segnosaur

You're only digging yourself a hole. Take a look at how widely distributed the Mig-29, Su-27 and Su-30 are. All of these planes are every bit as advanced as Canada's F-18's. Moonbox is right. Compare the Su-30 and the F18 Superhornet: top speed: Su-30 Mach2, F18 Mach1.8 Service ceiling: Su-30 57k feet, F18: 50k feet So, the Super Hornet is not exactly "on top". And look at some of the countries that have the Su-30... Uganda (a 3rd world nation, with regular clashes between rebels and army forces in the north part of the country), Malaysia (fairly successful financially, but there have been accusations of illegal election activities against the ruling party), Indonesia (had separatists fighting there as recently as 2005s) and Algeria (which has experiences suicide attacks and other terrorist activities as recently as 2008).

the ignorance is yours alone, the range is no better than current fighters, speed the F18(mach 1.8) and a number of other aircrft are faster than the F35(1.6) Ummm.... Combat radius (from wikipedia): F35: 610 nmi JAS39 Grippen: 432 nmi F18 SuperHornet: 390 nmi Last time I checked, 610 nautical miles is actually a greater value than 432 or 390 (the ranges of 2 of the planes that have been suggested as alternatives to the F-35). And yes, some alternatives are faster, but the F35 has a higher service ceiling than the JAS39 or F18. Its also capable of a higher take-off weight (useful if we should want to use either drop tanks, and/or large bombs.) On 9/11 the planes shut off their transponders. NORAD did not know where the hijacked planes were. Even if NORAD might help direct planes, there is no guarantee that the planes will automatically know where to find it. (Not to mention that the range of an airliner is much larger than any of the planes, and an F35 would be able to track any planes for much longer.) On 9/11, orders were given to shoot down airliners. It turns out that those orders were given/received too late to be effective. However, some people might consider that shooting down an airliner might be preferable to having an airliner crash into a building. Yes the A10 is a good air-to-ground attack aircraft. However, Canada is unlikely to buy multiple planes, each one to fill a different role. The plan is to build a single plane, which is capable of handling multiple roles because there's nothing more than our PM Captain Canada likes than a photo op showing how tough he is... Except such interceptions were routine before Harper came to office. Even if F18s are "adequate" for some of the tasks that we would want, they will eventually wear out and need to be replaced. It takes years to have new planes delivered. That's why we should prepare to buy them now. bull shitte, it's the the heart of the issue, the claim is we need these planes for defense, your words-"Yet the Canadian armed forces thought it was a significant enough event to launch planes to intercept them. Ever wonder why?" you come up with the stupidest logic... What you are doing is cherry picking. Yes, I asid they need planes for defense of our our space, but at no point have I ever said that that was the only role that we might need. feeble attempt to dodge the issue, a red herring ....the issue is defense-and I'll ask again the question you nor anyone else can/will answer, just who is going to invade us? and why are they going to invade us?... I already admitted, multiple times, that we are not at a significant risk of being invaded/occupied. However I have pointed out the need to use planes in military conflicts to prevent humanitarian disasters/genocide. So once again, I ask: If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

the thing is, if August1991 were actually thinking logically, if he actually were a "fiscal conservative", and he actually put some thought into his vote, he would have no alternative choice. (Well, no mainstream alternative choice.) Unfortunately, either: A: He's not really a "fiscal conservative" (and his suggestion that he might vote for the Bloc suggest that that might be the case). He just wanted to claim he was so it would supposedly have more impact when he "rejected Harper". B: He is incapable of logical thought, or is just plain ignorant (since he seems to fault Harper because of deep seated pro-socialist beliefs of the Quebec population.) Given either of those factors, its quote possible that they might 'loose his vote'. Of course, they don't do a brain cell count before they give you a ballot, so of course he has every right to use any criteria he wants to select an MP, even if his reasoning doesn't make sense.

