segnosaur

Actually, no, its not "most likely" that the cost of the F35 will be double. As I pointed out before, the super hornet may only be in use for another decade or so. Australia only got it as a temporary measure. And the U.S. marine corps doesn't want to touch it because they want the F35. When you're the only country flying a particular plane, and that plane was already a decade old design, you will run into problems in the future. So you're argument is not "lets spend less and do the same", its just "lets do less". You do realize that pretty much every national party actually feels that we should at least defend our own territory (including the north)? So if (for example) the Americans or chinese decided to use the North West passage for shipping without our permission, what would you do? Send a strongly worded letter? Clench your little fist in range? Good for you. All of the people who might have died in Kosovo had we (meaning Canada and other Nato countries), or the Canadians who might have been the victims of al Qaeda terror attacks had they been allowed to continue in Afghanistan will sleep better knowing that.

Errr... no, not really. Or you could, you know, actually try to apply the solution that best fits the problem. You know, give food aid when people are hungry, give military aid when people are getting killed by their own governments. Which of course won't help if the governments in the poor regions, for whatever reason, won't let us micromanage our aid. You seem to be under the misconception that every leader of every country is wise and willing to help their people. Bin Laden had named around a decade ago as a valid 'target' for terrorist attacks. Given that fact, military action which disrupts his ability to carry out those plans (by, for example, eliminating Afghanistan as an allied state for Al Quaeda) is a valid use of our military. And by the way, the fact that we have no significant enemy now doesn't mean that we won't have to worry about enemies in the future. Oh, and by the way... even if Canada didn't have enemies, even if not one Canadian was ever under threat, that doesn't mean that there isn't value in using the forces we have to prevent the killing of innocents in foreign conflicts. Please point to all of the cases where Canada has A: Militarily invaded another country, and B: established a colony there, or otherwise "ran" the country in a way that wasn't representative of its citizens wishes. Or are you, as I suspect, just tossing out all the standard dogmatic buzzwords? No, its become an organization that is a bit more willing to deal with situations where innocent people are threatened and the U.N. is deadlocked because of politics. Its doing what the security council SHOULD be doing. Please point to all of the benefits to "big oil" by its intervention in the Balkans. Or in Afganistan. (Neither country, to my knowledge, is a huge oil producer with significant western oil company involvement. They did nothing in Rwanda because the Americans had just lost men in Somalia and didn't want to end up with a similar situation. Oh and by the way... there was some assistance by Nato countries... both Canada and the Netherlands both attempted to prevent the slaughter, but there were restrictions by the U.N. (who was supposedly in charge). Iraq wasn't a "Nato Mission". Afghanistan was, but it has no real oil reserves. And Mali? You now have switched from "big oil" to "big uranium"?

Errr... not exactly. First of all, keep in mind that at least some of the claims about "half the price" are coming from Boeing. That's like asking my local Toyota dealership whether the Corolla is a better deal than the Civic. Secondly, the article does refer to U.S. figures regarding costs of operation. But the quoted Super Hornet costs are for current operations. The issue is not just what is happening now; the question is what will happen in 2 or 3 decades, if "the world" has adopted the F35 as the standard fighter plane, and Canada is left as the lone user of the SuperHornet. (My car was pretty cheap to operate when I bought it new. Now that its 10 years old I have to spend a lot more bringing it the mechanic.) So you're quite happy with any and all countries in the world traveling through Canadian territory with no impedments. Nice to know. Here's the thing... although I voted for the Conservatives last time, I do not believe them when they say that significant savings can come from "reducing inefficiencies". Any organization (especially the size of a federal government) will have areas where money gets wasted. I didn't like the Chretien government, but I didn't think they were specifically going out to run the government "inefficiently". I'm fairly happy with the level that its currently at, at least for the time being. The problem is, the defense budget got severely reduced at points during the Liberal's time in power. However, military equipment does occasionally need to get replaced. That's what's happening now... the reduced spending of the past has resulted in a case where equipment has been used passed the end of its expected lifetime, and the current government has to pay for it now.

