Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

7,831 profile views

segnosaur's Achievements


Veteran (13/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. First of all, it would have been nice to actually give a few more details... like the company name, what they manufacture, etc. Was the billion a loan that's been paid back or grant? Secondly, it would also be useful to get a link to the actual article itself. News sources are dynamic... who knows if someone will be able to find your article if they don't see your post for a few hours. Lastly, keep in mind that The Rebel as a source is... a little questionable. I voted conservative in the last election, and even I think they may be taking things too far to the right. I'd prefer seeing a reference from a more mainstream source. Yes I do. Then of course he'd turn around and lie about it. Think you got that name a bit wrong.
  2. Because development of modern fighter jets is extremely expensive, and would likely cost much more than the ~$40 billion we'd be spending to purchase and fly the F35 (or an alternate) for the next few decades. A lot of people like to hold up the Avro Arrow as an example of what our aerospace industry can do, but one of the reasons the Arrow was developed was because we thought we could sell it to other countries (for example the U.K.) But when Britain failed to express an interest, it meant the entire cost of the program would be payed for by Canada, which probably contributed to its cancellation. A similar attempt by Canada to develop its own fighter jet now would likely meet the same fate... expensive development costs, failure to find foreign buyers, cancellation.
  3. They can't find qualified people in a population of 330 million? Things like software development require skills that just are not that common. And unlike (for example) manufacturing work (where there is a lot of replication), there can be a substantial difference in the abilities of someone who can just do the job and someone who can do the job very well. Companies naturally want the best. (I've worked in the computer field for for decades, and I can certainly say I've seen my fair share of people who supposedly have the qualifications but are still pretty inept.) And while the U.S. does have a big population base of 330 million, they also have a huge DEMAND for tech skills as well, with thousands of companies both large and small. Anyone who is skilled and doesn't go to the U.S. thanks to Trump will probably go to some other country, boosting THEIR tech industries and making the U.S. weaker in comparison. It will be good for Canada, Europe, etc. Bad for the U.S. And in the long term things will get even worse, as Trump's plans to cut funding to education will make the pool of qualified Amercian workers even smaller.
  4. I assume that the numbers were calculated by doing some sort of average over every year of the president's term. Its a dumb statistic to look at, since it ignores the fact that a president can inherit a strong economy and drive it into the ground (giving better looking numbers), leaving the economy in shambles for his successor to pick up. Given the fact that the referenced article didn't give details about how the numbers were calculated suggests the source of that statistic knows that its deceptive. It also ignores the fact that a president's ability to handle deficit is strongly impacted by congress. Obama has had to deal with a very combative congress, who while in theory want to limit spending, also are enamored with limiting tax cuts (especially on the wealthy). But lets say its somehow a relevant statistic. Did you notice something? Every time you have a republican president following a Democrat, the " BUDGET DEFICIT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP" increases. Seems rather silly for someone so vocal about supporting a racist Orangutan running under the republican banner would post some information that makes republicans look bad.
  5. Not sure if such a blanket statement is really warranted. Remember, at the same time that we had Pierre Trudeau getting us started on our huge federal debt, we had the progressive conservative party running Ontario (who were relatively moderate as conservatives go, but still further to the political right than Trudeau). And while we had Jean "Lets buy the same helicopters we just cancelled" Chretien in charge federally, we also had Mike Harris running ontario, who managed to keep Ontario doing fairly well despite a steep drop in Transfers from the feds. At least if provinces have more power, should they elect a conservative government they can act as a counterbalance to a federal Liberal party (who tends to hold the reins of power more often.)
  6. Probably not. I know you were probably joking about at least some stuff in your posting, but Bush is more likely to oppose Trump than support him. Supposedly, during Trump's innaguration speech, Bush was heard to say "That was some weird... stuff" (substituting stuff for another word.) He's also been critical of several of Trump's actions, like his attacks on the media. http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/31/bush-trumps-inauguration-weird-sht/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/george-w-bush-criticism-trump.html?_r=0 I'm not saying Bush was a great president (I can certainly see many flaws in his administration.) But despite his blunders, at least he didn't contribute to the racial conflicts like Trump is doing. (Does anyone remember that after 9/11, one of Bush's first acts was to visit a Mosque... as sort of an acknowledgement that while the terrorists involved were 9/11 were muslims, they did not represent the views of ALL or even a majority of muslims, and instead represent only a radical fringe. I doubt you would get Trump doing the same thing.)