But you did hold it up as an example of "better spending". Except that Alberta conference A: was shorter, and B: had fewer participating countries. Go back in this thread. You can see a post where I actually do calculations that show the cost of the G8/G20 summit was in line with the earlier Alberta G8 summit when you consider the changes in scope, inflation, etc. So, because you're ignorant, you feel it proper to condemn Harper? You know, if you came out and said "I hate Harper because I'm a socialist", or "I hate Harper because I'm a Quebec nationalist" your position would be understandable, almost respectful. But your "I hate harper because I'm a fiscal conservative" makes absolutely no sense. And just how many is "many"? 90%? 80%? Here's a suggestion... go back and look at the references I posted. You'll see that while there may be some Quebecois who are dissatisfied with the size of government the majority want spending to continue. You know, earlier on you said you were "wrong on facts", but frankly, your inability to understand that most Quebec residence (regardless of whether they are federalist, nationalist, or apathetic) want continued government spending. Lots of it. They may not care about spending on the G8/G20, but they still want expensive social programs. Not fiscal conservatism. And no party who says "I want to cut taxes and spending" will find much favor in Quebec, regardless of all your valueless claims about Quebecers hating spending. And do you know how he "botched things up"? Harper tried to cut Arts funding!!!. In other words, he was trying to do what "fiscal conservatives" do, and Quebec voters turned against him!!!! (See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1452324720081015) So, tell me, where was this huge Quebec voter base who wanted to cut spending? When someone actually tries, he looses support. So, just how is some 'fiscal conservative' supposed to gain power in Quebec if the moment they try to do something to cut spending they loose support? Ummm... first of all, I want to deal with facts, not idiotic mantras and claims without evidence like you seem to be doing. Secondly, it seems to be you that originally brought up the cost of the G8/G20 summit. And you did so by expressing your ignorance. Since I like to deal with, you know, facts.

Straw man... Nobody claimed there were targets in the arctic. However, as it has been explained to you many times before, whatever planes we get will serve multiple functions... not only do they need to patrol the arctic but they need to handle situations similar to 9/11. We may also need to use them in a bombing role. (See below). And while a cheaper plane might provide the basic functionality for basic air patrols, we can do a better job with a plane that is faster and/or has a longer range. (If you remember, during 9/11, Norad had no idea where the hijacked airliners were, and if they attempted to intercept them, they would have had to search for them. Greater speed/range would be an asset.) and just what in the last 65years have we needed to handle?... there won't be a war with any country that is that well equiped(Russia/China), any war we become involved in will be with under equiped 2nd and 3rd rate powers or insurgents...the F35 is overkill Your argument illustrates your ignorance. Once again... we do not only have to worry about air-to-air combat; we also occasionally have a need to engage in air to ground combat, something that cheaper planes cannot do. again fisheries issue you have trouble telling the difference between a ship and a F35...a F35 is going to do what to a fishing boat???yes that's right nothing... On the other hand, during the Turbot war, there actually was talk of Portugal sending forces over. That is the type of thing that deserves a strong military response. Fine they stayed in international air space. Yet the Canadian armed forces thought it was a significant enough event to launch planes to intercept them. Ever wonder why? and a F35 prevents this how???? Ummmm... in case you didn't know, NATO military actions in eastern europe (you know, the ones that stopped the massacre of civilians) consisted primarily of air to ground combat. We used or CF-18s in the Balkans in a bombing role. Eventually the CF-18s will need to be replaced. (Believe it or not, planes DO wear out.) When they do, we might want the replacements to have the same capability. If we decided to buy a cheaper plane then they will not likely have the same air-to-ground capability. Any future Kosovo situations will result in Canada saying "Sorry we can't do anything about the genocide." http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no1/doc/55-61-eng.pdf and I'll ask again the question you nor anyone else can/will answer, just who is going to invade us? and why are they going to invade us?...you have no clue let alone an answer... Another straw man. Never claimed we were at risk of being invaded/occupied. Your response was even more idiotic because I specifically dealt with the invasion issue when I worded the question. So I will ask it once again: If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

Look at Molly's quote. I don't object to eating food, but that doesn't mean I approve a $1000 restaurant meal. I already debunked Molly's posting when I pointed out that the article she referred to contained quotes from experts pointing out that the costs were not necessarily out of line. Seems Molly didn't want to quote that particular part of the article. I wonder why. I also pointed out that the earlier conference held in Alberta when Chretien was P.M. (The one that you praised) had costs that were pretty much in line with this conference. So, once again... If you think the conference is too expensive, then do you favor Canada withdrawing from the G8/G20 Dunno. So, you don't know where exactly they're wasting money, but you automatically assume that they are, even before we've had a proper auditing. Given the fact that you seem to be rather vocal in your condemnation of Harper, shouldn't you, you know, actually get some facts to back up your condemnation? You've lost me here. Not sure why I had lost you, considering the number of times I explained it. But let me try once again... - The quebec population is, for the most part, pro-socialist/left-leaning. The opinion polls demonstrate that. (I've referred to those polls multiple times.) Quebecers want large-scale social spending/taxes - Fiscal conservatives want to reduce taxes - Because what fiscal conservatives want differs from what the Quebec population wants, any conservative politician will be at a disadvantage. So, what makes you think Quebec voters are in any way willing to embrace cuts to taxes/social programs?

