Wild Bill

Not necessarily. It can also be that the alternatives are worse. If your choice is between boring and bad...

The majority of Canadians are not rabid American haters, like some posters here I could mention. Most folks trying to pay mortgages, feed and cloth their kids and just survive in today's Canadian economy are much more pragmatic than someone like yourself might think. Have you been in the cross-border traffic tie-ups? Do you depend on being able to buy disposable diapers at Topps in Niagara Falls NY? Do you and your wife take turns in being downsized from your job, hoping it never happens to both of you at the same time? If Quebec separated you might be surprised how fast a majority of Canadians might leap at the idea! The only snag will be how America feels about it. The idea was broached before back in the 90's to an American politician who was up here for some function or another. He was taken by surprise and blurted out an answer which was probably much more truthful than it would have been if he had been prepared. He said "I suppose it could happen, but how would we pay for all the welfare recipients?" It's conceivable that the USA might turn us down. Much cheaper to buy what they need and leave Canada with the problems of its own making. After all, if we joined up it would not make sense for America to exploit what would then be part of itself.

Well, thanks for your in-depth rebuttal! I learned a lot from it!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious, that if Quebec separates parts if not all the rest of Canada may simply petition to join the USA! The West, not having a new country splitting them in half like we'd see with the Maritimes, might stay Canadian but I can't see Ontario staying in. There will be not only little appetite for buying Quebec dairy and other products but even some antipathy. Dairy, chicken and other staples would be MUCH cheaper if we we Americans! Prices on almost everything would drop. So would taxes! We would also see better employment. No longer could an American president like Obama hurt our economy by adopting an "America First" policy. We would be Americans! And we would not have only branch plants here on our side of the border. We would have the main headquarters of some of them. There are a lot of advantages. The geographic problem of dealing with a part of Canada on the other side of Quebec vanishes if we are no longer Canada. Perhaps the Maritime provinces may ask to join America as well. Then they would not have to cross through Quebec at all but could simply take routes more south. It would eliminate the need for any military action to maintain access through Quebec to New Brunswick and the rest. Also a huge bargaining chip for a sovereign Quebece government in its negotiations with TROC. There would be a thunderous flapping of Quebec's sails as the wind spilled out of them. If you think about it, trading Quebec for Uncle Sam might be a great idea! After all, if Canada has already been destroyed by the Pequistes the idea of being Canadian becomes mere nostalgia anyway. Not sure where that would leave Quebec as far as her own economy and fortunes but that would be their problem, not ours. At that point, why should we give a damn? Quebec has a right to her own path but along with such a right comes the necessity for accepting any and all consequences. Lord knows we Ontarioans do enough cross border shopping to avoid the sky high pricing of Quebec foodstuffs under supply management programs. We would no longer have to spend hours in traffic jams at the Peace Bridge. The CFL would likely die but so it goes. As for hockey, it has been integrated for years already. We would still get to watch the Habs beat the Leafs if we were American, as we have done for decades now!

You are so blind, BH! Don't you see the irony in what you have written? You don't attack her ideas or her philosophy. You attack HER! Ad hominem! You seem to be implying that if Rand has flaws as a human being then her entire philosophy is flawed. Well news flash, BH! To be human is flawed but we can still be right! The ultimate extension of your premise is that no one can be right about anything unless they themselves are perfect! This is exactly what so many have accused liberals of doing for years - slamming conservatives as people as if that has bugger all to do with an idea being right or wrong. It also seems to illustrate how the Left picks its heroes! If they like someone like Layton they deify him and he can do no wrong. This is extremely shallow thinking but sadly, incredibly widespread. It has always seemed to me to be a deliberate choice to avoid having to consider any ideas contrary to what you already believe. One just has to jam their fingers in their ears and yell "Bad Person!". Works for the evangelical right! That is also why I have always considered many lefties to be heart people and not head people, running on faith more than reason. The similarities of modern liberalism and religion is uncanny!

