SirRiff
-
Posts
455 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SirRiff
-
-
If what has been reported is true, and i think that it is...
- there was only a 1% difference between the larger more powerfull ones and teh small ones...
- that we already have a supply training chain for those types of coptors
- that one is just a concept and the other proven..
then is the a unacceptable example of government being completely out of touch with reason and rational concens for the nation.
its true that we will be able to get by with this copters when they are ready, but thats not the point.
every common sense approach says spending 1% more for bigger, more reliable, more proven copters that we already have some experience in is by far the best approach.
if this is truly just politics, i think these guys need to be drug into the street and shot. seriously.
sirriff
-
religion is intrinsicly inflexable, exclusive, and discriminatory. thast fine. its an ideology and individuals have a right to believe nad live however they want.
democratic government however generally requires flexible, inclusive, and shifting policies based on real observable, rational stimulus.
the two are mutually exclusive.
i have said it before, religion in the past was simply just a vehicle of morality that helped to stabolize societys power structure. its no longer needed for that purpose. it is helpfull however to transfer traditional values through generations.
goverments however dont need a static written description hundreds of years old to investiage and respond to its citiziens concerns.
in short, our society had advanced to the point where groups of goverment can assess and respons to citizens needs. no prepacked ideologies are needed.
sirriff
-
if the libs get stuck with a minority gov they deserve it
even when the crisis broke i thought i would still vote lib, because, really, every alternative is just as corrupt. its the sad state of modern nations that corruption exists in every party. but i like liberal polices best, so why vote for others.
but then, i really dont like how they handled themselves. i was really looking for a Martin mea culpa i guess, but he is too slick for that.
so now i am thinking the only way i can cast another kind of vote is to vote NDP and stick liberals as a minority gov.
i am a bit worried about having a lame duck goverment, but as i recal in my poli sci classes, alot of minority govs have accomplished just as much as majorities in the last 50 years. so maybe it wouldnt be so bad for canada.
i do think the libs should be punished, but i jsut cant find too many alternaives and dont really want to contribute to a minority gov.
sirriff
-
wait a minute.....let me check this logic...
i pay a tax on what little income i make. that is to pay for roads and crap. also, i pay sales tax on some items. this is a way to target extra taxes to people who have the expendable income to buy more luxory items. is this double taxing?
well if so, we would never be able to represent the true social cost of production. for example, SUVs. if nobody should be taxed again after profits, a rich person could buy 20 of the worst pollution dangerous SUVS for pure retail price. yet YOU AND I, woudl be the ones to suffer from the pollution and danger on teh highways of increased risk of fatality. in essense, i am occuring a cost that is not being represented.
the ethical way for a society to address this is to place an addition tax on teh SUV, which would pay for the environmental cost and highway cost of this product. only after taking into account the retail price AND the tax price would the true cost of teh SUV be accurate.
thus is it very desirable for additional targeted taxes to be levied on some activities in addition to income tax. this is because income tax is too broad a sword to accurately gauge the true social cost of some activities.
now that is the logic, which i think is sound and fair.
now someone tell me why specifically dividends are taxed?
could it be to prevent corps from taking in huge amounts of money, then funnelling it to a small number of elite shareholders?
could it just be a money grab by gov?
could it be to reflect true social cost?
i gotta think about this one...anybody have a sound reason why this would be a good case for additional taxation?
sirriff
-
i was a small part of a martin focus group, got a random phone call and was curious.
we were shown 8 diff rough tv ads on varios policy statements by martin in a casual conversational setting- US relations, fiscal responsibility (read: sponsorship scandel), global environmentalism, research and innovation, health care funding, and preserving canadian culture
generally, most of them were wishy washy and weak, no strong stand. the US relations one was good, admitting the US was the 'larger' country but being determined to maintain our own identity. good thought anyways.
another good one that confused me focused on developing clean energy technology and sharing it with china. i have no idea what that is all about, but it was presented well.
anyways, that is the first focus group for me. the donuts were good
sirriff
-
speech
saying all sorts of wacky odd things without any fear of consequence.
its a beautiful thing
-
Canadian insurance companies make record profit
TORONTO - Canada's insurance companies are coming off a record year, with $2.63 billion in profit in 2003, a 673 per cent increase over the previous year.....