I want them to only borrow money to buy things theres a strong likelyhood we will need. Well, we've been involved in 3 "wars" since the mid-90s (Kosovo, Gulf War 1, and Afghanistan). Most people do see those wars as having at least some morally justifiable purpose. I believe our planes were only used in 2 of them in a fighter/bomber role (but they could have been used in Afghanistan too). Works out to a conflict every 5-10 years. If we bought cheaper fighters (Like the Swedish one mentioned earlier) we would not have been able to participate since I believe that plane was a fighter only. But then, it depends on how you define 'need'. If you don't think we in the western world have a need to help the disadvantaged in the world then we don't 'need' the more expensive plane. And Canadian planes do make regular interceptions of Russian planes. So we do need some fighter to handle those cases. (And having a fighter with more range/speed lets them do their job better).

However, much of the terrorist funding comes from foreign countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) Those will be unaffected by the support within the population. Until of course the first civilian palestinian casualty occurs after Hamas tries to launch a rocket from a schoolyard and the multi-national force tries to stop them. Not only that, people have short memories. Its a case of "what have you done for me today"? And of course you're also assuming that enough palistinians just want their own land. Some actually do want all of Israel's territory. And some may be happy allowing Israel to exist, but not like the particulars of the deal.

I do no such thing. Every government or organzation will, at some point or other, pass on false information deliberately or accidentally. That's why I tend to rely on mainstream news media when I post references. That said, while I'm sure Israel has said things that aren't true, on average they are more honest than the Palestinian side. I suggest you look up the "Massacre at Jenine" as an example, where Israel was correct about casualty figures while the Palestinians initially gave wildly overstated estimates (more than an order of magnitude wrong). In avoiding this nonsensical question, I was generously sparing you embarassment. But you're insisting, so consider: There is no objective number. So you say that there is no "objective number", but clearly you state that 15 is "not enough". Can you figure out why people like you are viewed as being anti-Israeli at best, and downright anti-semitic at worth? If you have no problem with 15, why not 150? or 1500? And as the last Israeli civilian dies from rocket attacks directed at an orphanage I'm sure you'll smile and say "at least Israel didn't defend itself because that would be wrong". Right...you mean critics of Israel's behaviour. Because this single geopolitical entity is so magical that it is self-evidently above criticism. Never said they were "above criticism". That's a big straw man. I'm quite willing to criticize the Israeli government, military, or individual soldiers as the case may be. But so far all I've seen from people like naomiglover are bizarre rants based on faulty information and youtube videos. To me, that's just not convincing evidence. I'm sure there have been Israeli solders who have done illegal things during the invasion. (There are literally dozens of outstanding court cases, and at least a couple have already been convicted, rightly so). Of course, that doesn't mean that every allegation against Israel is automatically true. Consider one of the videos she posted as "evidence" of Regev lying... The one regarding Israel not letting civilians be medically evacuated. Regev openly states "We're not sure what happened". Its a perfectly reasonable stance to take (given the amount of misinformation that happens to occur during conflict). The interviewer on the other hand, keeps demanding an apology. Even by the end of the interview the reporter admits "I don't know what happens but I think Israel should apologize". That's not evidence of Regev being dishonest, its evidence of a reporter who doesn't know what he's doing. Ok, now you're really trying to insist that you don't have even an elementary understanding of what propaganda is, and how it works. ... ... worthless junk deleted ... The Palestinians simply do not have that kind of power or expertise or institutionalization of sophisticated propaganda. First of all, I find it ironic that you would try to educate me in 'propaganda'. Not only do I understand the concept, but you don't even seem to realize that the initials 'PR' stand for public relations. So, the 'expert' doesn't even know what PR stands for. Secondly, your suggesting the palestinains don't have that kind of 'power or expertise'. Power does not enter into it... you just need to be convincing. And to suggest they don't have the 'expertise' is ridiculous... there are millions of Palestinians living in the west bank/Gaza.. what makes you think that at least a few of them aren't smart enough to realize "you can get away with more if you play the underdog". That's obviously true, not even debatable. Yet you were the one that suggested that "only the minority believe in the justification". If you don't think that the "majority is always right", then why exactly did you make that statement in your earlier post (#29) To reiterate, as I feel compelled to do every time you one-siders make this point (frightened to look in the mirror, of course): I am not exonerating Hamas. But the civilian casualty count is more due to Israeli brutality than to Hamas brutality. So, Israel should just step back and let Palestian terrorists launch rockets against Israeli school children just because Hamas decides to station their rocket launchers near schools. Got it... By the way, just what makes you think it really is due to "Israeli Brutality"? Oh, that's right, naomiglover said so... she saw it in a youtube video so it must make it right. Actually I have criticized Israeli behavior in the past. And I'm sure I will again. Just that the nature of all these anti-Israeli naiomiglover spam-bot threads don't actually give a reasonable chance to actually criticize Israel because they're complete trash that must be debunked. Tell her to quit being a spam-bot and actually deal with real issues. Even if I agreed with your narrative (which I don't), and thought a military reaction was justified, it's absurd to conflate a reaction with the reaction. What is actively done matters. Do you have limits on what could be done? Of course I do. For example, if they deliberately used phosphorous against civilians (which is illegal) rather than a smoke screen (which is legal) then they should be criticized. If they deliberately targeted schools, then they should be criticized. Problem is, people like naomiglover assume that every such incidence is evidence of Israeli brutality, when many accusations are either downright false, or for which there is a context which is being ignored.

