M.Dancer
-
Posts
20,488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by M.Dancer
-
-
Are those raw numbers or adjusted for inflation? I am just wondering.
Not sure..even if, it would be relative...a drop in spending in 1956 to 57 is still a drop whether in 1956 dollars or 2011 dollars
-
Ok, so the focus is on this. Discounting the cost of materials at various global locations when you say buys more employees then we are essentially talking about cost-of-labour issue in Canada, yes?
That is only part of the answer.
-
I asked, you delivered, and now I am asking for more. I'll wait.
It's off topic....keep waiting
-
When you speak of things you clearly know nothing about and have to be continuously corrected you are ignorant. I am sorry I did not sugar coat it, next time I will remember you don't like being called what you are.
And what am I ..exactly?
-
I'll wait. Take your time.
What are you waiting for?
When has the military budget in the USA ever been decreased? If not, why not? And if not, what makes you think they are going to do it this time?
You asked has the budget ever decreased. I gave you plenty of dates.
Just say..."okay, the budget has decreased from time to time..."
....and move on
-
punked, I have no idea why you keep replying to these people. You have made a clear, rational argument and have been met with, "You're stupid and wrong!" as a retort. It's actually pretty embarrassing.
stupid ignorant
Talking about ignorant Conservatives here is one right now.
and you are truly ignorant to the government of the country you live in. You are a Conservative after all right?
WOW how ignorant are you?
Wow Conservatives are ignorant.
Don't you feel....one sided?
-
punked, I have no idea why you keep replying to these people. You have made a clear, rational argument and have been met with, "You're stupid and wrong!" as a retort. It's actually pretty embarrassing.
Ummm....the only person who has been hurling insults is Punked....which leads me to believe you don't read the posts very carefully..which is pretty embarrassing for you
-
I've heard it's some American thing.
With the disclaimer of :
Sure, I'll give you that, now let's see actual spending figures, and kindly include the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There were no iraq wars between 1953 to 1999...
-
Alexis Bailey, 31, from Battersea, south London, appears at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court. He was arrested in Richer Sounds in Southend Road, Croydon, and pleaded guilty to burglary with intent to steal. The 31-year-old, who works full-time in a primary school in Stockwell and lives with his parents, was given bail but must adhere to a curfew. His case was committed to Wood Green Crown Court for sentencing. There was a moment of humour as he covered his face with a newspaper and walked into a lamp post :lol:
-
When has the military budget in the USA ever been decreased?
Have you ever heard of google?
1953 442.3
1954 420.9
1955 376.9
1956 356.2
1957 $360.9
1958 352.9
1959 352.5
1960 344.3
1961 344.0
1968 $449.3
1969 438.1
1970 406.3
1971 370.6
1972 343.8
1973 313.3
1974 299.7
1975 293.3
1976 283.8
1977 286.2
1978 286.5
1989 427.7
1990 $409.7
1991 358.1
1992 379.5
1993 358.6
1994 338.6
1995 321.6
1996 307.4
1997 305.3
1998 296.7
1999 298.4
2006 535.91,2
2007 527.41,2
2008 494.41,2
2009 494.31,2
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html
Read more: U.S. Military Spending, 1946–2009 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html#ixzz1UkWiePfW
-
Ah yes...the Hell Hole that is London. No opportunities there, at all.
Oh come on..it can take 30 to 45 minutes from Walthamstow to the other side of town by subway...surely you can't expect people to travel that far for a job!
-
Indeed. Drug dealers have their rights.
And apparently cops need to be shot at first before they can defend themselves...goes back to the days of chivalry I think.
It does put the cops at a disadvantage....but hey, we must protect the armed drug dealers
-
Drug dealer or not, the cops lied when they said they fired in self defence.
find where the cops made that statement
I know this fact is lost on knuckleheads like you and Dancer, (which is expected from twiddle-dee and twiddle-dumb) ... so regardless of him being a drug dealer and carrying a weapon, he was murdered.
The fact you won't be able to find a cite for your claim or the fact that cops can use deadly force if they encounter a gunman and they feel threatened?
-
The Bloc wanted to separate from Canada OR at least receive more autonomy. Conservatives want provinces to have more autonomy to create a better Canada. That is why the positions overlap. The key difference is the underlying hatred for Canada. Nycole Turmel was a part of the party that hates Canada just a few months ago, no matter how you try to spin it. You are just lumping your vision of Canada under "federalism" and claiming that anything that deviates from that definition is anti-federalist and anti-Canada. Canada is not simply your definition of federalism.
Exactly....or if you don't support the NPD vision of a centrally planned socialist state...where the jurisdictions and rights of the provinces to manage their constitutionally protected rights, you are a separatist..
-
I remember the Meech Lake accord it failed. What is your point?
My point is...
In fact the NDP was the only party that talked about getting Quebec to sign the Canada Act. Go figure just more proof how much more Federalist the NPD is then Harper eh?
You're a hack
-
For someone who repeatedly throws out history as a pejorative...funny you should forget the Meech Lake accord...
...but hey what ever floats your boat
In fact the NDP was the only party that talked about getting Quebec to sign the Canada Act
-
Neither has that Separatist Harper. In fact the NDP was the only party that talked about getting Quebec to sign the Canada Act. Go figure just more proof how much more Federalist the NPD is then Harper eh?
Right...never been brought up...
:lol: So are the Quebec liberals separatists? You may want to consult the NPD first before answering
-
While this sounds good in principle, I cannot personally speak to what the General said about it. Just showing what was said, by someone I would acknowledge as an expert. His criticism remains unanswered.
hardly....and again, nothing to do with Bosnia
-
Sure it Can be altered you just have to get "House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50% of the national population to agree" to it. Don't like it? Take it up with everyone but the Province of Quebec and the Parti Québécois who were the only ones who didn't agree. Oh look there you are agreeing with the Separatists again.
Amazingly, the pro federalist Liberal party of Quebec has done nothing to change that....
-
Sure it Can be altered you just have to get "House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50% of the national population to agree" to it.
Or simply a SCOC decision
-
Adn are you also saying that the constitution cannot and should not ever be altered?
-
I am saying that the provinces agreed to the Canada Act which spells out how Equalization and Transfers must be paid and accepted as to create comparable social services across the country. It wasn't just the federal government that demanded it the provinces agreed to it. So when Harper writes a firewall letter saying they should not pay them anymore he is saying "break the agreement we entered into". I am saying Harper agrees with Separatists more then anyone who has run this country for the last 30 years.
So are you saying then that Lesage was a separatist?
-
A province could Challenge it although every province but Quebec agree to it, get this including Alberta. Although I can see how people like yourself wouldn't know that because history escapes you.
Ummm...are you implying that only provinces can make a challenge?
-
No Harper is agree with Separatists in 2000 now he hates them even though much of what they believe he believes. No one needs to leave to the courts it is write there in the Canada act. Any idiot can read it.
Apparently only idiots can read that.
as if there has never been a challenge or that challenges are not allowed!
On the other hand, we should not mimic Quebec by lunging from rejection into the arms of an argument about separation. As that province has shown, separation will simply divide our population in a symbolic debate while, still part of the country, it isolates us from any allies.
Warren Jeffs and FLDS
in Religion & Politics
Posted
Which is not relevant here. A man with two wives would not be committing adultery unless he divorced one and married another. So why is the caveat placed 'unless she has been divorced for committed adultery" he would not be committing adultery?
Because if she has been caught fooling around she would be executed...therefore the former husband is in the clear to remarry.