Yes they are. However, many of those 'starving' people are subject to political situations which are preventing food aid from being properly distributed. In many cases, giving "more" through foreign aid would be of little or no use. And as I pointed out earlier.. while millions are starving, millions are also suffering (and some cases dying) directly from the actions of foreign governments or organizations. Those people cannot be helped by "giving food", because food is not the issue. (The individuals who were killed or left as refugees in Kosovo did not need food, they needed military protection. Same with those in Rwanda, which unfortunately we did little to help.) I see... what makes you think we "don't need" the military? Do you think that other countries will automatically respect our territorial claims in the North? Do you think that tomorrow, every country/dictatorship in the world will decide "We will stop harming our own people"? Do you think that groups like al Qaeda will just give up and say "You know, we'll never attack the west again"? Wow... just, wow. Certainly getting those dogmatic keywords in there. Surprised that you didn't work in the word "imperialistic" in there too. Lets see... A few decades ago Canada used its military to try to stop genocide in the Balkans. Now that the war is over, did Canada or Nato "take over" the territory? Nope... pretty much left them alone. I can of course point to other cases where our military got involved in a conflict, but ended up leaving once the 'war' was done. If we're being 'neo-colonial' we're doing a pretty awful job at it.

The 'north' is our territory. It has value, both for potential natural resources (e.g. oil and gas), and as a transportation corridor. And with the potential warming of the north, its value will likely increase. There is no guarantee that even friendly nations with respect Canada's sovereignty in the area. (The Polar Sea incident and the Turbot war are examples of this). The ability to have a military presence in the area, both for search and rescue purposes, and to more or less wave the flag in order to say "this is our territory" is often seen as having at least some value (even if we're not expecting to get into an all-out war.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Polar_Sea_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War Yes, planes are expensive. Unfortunately that's the nature of military technology. The F18 would definitely be cheaper to purchase. Cheaper operating costs? Much less certain... As I pointed out before, being an older design (and one in less use) makes purchasing spare parts/upgrades harder in the future, and combined with the fact that it has 2 engines (which are one of the big maintenance costs) you might find that the F18 has higher operating costs. Then you also have the issue of potential industrial spin-offs... These things are often quite complex; Canada may agree to make a purchase of some new plane, but only if certain parts are made in Canada. The F35, being 'newer', and having a larger world-wide fleet, has the potential to bring in more jobs/investment into Canada. (Granted that's not strictly a military decision.) I'm not completely convinced that the F35 is the best plane for us to purchase; I just recognize that these decisions are a lot more complex than "what can we buy that's cheapest". But OK, lets assume we did decide to go with the F18. (I'm assuming you mean super Hornet). Lets say it really did cost half the price to buy and operate as the F35. Right now, the claim is that the F35 will cost $40 billion, but that would be over the course of roughly 40 years. Going with the "cheaper" F18 would save $500million per year. (Like I said, I'm pretending that its cheaper to operate). According to Wikipedia, our military spending was $22.5 billion in 2013. The "cheaper" F18 would only cut our overall spending by roughly 2%. (And again, that's actually assuming they are cheaper to maintain.) That's less than 1/5th of the savings that the original poster wanted. You'd still have to find roughly $11 billion in savings per year.

Why is that relevant? Canada has a long tradition of assisting in global conflicts, as peacekeepers, peace makers, and in giving humanitarian assistance: - Suez crisis, helping resolve a potential war, required us to send actual ground troops to the area - Kosovo, where we sent fighter planes to help prevent genocide - Iraq, where we not only provided direct military assistance in gulf war 1, but also sent ships to enforce sanctions, following U.N. requirements - Afghanistan, a country that, you know, had been hosting an organization who's leader (bin Laden) actually stated he wanted to attack Canada, and which had attacked the U.S. Had the country been following your "suggestions" Canada would not have been able to respond the way it did in any of these conflicts. Why is that relevant? Do you think it is a moral decision to "hide behind the Americans"? Actually, going by your suggestion that we should follow the suggestions of the user in the other forum, you're not suggesting a "stronger military". You're suggesting a weaker military.