How was his investigation flawed? This has been explained to you multiple times, but you appear to be unable to learn anything. However, for the benefit of anyone who isn't an anti-Israel spam-bot, here's a list of particular problems... 1) Christine Chinkin Who was Chinkin? She was a member of Goldstone's little investigative team who had criticized Israel even before she had heard one piece of evidence. Even Goldstone admits that had it been an actual court case she would have been dismissed as biased.... (See: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=77618) So, why have her on the team? There are 6 billion people on the planet... somewhere there must have been someone who didn't appear like they already had their mind made up. Did she have the ability to do the vulcan mind meld? or something? In the worst case, he stuck someone on the team who might attempt to direct the team in a biased fashion. Even in the best case, if the "Men in Black" came down and erased her mind, if god himself came down and removed all her biases, the fact is, it looks incredibly bad. Its like putting Michael Jackson in charge of the Boy Scouts. Given the polarization that exists over the issue of Israel and Palestine, not only should you be unbiased, you should also appear unbiased. The fact that she was selected for the investigation shows incredibly bad judgement. 2) Robert Bernstien & Peter Hansen Who is Bernstien you might ask? Well, he was one of the founders of Human Rights Watch. So, you'd think he knows a little about the subject of Human rights and how the organization he helped create and ran for years actually functions. Yet Bernstien has since gone on the record by saying that the organization currently has an anti-Israel bias. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=2&em) So, why is that important to the Goldstone report? Human Rights watch was one of the organizations contributing to the Goldstone report. So, you have an organization who's very founder (and the guy who was chair for the organization) thinks is biased, yet they've name is all over the report. Bravo Goldstone. Nice source of input. And who is Peter Hansen? He was the head of UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. And he stated: "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime.". (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/03/unwra041003.html). In fact, there have been many people working for the UNRWA who have been involved in Terrorist activities. (For example, Alwad al-Qic. See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05686115) Yet the UNRWA was another organization that was involved in the report. 3) Shifa Hospital In the Goldsone report, it states that "The Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities". Yet news reporters had no problem finding evidence that Hamas was operating out of Shifa hospital. For example: From: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/gaza-er/hamas-hiding-in-shifa-hospital/4086/ ...Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harm’s way.. So, this little PBS news crew had no problem finding evidence that Hospitals had been used by Hamas. So, why could the Goldstone report not find similar evidence? Were they incompetent? Or did they just not want to find the evidence? And if they overlooked that information, what else have they overlooked? Pretending the Goldstone report is "good" while it ignores what could be a significant transgression by Hamas is a little like having a mechanic tell you "your care is in perfect shape" even though it catches fire every time you put the key in the ignition. ------------------------------------------------ So, in short, you have a "fact finding" committee containing people who had the poor judgment to appoint a potentially biased individual to the group (Chinkin), talking to people who may have secretly worked for Hamas (or worked for an organization that is seen by its founder as being biased), and writing a report that contains significant omissions of Palestinian violations. And you don't have any particular problem with that?