....Insurance companies have raised their rates because they said they were losing money. George Jordan, who was appointed last year by the Nova Scotia government as consumer advocate to represent consumer issues on auto insurance, says consumers are going to be angry.....
....Some advocates are calling on governments to rein in the insurance company profits. But that's unlikely to happen. The Insurance Bureau points out the entire insurance industry in Canada still made less profit than the Royal Bank.
It also points out that profits were spread across more than 200 companies and result from fire, home, life, auto and other policies sold.
in the history of the world there are no times when a 673% increase in profit is from fair competition and superior product. more likely monopoly pricing, consumer ignorance, goverment stupidity and overall bad laws.
everyone needs insurance, so teh companies know the marketis not suddenly going to dissappear. isnt it time to start seriously puting responsibility on bad drivers? drunk driving- a criminal offence, 1 yr no driving, 100 comunity hours, probation for life. speeding tickets- $500. youth- gradual rights on teh road, PARENTS responsible for their children and their car.
what else can we do to stop getting ripped off?
-
New Westminster, B.C. — A 15-year-old boy admitted Tuesday he raped a woman he'd never met in her barn and slashed her throat before setting the barn and the woman's home on fire.
Jeremy Vojkovic, who is now 16 and was described by a psychiatrist as untreatable, stood in B.C. Supreme Court and in a soft voice, pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of Colleen Findlay in Maple Ridge, B.C., in November 2002....
this guy is obviously a lost cause. no way he can EVER be a productive member of society without great risk to everyone. so we keep him well fed and healthy in jail for how long??? meanwhile we got children being born in poverty and single mothers struggling.
Q: what does civilized society do with monsters when honest citiziens struggle in daily life?
-
Why do you think that they will not be to stop the evil aspirations of dictators or global terrorists?
because the worlds population is growing way too fast. the US estimates the pop will be between 9 and 12 BILLION by 2005.
add to this nonrenewable resources are being consumed faster and faster, farmland disappearing, water being contaminated, disease and weapons move faster and faster.
in short, in most of the world things will get harder and harder every year. Canada is an oasis in all of this. but africa, the middle east, and maybe even asia-pacific regions are on average going to get more poor and more desperate.
-
this was teh guy who wrote the article:
In July of last year, after just over 20 years of service, I retired as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force. I had served as a communications officer in the field and in acquisition programs, as a speechwriter for the National Security Agency director, and on the Headquarters Air Force and the office of the secretary of defense staffs covering African affairs. I had completed Air Command and Staff College and Navy War College seminar programs, two master's degrees, and everything but my Ph.D. dissertation in world politics at Catholic University. I regarded my military vocation as interesting, rewarding and apolitical. My career started in 1978 with the smooth seduction of a full four-year ROTC scholarship. It ended with 10 months of duty in a strange new country, observing up close and personal a process of decision making for war not sanctioned by the Constitution we had all sworn to uphold.if having a lifetime of experience makes you biased then nobody is an expert on anything.
this guy pretty much writes with authority on what is obvious to anybody with a half functioning brain. Bush lied about WMDs. he lied about 9/11 links. and he lied about caring about iraq civilians. this is not news this is obvious.
the anger from some military people is pretty understandable since all they probably want is to be able to trust the reasons they have to fight. if i was fighting in that kind of war, i would like to be able to trust in the reason for war too. its human nature.
frankly its pretty dumb to ignore the fact that retireing career soldiers have little if anything to gain from voiceing thier anger while the current US gov has everything to gain from carrying the official line. money, power, influence, ideology, and political success makes people lie. a front line solider pointing out he had to fill out a survey in order to get in on a photo op with bush doesnt have any real reason to lie comparied to politicians
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules...article&sid=668
-
people should consider the 9/11 ads alongside teh fact he hide the caskets of returning dead GIs from public view during the iraq war.
with that in mind, its even more pathetic.