Normally I hate trying to respond to someone who's argument is "Look at this web site". (Its a rather lazy way to post). But, I should point out a few things. Lets consider some of his suggested cuts: - Cutting number of ships in the navy. His argument is that the forces are only "pretending" to be interested in the arctic. Ummm... don't you think a military presence is required up there? Canada has a whole lot of shoreline... - Chinook helicopters. Claims we only needed them "when in afghanistan". By cutting helicopters you eliminate the ability for any future reaction. Want to fly troops in to prevent a genocide in some remote area in the future? Sorry... too bad. - Snowbirds... Do they serve a functional purpose? Maybe not. (Although it could be argued that goodwill with the public has at least some value.) Yet the cost is quite minimal. They've been flying the same planes for, what, over 40 years? There are plans to replace their aging tudor jets (at a cost of around $700-800 million if I remember). That makes the cost of the planes around $20 million/year, or around 0.2% of our defence budget. Not exactly a big cost saver there - Same with the military band... a tiny cost of the total budget - Go with the F18 instead of the F35... This has been discussed at length in other threads, so I don't want to get too deeply into it. I'd be willing to consider an alternative to the F35; however, while going with the F18 might have a cheaper fly-away cost, it is also an older design with a smaller user base (which might affect spare parts supply). Plus, the twin-engines might make maintenance more expensive. You could find your initial cost cheaper, but in the long term end up paying more So, all in all, his "analysis" consisted of lots of hand-waving "Don't want to do this" type arguments. (Not to mention a lack of specific dollar values attached to various items). Your claim was that we can accomplish our objectives at a cheaper price. But so much of the claims of that user didn't "accomplish the objectives"... it gutted them.

Fine. Tell me... what part of military spending are you willing to sacrifice?

First of all, the fact that we don't face any "direct military threats" doesn't mean that we don't have to prepare for the possibility of trouble. Even something as simple as buying fighters to escort planes that might have strayed in our own airspace is an expensive proposition, but one that must be done. (The same with setting up some sort of military presence in the north. We may not be going to war with the Americans, but if we don't have ships in the area, it makes it harder to say "This is our land! Back off!") Secondly, you seem to forget that even our "military" often engages in humanitarian missions. For example, our military has "DART" (Disaster Assistance Response Team) which has helped out in countries where earthquakes and hurricanes have hit. And sometimes, sadly, simple aid won't work, and it becomes necessary to use the military to stop greater problems. (Perhaps the best example of that was when we joined Nato troops to stop what was seen as genocide in the Balkans several years ago.)

I think you'll more likely see an increase in Bloc seats as a result. A more popular Liberal party will take federalist votes away from the NDP and probably allow the bloc to sneak in up the middle in a few ridings. I figure the difference in policies make it less likely that Quebec voters will switch too or from the Conservatives, whereas the Libs/NDP are closer ideologically to themselves and to the 'average' Quebec voter.

Minor point... I don't think the Conservatives were attacking Trudeau because "he was a Quebecer". I think they are attacking him over statements he made where he made statements suggesting Quebecers are somehow "better" than the rest of Canada.

Actually, for better or worse, attack ads actually ARE effective, and strangely enough, while people complain about the nastiness and wish people would "talk about the issues", in a study of American elections they found that those who watched attack ads were ironically better informed than those who were unaware that they even existed. An attack ad can increase discussion about various issues. It can even cause candidates to issue corrections to whatever issues they were attacked over. The end result is a more educated voter. It should also be noted that the point of negative ads may not be to convince voters to switch sides. (I.e. Liberal voters are unlikely to vote conservative over a negative ad.) Its to appeal to past voters who may currently be disinterested in voting. (i.e. the person who voted conservative last time who decided "I don't really care if I vote in the next election". A negative ad aimed at the Liberals might encourage them to vote for the conservatives again.) http://www.cracked.com/article_20134_8-election-myths-you-probably-believe.html http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/caveman-politics/201210/why-are-negative-ads-positive-voters

Yeah I know... it was a joke. However, a couple of little points: - That particular passage, the way it was written, could be interpreted to mean the larger marine reptiles/mammals. After all, it uses an 'and' between 'animal' and 'of every kind of creature'. This would imply that 'animals' (of which marine reptiles would be included) fall into a different category than 'creatures that move along the ground'. On the other hand, if you take a more restrictive approach and assume "moving along the ground" applies to all animals, then where did the bats and flying reptiles go? (as another poster suggested) - Believe it or not, the bible is actually contradictory on this point. The section you quoted was from Genesis 6 (2 of each kind). On the other hand, Genesis 7 says that Noah had to take 7 of each clean kind, 2 of each unclean kind.

Watched the final game last night. (Actually had a ticket package, so saw a bunch of games live at Scotia Bank Place.) Gotta say... god, was the officiating horrible. Not just in the gold medal game, but all throughout the tournament. Lots of cases where the ref interfered (getting hit with the puck), inconsistencies with penalty calls, etc. Not saying that Canada definitely would have won (after all, some of the penalties we did take were valid, and we were greatly out-shot by the Americans). But it certainly tarnishes the victory by the Americans. (Not blaming their team at all... they did play a good game.) I think the most telling point came during the awards ceremony. The Canadians clapped/cheered politely for the Americans. But the referees got some sort of award/medal, pretty much everyone booed them.

