Wild Bill

I'm surprised no one has revisited this discussion. Where are all those jobs building solar cells and turbines? What about that deal with Samsung? The money boys behind the Oakville cancelled gas electrical plant are now suing the government for 300 million dollars. The company behind the cancelled wind power turbines are suing for 1 BILLION DOLLARS! What more proof could I need that politicians are totally useless at predicting winners in technical fields? These idiots actually thought they could create an industry by rigging the marketplace! Not only have we not seen all those jobs, we're now looking at a 1.3 Billion dollar loss! To steal a term from Bugs Bunny - Maroons! The lot of them!

Curious. You seem to be saying that we have only two choices. Spend as much as the Americans or spend nothing! When did I say that? Did you just pull that idea out of your butt? As BC pointed out, for a long time Canada didn't spend even a reasonable percentage on its military for its size! I remember how back in the 90's we were dead last by that sort of measurement. You just don't seem to see the real world, in my opinion. You remind me of a social worker in a bad part of town, telling some young kid he doesn't need to protect himself from the local gangs. Of course, by following such advice sooner or later the kid ends up dead!

Dre, I agree that our troops paid the ultimate price. Just not Canada! Our politicians sent them over there with only arctic camo , for Christs' Sake! When it was discovered that the troops were making their own camo with materials they bought with their own money we saw groups of little old ladies making up kits and sending them over to our men and women! We gave and still give them trucks so old that the rims often collapse from having rusted through! Our F-18s flew in Kosovo with electronics so old and obsolete that they couldn't read the scrambled NATO communications so they had to stay out of the combat front. Even the IFF signals that told friend from foe weren't reliable. For the first couple of years in Afghanistan we lost lives due to a lack of our own helicopter transport. The other countries understandably put their own needs first. Do you seriously think they buy and deliver extra in case Canada needs to bum a ride? We also lost lives from a lack of Armored Personnel Carriers, making our troops ride in vehicles with an almost total lack of protection against IEDs! And on and on and on! This sort of thing is NORMAL for Canada! Even in WWI and WWII when the balloon went up we had bugger all of an army and enough materiel to equip them! We needed months to try to catch up. We actually trained our troops with broomsticks! Now we live in times where we don't get months or years to catch up. Today's engagements are "come as you are". If you aren't ready then you can't effectively fight and if you try you will likely just get killed. Accusing me of not respecting our troops is a cheap diversion, my good Dr. Dre and not worthy of you. My disrespect is placed squarely on those who make policy! And those who support politicians who force our military into roles without proper equipment! Now some people want us to choose a plane that will have no stealth - a flying bullseye for modern combat. Perhaps we should try to use only unmanned drones and machinery. As a nation, we obviously don't really give a damn for the lives of our troops! I'm the Utilitarian, remember? It's bad enough when politicians come out with domestic programs that don't work but when they do it with soldier's lives then I can only be disgusted!

Yeah, we're really good at freeloading, aren't we? We have had occasions in recent history where we were told to just stay back out of the way, such as the Kosovo conflict. It would seem likely that sooner or later our allies will grow tired of our perpetual mooching and just tell us to hit the road! Perhaps even in less polite terms!

No Dr. Dre, that's not the way things work in politics! The EH-101 was the only suitable helicopter for our needs and Chretien deliberately skewed the specs to lock it out of contention. Once something becomes politically embarrassing it is no longer relevant if it is the best choice to do the job. Politicians care about themselves first and foremost! Being the best for our troops is WAY down the list! You may think I'm just cynical but I'm confident that the coming months will prove me right. We will end up with nothing truly useful for the job. Canada will go back to being a freeloader nation, bumming from the US and other countries to handle its defense and then complaining that no one takes us seriously. You can't expect other nations to respect your sovereignty when you are a pushover country that expects every other country to pay its tab!

Spider, I'm afraid that it would seem that's EXACTLY where we will end up! It's just the way Canada ALWAYS does these things! Now that the F-35 has become politically embarrassing, Harper will dump it like last week's garbage. The Opposition will immediately demand a new, open procurement process that MUST choose a different plane! Of course, no such plane exists. We will likely still be flying our F-18s 25 years from now. The occasional one will fall out of the sky but no one will care. On peacekeeping missions Canada's squadron will be kept far in the back, so that they won't get in the way of the countries doing the REAL fighting! It's a shame. We just seem to be totally useless at this sort of thing.

Except for Don Cherry, CBC TV has NEVER been worth a few Lee-Enfields! CBC Radio is a gem but only a tiny portion of the CBC's budget.

You're right, stopstaaron! When the Liberals were in power they regularly briefed and consulted with the Reform/Alliance Opposition before doing anything! :lol:

I'm still waiting for someone to build a "B" Ark!