Well Bonam, duh! I read Rand's books years ago and I have always noticed how virtually all her critics are leftwing and outright vicious! She really punches their buttons and they recognize that if people are exposed to Rand's rationality they themselves are vulnerable. After all, when Rand referred to the "looters and moochers" who do we think she was talking about? Meanwhile, for such a "badly written book" it is significant how well it has sold since it debuted in the late 50's. Here's a cite from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged "Atlas Shrugged debuted on The New York Times Bestseller List at #13 three days after its publication. It peaked at #3 on December 8, 1957, and was on the list for 22 consecutive weeks.[9]" "The sales of Atlas Shrugged have since then sharply increased, according to The Economist magazine and The New York Times. The Economist reported that the fifty-two-year-old novel ranked #33 among Amazon.com's top-selling books on January 13, 2009 and that its thirty day sales average showed the novel selling three times faster than during the same period of the previous year. With an attached sales chart, The Economist reported that sales "spikes" of the book seemed to coincide with the release of economic data. Subsequently, on April 2, 2009, Atlas Shrugged ranked #1 in the "Fiction and Literature" category at Amazon and #15 in overall sales.[65][66][67] Total sales of the novel in 2009 exceeded 500,000 copies.[68] The book sold 445,000 copies in 2011, the second-strongest sales year in the novel's history. At the time of publication the novel was on the New York Times best-seller list and was selling at roughly a third the volume of 2011.[69]" No wonder the Left hates it!

Contrary to popular belief, Waldo DOES have a sense of humour! He just doesn't let it out very often. He reminds me very much of Harlan Ellison, and that's a compliment!

Sadly Boges, they likely are NOT done! Tim Hudak is an expert at doing nothing to exploit any advantage. Unless the PCs get a more vibrant leader, I expect Dalton will be comfortable in his chair for a while yet. As I keep saying, any salesman knows that it is not enough to have your competitor look bad. You also have to make yourself look BETTER! People tend to stick with the Devil they know rather than go for an unknown choice. Hudak has all the inspiration and charisma of overcooked spaghetti! He just doesn't look like a better choice. He is an unknown, in brown shoes and tie. Dalton may keep pissing people off but Tim just doesn't shine enough to sway enough mainstream voters. It's really a shame.

If I had a nickel for every time this question was answered... Just because a homeowner is not listed in the registry as having a gun doesn't make that info useful to a cop knocking at the door. He has to assume the possibility no matter what some registry says! Moreover, the number of registered weapons involved in crimes compared to those unregistered is mice nuts! Meanwhile, billions of dollars were spent. How many more police officers would that have paid for? It was all just a placebo to make those who are satisfied with symbols instead of substance happy. Not only did the Liberals not add a single day to the minimum sentence of anyone using a firearm in a crime, the penalty for not registering in the first draft of their registry Bill was greater than that for actually using a gun to rob a variety store! It was all just smoke and mirrors. Any Utilitarian like myself was thoroughly disgusted. I would support anything that is cost-effective and would actually WORK, but frankly I don't see how that would be possible anyway.

You brought your own choir and call that public support? In the immortal words of Monty Python, "You ARE a loony!" :lol:

You do know that there are a lot of ex-NASA engineers now looking for work, thanks to Obama? There are also many working for branches of American companies here in Canada. I used to sell electronic parts to Litton Systems in Toronto. They make the heads up displays for American fighters. There is a LOT of that going on! We would not be starting from scratch! The other question, as MacKenzie pointed out, is that it is a moot question as to when we will ever get our F-35s anyway, since the factory keeps pushing out the delivery date. We might have more time to develop our own option than you would think. It's entirely possible some Democrat might cancel the F-35 anyway, in favour of more money for food stamps.