Can't agree with this one, people should be able to spend their money on what they want. Wow... do you really not understand the concept of "sarcasm"? I believe what the previous poster was doing was illustrating the silliness of your "gambling allowed only for those above the poverty line" by extending that concept to all sorts of other hypothetical situations. After all, many of those people "in debt" are having financial problems because they can't control their spending habits... they buy unnecessary products, purchase more expensive versions than they need to, etc. If you are going to argue that poor people shouldn't be allowed to gamble, you can't turn around and state that "people can spend money on what they want" without sounding hypocritical. (Unless of course your original post was an attempt at satire, but I don't think you have the ability to pull that off.)

My god! How did Noah ever fit them all on the ark? Oh, right.

Oh yeah? Then why did those "bottom feeding invertebrates" evolve into creationists? Oh, right.

Ummm... as has been pointed out in the thread... some "stupid" people are willing to travel to engage in their stupidity. As such, you're city is better off to be the destination for those people rather than the source. Let them come and loose their money in your town... the people who work in that casino can use their paychecks to support your local economy. Secondly, automatically labeling everyone who uses a casino as "stupid" is a rather broad (and unfair) brush. Some will go overboard, but there are many people who are quite reasonable with their gambling... they see going to spend $20 at a casino as an interesting way to pass some time, not because they expect to strike it big but because it produces a relatively small thrill. I've been at a casino perhaps a dozen times in my life. I typically start with $20, and I never dip into my "winnings". After an hour or 2 I come out with between $10 and $30.

The author want "to isolate the crime effect caused by casinos". But to ordinary people and tourists, who cares if the crime is causes directly by casino or not, they care about if the trip or their community is safe, whether it will increase their cost, and life risk. The statistics did show the crime rate is higher in cities that have casinos. You seem to have missed one of the major points... The crime rate in cities with casinos may not be higher. The presence of the tourism may just make it seem that way. Here's an example... a city of 1 million as a crime rate of (lets say) 100 crimes per 1000 people. The city builds a casino. Their crime rate goes up to (lets say) 105 crimes per 1000 people. Yet the casino is serving 100,000 tourists a year. Those tourists are not considered residents, the the city's population stays at 1 million. But they are factored into the total number of crimes. Good for you. Nothing is forcing you to go to a casino. I don't have much interest in gambling either. But the fact that I don't gamble doesn't necessarily mean that others don't want to. There IS a casino in Niagra Falls. Some people who live in Toronto who want to gamble will go to it. If there is a casino in Toronto at least some residents (those without children, or those who don't have an interest in dolphins or the falls) will decide to stay in their own city to spend their money. Yes, there are a lot of Casinos in Canada. Yes, it does reduce the chance that a tourist interested in gambling will go to one person's down (as opposed to another). That doesn't mean the benefits of having a casino are eliminated, just reduced. It does lead to an issue of diminishing returns, as the more casinos there are the less traffic they'll get due to their "uniqueness". But if you're neighboring town has a casino you're still better off to build one yourself rather than see your townsfolk drive out of the city to do their gambling. Uhhh... no, that doesn't prove anything of the sort. Yes, the economy of Las Vegas is suffering. That doesn't mean gambling is the cause of their problems. The economy is suffering in a lot of different cities as a result of the general economic downturn. Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you think the casino workers (the waitresses, blackjack dealers, and the like) get paid? And where do you think they spend their earnings?

And don't forget... the term "living fossil" doesn't necessarily mean that a species has been unchanged for millions of years. Often times, many of the changes in a creatures biology just don't show up in the fossil records. (For example, organ structures, body chemistry, immune system, etc.) And sometimes an organism will be classified as a "living fossil" even if it does differ from older versions. (Evolution often looks at groups of animals rather than species. For example, the Coelacanth as fossil group originated millions of years ago, but individual species may have looked different than the modern coelacanth.)