Hey, you know, I'm still waiting to see you answer those questions. Just let me refresh your mind August1991... - If you think the conference is too expensive, then do you favor Canada withdrawing from the G8/G20 - If you still want Canada to stay in the G8/G20 then where exactly should they cut spending when they host these conferences? - What exactly makes you think that Quebec (you know, the country you're claiming Harper "has" to win) has a significant population base that wants cuts to taxes/social programs like a true Fiscal conservative would? Why aren't you answering those questions?

Perhaps if that were the only goal. But there are a lot of things that we will expect our military to do. 1) Protecting arctic claims is one 2) Protecting other territorial waters (e.g. fishing areas off the coasts) 3) Interception of foreign planes and/or hijacked airliners in Canadian airspace 4) if we should want to get involved in a conflict (for example, if it has humanitarian value, such as in Kosovo) Personally I want them to get the plane that gives them the most options, rather than buying a cheaper plane and then saying "we can't do that" should the future need arise.

Ummmm.. just out of curiosity, what exactly makes you assume that "Hamas won't stay relevant for long"? They're a terrorist group. They care only about their own goals, and the people of Palestine are just an afterthought. What makes you think that they'll just disappear? Thats not a question worth answering. Actually the question is very worth answering. The false assumption here seems to be that the only use of the Israeli military has been to 'expand its borders'. Yet their actions in Gaza gained them no territory. I also don't think you quite understand how little support there would be among the populations of various countries in the world to supplying peacekeepers, and that support would likely plumit at the first sign of civilian casualties.

You know, this isn't the first time that type of claim has been made. Its been debunked. Over and over again. The fact that you keep raising it shows how empty your arguments are. While we don't expect terrorists to obtain fighter jets, we should maintain a military capable of handling multiple threats. Except planes that were actually built in the 60s are probably not in production, and whatever ones that are airworthy would have a very limited lifespan. Eventually planes do need to be replaced you know. And while there may be new planes that are cheaper than the F35, they are usually less capable. Some of us would rather have a plane capable of handling anything we ask of it, rather than, several years down the road, saying "We can't do that because we bought cheap-ass planes". And what country has attempted to fish in another's territorial waters? Oh right! Portugal did a few years ago in Canada. I think other posters have done an admirable job of pointing out how its not just the U.S. that has disputes over the North West Passage. Not to mention that the arctic is not the only place that we have to deal with territorial issues. The "Turbot war" is evidence of that. As for the russians... You do realize that they were sending military planes into Canadian airspace as recently as 2009. So while they may respect our claims to the North West Passage (for now at least... although I'd like to know how you can predict the future...) they must still be dealt with. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/593987 I see... So, does that mean you had no moral objection to the massacres and crimes against humanity that were happening in Kosovo? After all, NATO forces (including Canada) helped stop the killing of civilians. If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

How about right here: the numbers you cite are not what it costs, but what was spent. ... I do not, cannot, will not accept that a weekend whoop-up must necessarily set us back $1.2 billion (excluding damages inconvenience and lost opportunity). If it truly costs $40 a nose for every man woman and child in this entire country, then no, we can not afford it... but I do not for one millisecond believe that it must cost that much. Ok, first of all, when I did my comparisons/calculations, it was in relation to the 2002 summit in Alberta. The starter of this thread (August1991) had been using that as a basis for comparison (i.e. that summit was cheap, so Harper shouldn't have spent that much on this summit.) The problem is, the costs of the 2002 summit was around $200-300 million, so if that is the benchmark for how much these things should cost, then $1.2 billion is in line with those costs. Ah yes, the 'fake lake', which ended up costing just a tiny fraction of what was originally stated. (Instead of $2 million it was under $60k). Was it a 'bad idea'? Maybe. But some sort of center for media was necessary, and some sort of decoration was needed. Trying to do something to "hype up" the region isn't any sillier than other "tourist promotions" that are routinely done. I believe that the cost of the police came from the RCMP. I do question myself why they were so expensive, considering most of the officers were already on payroll and not necessarily working overtime. (In which case the "expenses" were just payments from one section of the government to another.) You must have overlooked some of the other quotes from that article... Comparisons are tricky because accounting may differ from summit to summit, and figures for Canada may include costs not reflected in the figures for other gatherings. ... Summit expert John Kirton at the U of T, who helped produce the report on summit expenses, says the projected Canadian costs are reasonable. He attributes them in part to the complexity of holding two meetings in two locations. “For the first time in world history, we’re holding G8 and G20 summits as twins.” He said the estimated costs for last year’s G20 meetings in Pittsburgh and London do not reflect the higher investment the U.S. and Britain make in day-to-day military security compared with Canada.