-
just for the sake of information, this was a section of bill c-20 first reading
151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of fourteen years
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. 152. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. 153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person , and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(
for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.(2) Section 153 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.(1.2) In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, the judge shall consider the nature and circumstances of the relationship between the person and the young person, including the following:
(a) the age difference between the person and the young person;
(
the evolution of the relationship; and© the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.
-
does anybody actually have any FIRST HAND information like a section of a bill, or a transcript of a speech, or some real account of some Svend Robinson promoting the abuse of small children? this whole notion of equating civil rights to gays with abuse of children is really desperate and not worthy of discussion.
there is no reasonable argument to be made that canada is in danger of being dragged along into something that it doesnt want to do because some MP wants to protect free speech or something. if society changes then society does so because it chooses. MPs are not going to come to your house and make you sin. people have free choice.
and AF have you considered that option that whatever legal defintion we put on the age of consent will not change society? maybe age of consent laws are not being enforced and will not be enforced? maybe the only people being prosecuted are 18 yr old boys for sleeping with 15 yr old girls by mutual consent and that is an option that is an option that canadians need to be able to change. maybe we need to discuss it and society will come to its own conclusion.
and by the way the only thing on that site you link to is
NAMBLA has recently caused some concern in Canada due to its connection to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). ILGA was recently given support for observer status by two Canadian delegates to the United Nations. The concern is not over the support for ILGA itself, but over its connection to NAMBLA.which is not only unqualified, but useless and vauge. this is meaningless and by no sane means shows a link from anybody to anybody. it weakens your stance to claim this stuff without backing it up, especially factual claims.
and if you really want to discuss the age of consent thing, why not post the proposed bill, some stats by health canada on youth sex trends, and some figures from the fed gov on prosecution of these crimes. they are all public information i would think.
-
we are better then the US on some issues.
but on the ones that the US is better at: nationalism and military spending. they are double edged swords, but i think a little bit more of both would serve canada well right now.
but socially we are ahead of US policies.
sirriff
-
what strikes me is the hypocrisy of the rhetoric of patriotism and sacrifice while the people behind it gladly conspire to sabotage a reportedly real life asset to security.
just imagine what happens in these insane African nations...its cutthroat
you would think the notion of common intersts would prevail.
with friends like these...
-
both parties are hostage to oil. the entire american economy depends on relatively cheap and stable oil. just look at what happened during the 70s oil embargo, GDP fell sharply, interest rates went up, it was a global slowdown. nobody wants to deal with that so the best option is to pay them off and not ask questions about what they are doing. confronting them or threatening them both could lead to collapse of the world oil markets which would screw us all.
frankly ithink its our responsibility to risk the chance we may get screwed now rather then pass it off to the next generation when the world ismore population and the crisis would only be worse. if there is a showdown at the Energy corral, lets do it now.
but alas, we are all just gonna pass the buck on this one. and one day down the road, there will be a war or political crisis and half of the worlds supply will suddenly turn off. then someone is going to go to war over it and all hell will break loose.
mark my words, the next wars will be over food, water, and energy.
-
age of consent can reasonably be identifeid at 16.
developmentally, it seems about the age when most teens might be able to make informed consent. 14 isjust too young, 18 is not realistic to prosecture offenders. even at 16, what if the girl is 15 and boy 17? what exactly is informed consent? what is taking advantage? can a 16 yr old boy have sex with a 30 yr old?
frankly, we shoudl charge the parents of kids who get abused too. its a legal responsibility to protect your kids. else dont have them. my parents made me thier #1 priority all thier life. others can to.
child abusers- life in prison. i got no problem killing people who kidnap kids or kill them. once you are that deviant, there is no reason society should reabilitate or maintain your life. you are dead weight. we got new babies to take care of.
-
did you guys really believe it would still be there when you retire?
comeon now, there i no way any nations can take care of everyone. people live too long, health care is too expensive, and the entire system is inefficient.
-
a controlling force in US politics. no party can risk gas going past 2$/G so everyone calls them "royal" even though they just skim off contracts to make billions of dollars. fat, corrupt, cruel people who just happen to be related.
the fact no american gov calls them what they are tells you how important oil is to america. a president would get voted out over a 10 cents rise in average gas prices.