  7. In general, the provinces handle: - Education (as you mentioned) - Health care (although they do have to fall under the Federal Health Act, which mandates things like universality, provinces still have significant leeway in deciding what services are listed with health care, where hospitals are located, etc.) - Managing resources (public land, timber, etc.) and provincial utilities - Welfare (at least I think...can't remember if that changed) - Interacting with cities/towns The federal government handles: - Defense - International trade - Coastal fisheries - Rail and water transportation connections shared by provinces - Currency and banking - Post office, the census, patents/copyrights and similar functions. Both levels of government may collect taxes. And In some cases we have federal programs (Like Canada Pension), but provinces have the option of "opting out" and setting up a similar system. In some cases, the federal government may implement rules, and then the province may actually add to the rules. (For example, the federal government may create rules to protect the environment, but the provinces may establish additional rules.) http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/bna.html
  8. Just wondering what exactly you think that article says? It certainly doesn't support the myth that Obama was deliberately spying on Trump and/or having his phone tapped. What it does say is that Trump associates were caught up in surveilance of foreign officials. (That article doesn't mention Russia, but I suspect they were referring to Russian contacts.) The only thing new/different about this particular piece is the fact that it indicates Rice wanted to "unmask" the names of those people, whereas normally that information is redacted. If Trump associates WERE collaborating with Russian agents, I suspect people would have wanted to know before the election. ETA: The article even gives some situations where such unmasking is allowed: they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. I suspect having a major political figure collaborating with a foreign government in order to get power might be considered an issue of "national security". I find it rather telling that the article doesn't mention Russia at all (the likely people that the Trump associates would have been speaking with), and spends more time talking about Rice's supposed scandals/mistakes rather than questioning why these Trump people were caught meeting suspected Russian agents in the first place.
  9. Note that in my post I specifically said conservatives/republicans were for free trade in recent history. It is true... in the early 20th century it tended to be the left-wing/liberals that favored free trade. But that shifted in the middle part of the last century, and the 2 groups ended up changing sides, with the left-wing becoming more protectionist and the right-wing becoming more pro-trade.
  10. Keep in mind that the "right wing" is not some monolithic entity that always has the exact same attitudes on every single issue. There can be variations, depending on how a person prioritizes certain policies. (e.g. a right wing person may want to cut taxes, and the deficit and increase military spending, but often those policies run contradictory to each other. Trump has proposed cutting taxes and increasing military spending, but the ultimate effect will be to drive up the deficit.) Its also possible for someone to be a conservative, but still favor some social programs that help the less fortunate. Plus, it should be pointed out that many of Trump's policies may not actually BE right wing. For example, free trade is something that generally the right wing has favored in recent history, but Trump's populist anti-NAFTA/anti-TPP policies actually seem to go against conservative/republican ideals.
  11. You know, Trump has gotten a lot of criticism by many in the high-tech industry... they think many of his policies will negatively affect America in general, and tech industries specifically. (Immigration policies will affect the ability of tech companies to find qualified individuals, and the potential impact of a trade war will affect their ability to make sales.) However, we now have evidence that Trump will actually benefit the tech industry. His activities have personally inspired the creation of the following: From: http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tweet-burning-robot-twitter-bot-575804 On Tuesday morning, someone—or a sentient something—finally proved a worthwhile use for robotics engineering. At 6:13 a.m. Eastern time, a Twitter account with the handle @burnedyourtweet posted a video of a machine printing a Donald Trump tweet about Fox and Friends onto receipt paper. A mechanical arm then swung itself above the printer, clamped down on the printed tweet and swung it above a lighter. The lighter set the printed tweet ablaze, after which the arm swung the fiery tweet above an ashtray, where it was deposited to turn to ash. See? A robot that automatically burns Trump's tweets! All inspired by the racist Orangutan that millions of people voted for!
  12. Uhhh... no. Not on the material that was leaking from the building, that you claim was melted steel but was more likely melted aluminum (which has a much lower melting point than steel.) If you truly believe in "science" then explain why it can't be aluminium, since: - There is a huge supply of it (from the plane) - Temperatures in the building were high enough to melt alimimum Occam's razor. I suggest you try it. The fact that you seem to cling to the "melted steel" idea when a more logical explaination exists flies in the face of rational thinking.
  13. Next thing you know you'll be coming up with super duper Extra-nanothermites. Or maybe the aliens from Planet Gorblax used ray guns. So if you think that buildings can be weakened before collapse, what actually triggered the collapse? Still waiting for your complete description of what happened on 9/11. Can you do it? I think not!
  14. No, I think I will keep pointing out one simple fact... That you are unable to actually come up with a coherent description about what happened on 9/11. Still waiting. Tick tock, tick tock.
  15. So, what you're saying is that you can set off an explosion in a building, and then wait minutes before there is any damage to the building? Wow, that's amazing. How exactly does that happen? Force fields? Giant magnets? Seriously... I want to know how that happens. How do you use thermite or something similar to burn through a building's supports yet have that same building stand for several minutes after the supports have supposedly all been melted away.
  • Create New...