segnosaur

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

Still waiting for your description for the events of 9/11. come on, you can do it! Just put that massive brain into it! I'm sure you can come up with some description about how they pulled it off!

And he has never said anything to contradict it. Stands to reason that he still believes structural and fire damage caused the collapse. Again the fact that you are quote-mining his statements doesn't mean that you have proof of anything. The fact that the man you are getting your information from DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU CLAIM should tell you something. Uhhh... so? Unnamed anonymous "others" is not exactly very convincing.

This is typical of conspiracy theorists. What you are seeing there is something coming from WTC. Yet there has never been any sort of analysis done to determine what it is. You are simply jumping to the conclusion that it is molten steel, whereas there is more reasonable explanation... melted aluminum. Like from a jetliner that happened to crash into the building. Heck, your molten steel fails in other ways too... Such that if it were controlled demolition, why exactly would you actually see melting MINUTES before the collapse? After all, in a real controlled demolition the collapse of the building occurs within seconds of the explosives being set off. If the evil aliens from the planet Gorblax had been using thermite for several minutes, why didn't the collapse happen sooner? So your supposed evidence isn't even logically consistent.

No, I have more... I have the very article YOU quoted where Astaneh-Asl said that FIRE AND STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED THE COLLAPSE!!!!!! YOU reference the article. YOU are ignoring what the article said. So.... is this guy an expert? Then why aren't you listening to what he said. Is he not an expert? They why did you quote him? This is typical of conspiracy theories... quote mining, taking things out of context, and ignoring things. Dance away little consipiracy theorist! Dance away!

I'll put this in bold letters so perhaps you might actually pay attention... If you think Astaneh-Asl disagrees with collapse due to structural damange and fire. SHOW YOUR FRIGGIN' EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I make that any clearer to you?

So in other words, he's being paid to do a study where he has already made his final conclusion. And you don't think there's anything wrong wit hthat Definitions: Conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy) - Example... Bin Laden conspiring with people to attack the WTC, I'd be willing to discount that theory if real evidence were supplied. But all we've got are quote mines, lists of unqualified people making pronouncements that they don't have expertise in Conspiracy theory: proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal that is notoriously resistant to falsification (In other words, evidence is ignored). http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf - Example: The WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition by some shadowy organization controlled by aliens from the planet Gorblax. Regardless of the evidence provided (that the WTC 1/2/7 didn't fall at free fall speeds, amongst other things), the believer in the conspiracy theory moves on to the next piece of evidence, until it too is debunked, and on and on. Here's an exercise... if you think that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorist attacks controlled by bin Laden and Al Qaueda, and that controlled demolition was used describe what happened on that day. And give a complete description... who was involved, what were they doing. It has to explain: How the buildings were wired to explode in secret, how the hijackings occurred, why bin Laden claimed responsibility, etc. I've made that challenge before but you've ignored it. I suspect you will again. Why? Because you can't.

I know of all these things. If you have ever heard him speak, he has a very distinct foreign accent. He is not dumb. His story was modified when? almost into 2004, when the US official conspiracy theory finally got its act together and got everyone in line. If you think he supports your idea of controlled demolition, then fine... show me where he does. Your reference shows he thought it was fire and structural damage from the impacts. Never claimed he was taking things out of context. I said that YOU were taking things out of context. The pictures did not technically show "molten" steel. The FEMA document had pictures of steel that had undergone extreme heat that affected the outer layers. Yes, it used the term 'molten', but that does not mean that there was steal in a liquid state (as many conspiracy believers claim, and as many would actually envision), AND the FEMA document points to the fact that those exact reactions would happen at temperatures consistent with the WTC fires (no thermite needed).

From what I understand, Hulsey may be qualified. But, he has not yet claimed "controlled demolition". He was hired to do a study. As far as I know the study is still ongoing. So, its a bit too early to say he supports your idea of controlled demolition. Last time I checked, the WTC were built right here on earth. Szamboti may be the greatest rocket surgeon ever to grace the planet, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily qualified to comment on WTC engineering. Not sure about Deets' qualifications (I see him described as a "engineering executive", but I have no idea if he's done any structural engineering. I have no idea what his qualifications are. Haven't really seen much in the way of peer-reviewed publications he's done. (And it should be noted that being an architect may make someone a better judge of what happened than, say, a fry cook, but the skills are not as valuable as those of a structural engineer. Ummm... chemistry is not a branch of civil engineering. He may be the greatest chemist ever, able to turn gold into lead, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily qualified to discuss elements of structural engineering. Not sure where you're getting that number from. (Maybe you're quoting the membership list of AE911 truth.) . But before you go touting it as some sort of evidence, I suspect many of those members 1) Are not actually structural engineers (for example may be electrical engineers), 2) may not be as fully functioning as you suggest (many may be grad students and the like), or 3) haven't really studied the evidence. Now, is it possible that no qualified engineer discounts demolition? No. But what I can say is that the VAST MAJORITY do. Its rather like the way Creationists point to a list of "scientists" who disbelieve evolution, ignoring the fact that many of their scients do not work in the biological fields. This is a problem with the english language. The term 'conspiracy' refers to a group of people working together to engage in some crime. Obviously, 9/11 involved a conspiracy... Bin laden conspired with volunteers to hijack planes. But the term 'conspiracy theory' has come to mean something different... a fantasy myth involving some large group of largely hidden figures controlling everything. So no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. For that I'd have to ignore evidence.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever paid attetnion to what Astaneh-Asl has thought of the whole attack? As far as I know, he has never claimed that the collapse was due to anything OTHER than structural damage from the collision and continued fires. Your very own reference contains the following quote: Yet Astaneh-Asl will later put forward the “tentative” conclusion, “The collapse of the [Twin Towers] was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents.” I think what's going on here is a case of quote-mining... Astaneh-Asl makes several statements. 9/11 conspiracy believers quote-mine his statement to find things that they can take out of context, and BOOM: evidence for their views, even if its not something that the original person believed in the first place.

Actually no you haven't. You made one claim after another, each of which was totally debunked. And rather than actually try to engage in any sort of rational dialog, you say basically that you don't believe in rational thinking then threaten to put me on ignore. I provided a reference from a respected site, which of course you seem to have completely ignored. Just the opposite... I'm actually debunking conspiracy theory nonsense. Except of course I never said that. I'm an atheist. I think all religions are failures. There are some decent Muslims (I've worked with some). There are some who are evil (bin Laden). Ignoring a problem (that some Muslims celrated the terrorist attacks) doesn't make the issue go away. Instead of spending your time with your head in the sand trying every excuse to pretend it didn't happen, perhaps you should spend some time trying to figure out why they might have celebrated. (Rather than saying "it didn't happen" you could point to failed American policies in the middle east as a trigger.) Oh by the way, here's another quote from the Snopes article... It comes from an Italian journalist: So there you have it, a journalist directly asked a Muslim about the reason for the celebrations. He said it was the terrorist attacks. But hey, I'm sure you'll complain about it being "fake news", not because there's any evidence it was fake but because it contradicts your rather questionable world view. I really don't think you understand what a "conspiracy theorist" is. A conspiracy theorist is someone who takes the word of incompetent people and non-experts, ignoring evidence gathered by qualified individuals because they fit some bizarre world narrative. The main conspiricy theorist here is the poster 'hot enough'.