You missed the #1 thing that "evolutionists" hate about creationists: We dislike individuals who are spouting nonsense that can only serve to weaken Canada in the long run, even potentially damaging individual's health and economic well being. I recall a meeting I went to where I talked with Eugenie Scott, respected researcher and member of the NCSE. She stated that when she gives speeches to businessmen, she often has them come up to her to thank her and encourage her, pointing out the importance of work that she's doing to promote an understanding of evolution. And these are business people. They recognize the importance of an educated work force. Canada is in competition with other countries in the world. Creationists are generally ignored by those engaging in real scientific research. But, science doesn't work in a vacuum.... it depends on those from outside the scientific community for funding, and to produce next generation's scientific minds. The more idiotic creationist nonsense that exists, the harder it will be for science in the future. As a result, it will make it harder for Canada to compete with countries who's educational systems have less nonsense to deal with. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the difference between being "confident" and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la" whenever someone with a bit of scientific knowledge points out the idiocy in your arguments. No, because links and videos are akin to spamming. It shows no ability to think, reason or understand on the part of the individual posting the links or videos. If you are unable to understand a point well enough to state it in your own words, why should we bother with any arguments that are made? Actually, evolutionists love logic. That's why we reject creationism and its brain-damaged sibling, Intelligent design. Actually science can. Here's the problem... idiot creationists tend to run around spamming the internet with nonsense. Everything they argue has been debunked time and time again, but it doesn't stop them from posting the same nonsense that's already been posted and refuted. In fact, that seems to be the whole point of this thread... some post of 15 "gotcha" questions that supposedly debunks evolution. Yet a 30 second google search can easily find all the answers have already been given. But that won't stop a creationist from posting the list on yet ANOTHER forum, and then lying about how "science won't answer these", even though it has.

Keep in mind that the argument that casinos "cause" crime is not exactly a black and white issue. Yes, many police organizations (and some statistical studies) claim that the crime rate goes up when there are casinos around. However, casinos also attract a lot of tourists (who are not counted as "residents" of the city.) This can cause the crime rate to artificially go up. http://econjwatch.org/articles/do-casinos-really-cause-crime While it is true that casinos can sometimes just "redistribute" wealth, you seem to be ignoring the importance of tourism. Yes, its not going to help much if a local resident goes to gamble (as you pointed out, its just redistributing money that would probably have been spent in the community anyways.) The value is when individuals from outside the community come to gamble. They would be bringing in revenue that would otherwise have been spent in other cities. At the very least, having a local gambling establishment might prevent a few Toronto residents from traveling to (for example) Vegas, thus keeping their money in the community instead of having it spent thousands of miles away.

I'm not totally discounting a Liberal victory. But, I'd be a little hesitant about that prediction. The big issue I see is... where exactly will the Liberal's "base of power" be? Under Pierre Trudeau, the Liberals gained power basically by sweeping Quebec. Under Chretien, the Liberals tended to win based on their ability to gain Ontario seats (partly because the right-wing vote was split between PCs and Reformers.) In any future election under Trudeau, the Liberals may not have that sort of voter base to fall back on. Quebec will be a battle ground, with votes split between the Bloc, NDP and Liberals (although I'm sure the NDP will probably loose seats, not all will go to the Liberals). The Liberals may pick up some seats in Ontario, but without vote splitting by the political right, Ontario won't be dominated by them. And, between the "Quebec makes the best PM" flubs and lingering resentment over past Liberal policies, the west won't be eager to support a Trudeau-lead party. I should also point out that its possible that while the Liberals may score higher than the Conservatives in polls, I'd also be concerned with demographics... appealing to young voters may sound good, but they are often less likely to vote than older people.

That argument seems to pop up a lot when discussing the issue of same-sex marriage. (i.e. "why have the government set a definition at all?") However, society does have an interest to having a legalized marriage "definition"... it simplifies issues such as immigration (i.e. allowing spouses to come to Canada), inheritance, the tax system, etc. And yes, it would be possible to come up with alternatives to those which don't involve a legal definition of marriage (e.g. the use of contract law, common-law, etc.); however, those alternatives would, in many cases, be more difficult for the courts and government to deal with than just a simple "single or married" status.

Actually, after being taken off the market in disgrace, it turns out that Vioxx might have actually been given a bad rap. Yes, something like ~140k people ended up having heart problems. But guess what? The drug was actually prescribed more than 84 million times (so less than 0.1% had the problematic side effects). In fact, the health risks are about on the same level as Ibuprofin or Aspirin. In fact, both the American and Canadian governments have actually asked the maker of the drug to bring it back on market, since for many people it was the only drug that was able to stop their crippling pain and give them something resembling a normal life. http://www.cracked.com/article_20048_5-big-news-stories-that-left-out-most-important-part.html