You know, I can't help but wonder why so many other countries, some with considerable power, consider Iran to be such a threat they might even start a war over it. Wars are not just bloody but frightfully expensive. They also have a nasty habit of leaving you the loser. Certainly, they may change the political climate in ways you do not desire. I guess they are all either stupid or just love war! That must be it. After reading so much here on MLW it is obvious that Iran's leadership are all just super nice guys, unfairly maligned for no good reason at all. Learn something new every day!

Sorry. I thought HE was the figurehead! Is that the same guy the aliens beamed up to their mother ship when he went to the UN? Whenever I hear about something he said or did I am always overwhelmed with a feeling of warmth and good will.

Multiple invasions? I only remember their war with Iraq. Were there more in recent history? As for the Iranian leader, I believe he is just a figurehead. The unelected Ayatollahs are the true power. As for having a nuclear weapons program, all those centifuges produce a quantum amount more than they would ever need for any peaceful nuclear reactor program. There can only be two reasons for that quantity. They are either building bombs or intend to sell to those who make bombs. It is the difference between a backyard garden and thousands of acres of wheatfields on the prairies. Nothing else makes any sense.

Well, I gave you a link and there's always google...

Then there's hope! Back to the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario! That might prevent Iran using nukes, unless they are truly religious whackos...

Forgive me for saying this but your reaction seems kind of "knee jerk", Derek. You start off by attacking the idea as if it was to make a copy of the original plane. I point out that is not the idea but here you are right back to it! Of course any necessary changes would be made to the basic shape! The intent is to make a modern plane, not to pump out new copies of old ones! Let's stay in the real world here! The idea has merit in some circles of those qualified to hold a considered opinion. Meanwhile, the entire idea of Canada making its own gets shot down almost as fast as the idea can be spoken! Is it truly that impractical? Or is something else going on here? As I said, I have far more respect for Maj Gen MacKenzie. Fantino has always struck me as just a "southern Sheriff" - a rather dim southern sheriff at that. I think that the shorter range and altitude capability of the F-35 is a large negative to a country the size of ours. Somewhere someone is insisting Canada take the F-35, no matter if it is the best choice for us or not. Somewhere, someone insists that Canada never have the capability of making its own such plane again.

I agree. The Israelis are not fools. Perhaps they have those submarines I mentioned. Still, revenge wouldn't bring their people back. Much better to somehow make sure Iran CAN'T nuke anybody! I would imagine a lot of the neighbouring Arab countries are not comfortable with Iran having the Bomb. It's guaranteed Iran would use it to make itself the most important country in the region. Even the Saudis would have to defer to a nuclear armed Iran. I doubt if they would like that idea much.

Apples and oranges, Michael. We're talking a NUCLEAR retaliatory attack! No country has launched a nuclear weapon in anger since WWII. To do so would be a HUGE step! I just don't see how it could happen. Israel's allies would mourn but I just don't see them nuking Iran afterwards.

Who suggested we would be just building a 60 year old design? Nice straw man, Derek! If you had actually listened to General MacKenzie you would have heard that he actually suggested using little more than the basic shape of the airframe. The materials would be modern and so would be the rest of the design. Apparently, the basic shape holds most of the advantages. Why on earth would someone build a new one from old stuff? MacKenzie believes and quotes people in the know who say that this could have great advantages for Canada. First of all, the performance specs of the F-35 don't come anywhere near the POTENTIAL of a modern Arrow! A new Arrow would have far greater range, speed and altitude. If an intruder came across Canada's border in the North a new Arrow could be there FAR faster! http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/10/avro-arrow-revival-plan.html "While he initially thought the revival plan was "a joke," the more closely he examined it, the more he saw its potential merits for Canada's missions at home and abroad." Apparently, the price would be cheaper and even better, 90% of the money would stay in Canada. There would be huge numbers of jobs! We have engineers of our own and there are lots of American engineers laid off from NASA, ironically being the reverse of the situation during the Apollo days, after the original Arrow was cancelled. We would have a plane we could sell to OTHER countries, making a whole new export industry! Our old friend Julian Fantino, hardly the CPC's best example of a technophile, shot the idea down so fast it was obvious his lips couldn't have moved fast enough to have even read it! One of his major objections was time frame, claiming that we could not ramp up fast enough to deliver a plane to our Air Force. MacKenzie points out that the F-35 keeps moving its delivery date out further and further. When are we going to get any anyways? If you wanted a considered opinion on the worth and capabilities of a piece of military hardware, whose would you trust more? One from Maj-Gen Lewis MacKenzie or Julian Fantino? Seems to me the idea deserves better consideration. Just keeping the money in Canada alone would go a long way to meeting some of the objections to the F-35 from critics here at home.