Ummm... How about plain old lead (used in bullets)? Its not radioactive, but it is a heavy metal, so it can remain a hazard basically forever. It can cause neurological problems in developing children (among other problems). Or how about Tungsten (which might replace DU for some purposes... ). Again, its not radioactive, but there have been a few indications that it can be carcinogenic in certain circumstances (See: http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Tungsten-Poisoning.htm). Yeah I'm sure there are a lot of warnings. Part of that may just be precautionary. By the way, I'm still waiting to see some actual science and/or statistics showing: - There actually IS a problem with birth defects in Iraq - That such problems are actually associated with Depleted Uranium

You're right, she may just have gotten a date wrong (the verbal equivalent of a typo)... However, she was actually given multiple dates... she should have known enough about the recent history and political situation to select which date is correct. And if she didn't know enough about the situation to get the dates correct, why exactly was she hanging out at any sort of rally? Enough ignorance in the world without someone running around spreading more.

Nations that believe in rule of law. I see..... In that case, how exactly do you feel about the Iraq invasion? After all, Iraq had violated multiple security council resolutions. (Chapter 7 resolutions by the way, the enforcable ones.). And technically a state of war still existed between the countries. The U.S. and the 'coalition of the willing' were just going in to enforce the resolutions that the U.N. should have enforced themselves. I see... And given the fact that Hamas has shown a willingness to launch terrorist attacks from civilian areas, are you willing to accept the innocent casualties that would result if Canadian forces attempt to stop such attacks? How many dead Palestinians do you think Canada would be willing to accept as 'collateral damage' before they decide "we can't kill innocents" and pull out?

Please point out where exactly my line of reasoning was incorrect. The G8 summit hosted by Chretien in 2002 cost around $300 million. The 2010 summit lasted longer and had more countries participating. Why exactly do you think that the cost wouldn't have increased proportionally? You've already made it clear... your posts have no real facts or logic behind them. Now, let me ask you once again.... Ether tell me whether you think Canada should withdraw from the G8/G20 summits, Or If you think they should continue going to them tell me what exactly they spent money on that you think was unnecessary. Until you do, your posts are worthless. Of course, I don't exactly expect you to answer either of those questions... you've been caught making foolish statements and there is no way for you to redeem yourself. I just like to continue pointing out your foolishness. And I guess they wouldn't hire you, considering you can't answer a couple of basic questions, like whether we should withdraw from the G8/G20, or where exactly we

Well, obviously I seem to know more than you do... 2002 G8 summit in Alberta: Cost: $300 million Length: 2 days Countries attending: 8 (full participants) Cost per country per day: ~19 million 2010 G8/G20 summit: Cost: $1.2 billion Length: 3 days (combined G8 + G20, 2 days each, overlapping) Countries attending: 20 (full participants) Cost per country per day: ~20 million Granted, there a larger conference would have more "economy of scale", but then, it has been almost a decade so there also is inflation. Once again... waiting to here where exactly the money was wasted. Or once again, would you prefer to withdraw completely from the G8/G20? I'd rather keep it factual and logical. I myself have provided many facts and much logic. You have provided many bizarre rants that don't really make sense. Still waiting for your evidence that a majority of Quebec voters are willing to embrace "fiscal Conservative" policies. And I'm still waiting for your list of things at the conference itself that the government wasted money on.