-
i dont know why some people would be opposed to mitagating a problem when no complete solution will ever exist.
the reality of the world is that some people will do hard core drugs. we can ignore them and let them die on the streets and keep stealing to support thier habit. we can put them all in jail, which will necessitate shorter terms and lighter sentances for violent crimes, while just addiing a meaningless criminal record for a drug addict. or we can accept the problem is permanent, and try to strike a balance between punishment where effective, acceptance where needed, and tolerating where forced.
doesnt that sound like the most reasonable course of action?
-
man i dont think martin has done anything great
in a scandal this size, the only resolutino i would accept would be the firing and sueing of dozens of high ranking peole, an independnat investigation, complete rework of the programs in question, and a primetime public explanation by martin on his views and ideas on the matter.
going on a few radio shows saying 'i'm mad as hell' isnt impressing me
-
The total contempt for tax payers dollars by this government.
Time to reduce this party to naught for 10 years or so.
i would agree if i actually thought political philosophy was related to care of tax payer dollars. do you actually think if another party got as big as teh Libs federally that they wouldnt become as bloated as corrupt? i think its a fair bet ANYBODY that is hungry enough to get in these positions will get into the system that needs to payoff friends and make shady deals in order to stay in power. i think its more a byproduct of capitalist democracy then liberal or conservative.
hell if it was just libs who were corrupt, i'm sure out fellow canadians would vote in better people.
everyone is corrupt
-
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/27/canad...er_bedard040227
basically, the former head the crown corperation via rail, who was recently suspended due to his involvement with the sponsorship scandal, attacking a former employee (who is also an olympic gold meddle winner) after she claims she inquired about obvious overbilling she saw in regards to federal sponsorship. he attacked her because she was a single mother, and said she was pitiful.
how the hell do these people get into such power with such low levels of judgement and morality???? no wonder we get screwed time and time again.
MONTREAL - The head of Via Rail apologized Friday for the language he used when attacking an ex-employee who said she lost her job because of the federal sponsorship scandal.Via chair Jean Pelletier issued his statement as opposition MPs said they might call the former worker, Olympic gold medallist Myriam Bedard, as a witness in their investigation of misspent millions.
* BACKGROUND: Federal sponsorship scandal
Bedard says that she lost her marketing job at Via in January 2002 after asking too many questions about questionable invoices for advertising work. She told reporters that she wrote Prime Minister Paul Martin a letter earlier this month when she saw him on TV urging Canadians to come forward with whatever information they have about the scandal.
This week Pelletier dismissed Bedard's allegations, calling her a "pitiful" single woman who wants to take advantage of the publicity surrounding the sponsorship program probe.
"I don't want to be mean, but this is a poor woman in a pitiful state, a woman with no husband that I know of. She's feeling the pressure of being a single mother with financial responsibilities," Pelletier told La Presse. "Basically, I find it pitiful.".........
-
KK, i am not sure where you are getting your perspective on oil, but its nothing that i have ever seen, and i have done alot of poking around and as soon as i read what you said it didnt make sense.
first from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2.../1216future.htm
But even those who don't buy the argument that oil is at the centre of U.S. President George W. Bush's interest in Iraq agree that the outcome of a war would have short- and long-term implications for the world's oil supply.Among them is Joe Barnes, a research fellow specializing in international economics at Rice University in Houston.
"While I do not ascribe to the theory . . . that U.S. policy towards Iraq is driven exclusively by energy considerations, a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq would have an impact - perhaps dramatic - on international oil markets," Barnes said this week in a paper he presented to London's Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI).
When you look at where the world's supply of oil is located, it's clear why Iraq is such a wild card that could have an influence on the supply and cost of oil in the future.
Perched on oil reserves of 120 billion to 200 billion barrels of crude, Iraq's reserves are second in size only to Saudi Arabia's.
With 11 per cent of the world's proven reserves - Saudi Arabia has 25 per cent - Iraq could be a key source of oil for the U.S., the world's largest importer.
