriculum is not very realizable, aside from the means a parent sets out for their child. The challenge between parent and state is a very complex one, but it would be hoped that we can see eye to eye whereby that just society is realizable through mutual communication and understanding.