I don't see how Iran using nukes automatically means they commit suicide, Dr. Dre. Sez who? If they used a terrorist group as a proxy, they have plausible deniability. Terrorist groups are not countries. They are "private" interests. How could a country justify retaliating against Iran for SUSPECTING they were behind a terrorist nuke? However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Iran steps up and lobs some nukes at Israel. They have the missiles so the distance between is very short. No one would have time to react defensively. BOOM! Bye bye little Israel. Now what? The world has a fait accompli. Israel is gone, so she can't retaliate, unless she happens to have some submarines with nukes hiding under the water. Would the world accept the US or any other country nuking Iran? Killing perhaps millions of its citizens? Remember, Iran is not really a representative democracy. It is more of a religious dictatorship. Would it be acceptable to kill citizens who had no say and thus no input into the decision to destroy Israel? No, a retaliatory strike from any other country but Israel itself is not likely. A regime change being forced on Iran would be a certainty but would the mullahs care? From their POV, they would have accomplished their goal of wiping Israel from the face of the earth. These folks tend to take the long view. They themselves might lose power but their religion would still have a strong influence. Some other religious government would likely arise with different faces but the same values and goals. It might take a few decades but hey, they would likely think it worth the wait. I would like to hear your reasons to believe that Iran would automatically be committing suicide. It just doesn't seem so to me but perhaps I'm missing something.

I see, Topaz. You are implying that with Jews it's always about money. Well, now we know where your feelings lie.

Actually, plastic bags are the easiest bags of all to recyle! And we ALL recycle, don't we? Still, I miss paper bags. They never charged us for them. If left outside they will recycle themselves. No need to put them out in your Blue Box. I don't have a lot of respect for efforts to FORCE citizens to do these sorts of things! Seems sort of eco-fascist to me. This whole idea of "separation at source" to force some sense of "togetherness" has caused problems of its own. Expecting people to separate all their recyclables, with inspectors to stick "OOPS!" notes on the bags if you make a mistake is just to good an attraction to those anal retentive personalities that tend to end up in the civil service. Worse yet, in my town there is almost no recycling of commercial enterprises or apartment buildings. Standalone homes were the easy and first target. Much harder to get pickup systems for restaurants and apartment buildings on board. Just across the border in Niagara Falls NY, the separation is done at DESTINATION! This means the source doesn't have to do anything but just put it all out for pickup. It is all hauled to one central processing plant, with machines and people to sort it all out. These plants employ a lot of people and make a profit, bidding against others for a city's garbage! They take it ALL, restaurants and commercial alike! How well does Toronto compare, while sending hundreds of trucks every day down the 401 to pay Michigan for the right to dump their garbage? And I'm a criminal for using plastic bags? Give me a break! More bonehead approaches!

Usually when a country closes its embassy it can still work through an allied embassy. In this case, likely if something must be discussed the British Embassy will lend a hand. Of course, it may not matter anyway. All this time Canada has been trying to negotiate something for these unjustly imprisoned citizens Iran has been steadfastly ignoring us. Iran is not noted for co-operating much on these things, Topaz. It's not like keeping our Embassy open was guaranteeing any hope! It's possible that the bad publicity towards Iran from closing our Embassy might actually do more good, embarrassing Iran into being "nice".

Now I remember! It doesn't show very often but its there!