It's oil that's also easy to get at, with 30 to 40 per cent of Iraq's reserves lying just 600 metres beneath Earth's surface, Mohammad Al-Gailani, managing director of British-based GeoDesign Ltd., told this week's RUSI conference, called Gulf Oil, Global Politics: The Future of Energy Security in the Middle East.
There are 526 prospective drilling sites in Iraq, but just 125 of them have been drilled. Of those, 90 have proven potential as oil fields, but only 30 have been partially developed and just 12 are on stream.
"You can imagine the huge potential that lies there for the future," said Al-Gailani, an Iraqi geologist.
so we have a HUGE oil supply in iraq, just massive, and without the political hassle of dealing with the saudis.
now from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...il_4-24-03.html
Hamstrung for years by U.N. sanctions, pre-war Iraq supplied only 3 percent of the world's oil -- even though it boasts reserves of some 112 billion barrels, or 11 percent of the global oil supply.......Low production costs have made Iraq an attractive investment for many oil companies. Since Iraqi oil lies so close to the surface, it costs less than $2 per barrel to produce, according to the Center for Strategic and International Security.
which notes its cheap accessible oil to produce
so on one hand the have the cost of war, which is about 100 billion i think since the appropriations bill passed to fund most of teh cost was 87 billion, plust add some unforseen costs- say 100 billion.
on the other hand, you have the risk of running out of oil of being blackmailed like during the OPEC sanctions of teh 1970s, when inflation skyrocketed and US GPD suffered horribly. clearly that is unacceptable as the entire US economy would crumble if OPEC decided to get nasty again.
so lets look at it, in the future, as the world gets more unstable and the population grows, oil is only likely to cost more money. it can easly hit 30$ right now, so its not unlikely to see a $40/barrel price sometime in the future.
even if we take a low end estimate, say 100 billion barrels in teh ground, with a 2$/barrel cost of extraction, at a future price of maybe 40$/barrel, you are looking at a worth of 38$/barrel times 100 billion barrels, or 3.8 Trillion $$.
now obviously that is the potential price you might be able to get on the world market. but in truth, nation debts are just numbers, oil is a commodity which runs nations, especially large industrial nations like the US.
OIL in a oil shortage is worth its weight in gold to the US. money is useless if industrial petrolium use if rationed or highly ineffecient because of shortages.
thus its obvious, that with iraqs vast oil reserves second only to saudi arabia, the ease of doing business with a goverment that you install and protect, the low cost of extraction, and predictable rising oil prices in the future caused by greater demand, iraqi oil MORE THEN PAYS FOR ITSELF in terms of actual $$ and the security it gives to the US industrial economy.
the US has participated in several secret wars which killed more then 1 million innocents to protect its oil supply. the 1953 coup of the iranian gov, sending weapons to afganistan in 1980s, supporting saddam against iran in the 1980s where he used WMDs, and so on. so its obvious the oil supply is far more important then just dollars. money wont start a car up in the morning.
so if you just look at the reserve data for iraq, the history of IS violence to maintain its oil supply, the continued increase for oil and regional instability, and teh absolute dependance of american wealth and power on a stable oil flow, it becames obvious getting iraqi oil is a fundamental prospect for invading iraq. we all know WMDs and humanitarian issues are just lies.
saying iraq isnt a planned oil victory for the US is just ignoring reality as i explained above.
sirriff
Supreme Court Appointments
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
first of all hello to any who may recall my name
on the SCC
does anybody even remember the entire reason we have elected officials?
to implement the will of democracy?
to make decisions for the masses?
frankly i think the less the elected goverment makes the big decisions, the less legitimate our democracy is to an extent.
who are we expecting to be informed on the issues?
who are we holding accountable?
who has an opportunity to justify thier decisions and convince canadians?
only our elected gov.
now i dont trust martin as far as i could throw him ( and with my bad back i shouldnt be throwing anyone- anybody catch the throwback reference? 10 points) but having a democratic system if almost more important then who is in it at any one moment.
without a legitimate system we will have little faith in anything, even if good decisions are being made.
<pine> wouldnt it be great to actually have the option to elect someone who justifies and explains huge important decisions with real life personal communication and opens up real discussion?
</pine>