Segnosaur, I think a federal politician should bring Canadians together - even if I am not worthy of such goodness. So, you don't actually have any evidence.... Your whole "bring Canadians together" should be recognized for what it is... Bull cr*p. The fact is, Different provinces will always have different concerns and different ways they think government should be run. A left wing politician will likely never gain significant following in Alberta, because on average people in Alberta favor lower taxes and reduced spending. Its this little thing called reality. Not sure why it seems like such a foreign concept to you. Uh... The Summit itself? Yet earlier in the thread I asked you point blank whether Canada should withdraw from the G8/G20. Don't think you responded to that question. So, are you in favor of withdrawing from the G8/G20? The cost of the 2002 G8 summit (held in Alberta) was around $300 million. The G20 summit has more than twice as many countries and the combined G8/G20 summit combined lasted longer. So, the $1 billion cost isn't exactly out of line with the previous conference. Not only that, holding it in a more remote location may not save money since: - Significant security will still be required - A smaller venue may not have the facilities to host such a large event - It will add to the cost/difficulty of transportation He participated in an international conference. If you want Canada to withdraw from all such conferences (and thus loose influence in the world) then fine. Otherwise, please point to any expenses in the current conference that were excessive and that could be cut back.

If you want to complain about the building of Israeli settlements, then fine, I'll agree with you... its dumb for Israel to do that until the status of the land is resolved. But, those settlements should be at most a minor point. Settlements can be dismantled (or land can be exchanged), and indeed, Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza years ago. (Don't you find it a bit strange that Israel has settlements in the west bank but not Gaza, but it was from Gaza that most of the recent attacks were originating? Of course, keep in mind that the land that Israel "took" was actually captured in a defensive war. First of all, as I said before, Israel captured the west bank and Gaza (as well as other territory) in defensive wars, this was a bit different than Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Secondly, lets say you do force Israel out of the west bank and Gaza... you also going to send U.N. forces in to stop rocket attacks/suicide bombers? (Remember, the charter for Hamas is not just "a Palistinian homeland", its the complete elimination of Israel as a political entity.)

Please provide evidence that a majority of Quebec voters are not in favor of high taxes/high spending. I've provided plenty of evidence that they are. All you've done is make pointless and irrelevant statements about how "they don't care about nationalism". Edited to add: And I'm still waiting to hear where exactly you'd cut the budget of the G8/G20 summit.

Because its blatantly true. Ummm... I think you missed the point. I was trying to be sarcastic. Actually I agree with you but disagree with you. The U.N. is anti-palestinian, but not for the reason you state (i.e. not because they're ignoring the actions of the Israelis). They are anti-Palestinian because their actions enable the terrorist cause. By spending so much time criticizing Israel, by employing Palestinian terrorists within the U.N., they are putting Israel in a position where it must defend itself. As a result many innocent Palestinians get caught in the middle. If the U.N. (and the rest the world) actually took a more balanced role, if they eliminated Hamas members from their payroll, if they recognized that not every Israeli action is some horrible war crime, then perhaps Hamas and other terrorist organizations would loose their ability to provoke Israel into action, and Israel would then be more reassured of peace. But, as long as various "useful idiots" (and the U.N.) keep accusing Israel when they take actions to prevent rocket attacks and kidnappings then Hamas, etc. will continue terrorist acts to provoke Israel. And why not? Not like they care about the Palestinians that get caught.

Segnosaur, your question deserves a thread of its own. But its directly related to this thread, and to your opening post. Which of course is irrelevant. Like I said, if voters truly wanted "right wing" policies then they would support parties that met those needs. If no party existed, then such a party would be created that meets their nationalist needs. And as I pointed out, opinion polls show a strong majority of Quebec voters want socialist policies. Why exactly did you ignore that particular point? It totally debunks your argument that "voters only vote for left wing parties because there are no alternatives". Yes, you certainly have the right to badmouth him. However, other people (myself included) have the right to point out how illogical, hypocritical and all around foolish your arguments are. Claiming you won't vote for Harper because he "didn't win in Quebec" is an idiotic argument... Once again, Quebec is traditionally a province that favors high government spending/social programs. Any fiscally conservative party is going to find it difficult to gain support. Well, we're still waiting to hear where exactly you'd cut the budget for the G8/G20 summit. Many of the expenses involve security. You favor holding a summit with the heads of the most powerful governments in the world with security that was done on the cheap?