You're twisting it, GH! No one said "everyone who wears a hoodie is a criminal". He said the only people he's seen wear one are criminals on TV. That being said, there is no doubt that hoodies ARE worn in some circles as an attempt to hide identity. The style IS from gangsta rap! So it is obvious that there are indeed some folks wearing hoodies who are dangerous. The numbers may be a very small percentage but so what? No doubt the percentage of Afghanis who are terrorists is very small. Does that mean any allied soldier walking through a village should take no precautions? It's as if in McDonald World everyone decided it would be cool to dress the same as the Hamburglar! How can you tell who is the REAL Hamburglar? How do you avoid having your hamburger stolen, perhaps being beaten up in the process? The answer is of course, you can't. So what do you do? Tell yourself the odds are low and not worry about it? Many human beings just don't work that way. What's more, scolding them is not likely to make them change.

I'm sure he cares about the concept as much as or more than you do, eyeball! He just doesn't share your opinion of how dire is the situation. This seems to be another logical fallacy that is so humanly common. You have an opinion of the importance of an issue. To you it is of highest priority. Yet not everyone agrees with you. Very quickly the move is made from "Why don't they understand my POV" to "They must understand! It's as plain as the nose on their faces! They must simply be EVIL!" The technical term is, I believe, righteousness.

I often like whoever is our Auditor General. I really liked Sheila Fraser and I've been waiting to see how Michael Ferguson would do in the role. This action is great! Governments need to raked over the coals every so often, when it comes to our money. If the Tories have not handled the financial process of the F-35 deal properly then they deserve any criticism. However, critics of the F-35 purchase should not be allowed to confuse the issue of how we go about deciding to pay for the fighters with what fighters we DO buy or if we buy any at all! These are all separate issues. Of course, the Tory haters will just lump them all together under the heading of "Conservatives Evil!" but things are never so simple. It's quite possible that someday, perhaps even soon, their team will take power. If and when that happens, any unfair or simplistic criticism they level against the Tories will have set the precedent for the criticism they themselves will face. Or to put it more simply, in politics the Golden Rule says "Do Unto Others As They Have Done Unto YOU!"

Hey GH! I'm not one to stretch a point to extremes, like some of the Harper bashers on MLW. If it's cold of course people put their hoods up! Hoodies however are worn up even in summer! On a cold winter day I don't think anyone would pay any attention to a hoodie when outside. In a bank lineup things might be different. Again, the distinction seems to happen when a hoodie appears to be a deliberate attempt to conceal one's face. A woman wearing a scarf on her head is usually not concealing her face, particularly in cold weather.

Good one, eyeball! That way, if there are any terrorists making bombs they would get your help!

Thanks, Cap! That's exactly it! It's not the hoodie per se. It's anything that hides one's identity. In our culture, hiding your identity in public has had only two meanings - it's a criminal or it's Halloween! Leprosy or disfigurement might be a third but the numbers would be trivial.

Hey, I don't expect everyone to agree with Angus. I don't always agree with him either. It's just that none of the critics said ANYTHING about the victim! Not a "Poor guy!" or "What a tragedy." or even a "He could kiss my ass!" It's like to some the victim is not relevant in any way. Not worth a footnote. Attacking a conservative for his position is far more important. As for "hypocrisy on the Right", what the hell kind of answer is that? "Don't be mad at me, Mom! My brother did it too!" It's hardly a "either/or" situation. I never believed, mentioned or even implied that leftist hypocrisy excused the same on the right. Is that your position?

Whether or not the style connection is valid is irrelevant. Whether or not people should mistrust those wearing hoodies is also irrelevant. The plain and simple fact is that large numbers of people DO make the connection and DO mistrust those wearing them! Now, how about you and CC convince all those people that they are wrong? Perhaps you could scold them in a post here on MLW! That would work...NOT!

Good point! Some folks have the freedom to wear a hoodie and others have the freedom to not trust them! Like it or not, it's a gangsta rap style. For that reason alone, to many other citizens it appears threatening. How can you tell a real gangsta from some teenage poser? It's similar to walking down a city street wearing a bandit mask. A large number of people will assume you are likely up to no good! Meanwhile, many posters on MLW will think they can solve this problem by scolding such nervous people and insisting they stop being so untrusting!

Same old, same old. Someone writes an opening post about an immigrant committing a horrendous crime, which highlights the laxity of our refugee system. With the humongous backlog of cases to process it's unlikely there is ANY vetting of such immigrants! Mathematically, it's like trying to count the grains of sand in a bucket when you have only 8 hours a day to do it. That's not what I find so "samey", however. Rather, it's the fact that for the next few pages of posts not a single one of those against Angus' point said a word about the victim! What a cold-hearted group, indeed! Worse yet, this is the way it always seems to go. This is another example of the hypocrisy of many on the left, who claim to care so much about their fellow man!

Ah eyeball, you break my heart! It always comes down to the same problem. We might be willing to give peace a chance but there are always others who won't! A unilateral approach not only won't work, it has a good chance of getting a lot of us killed! What do you think would happen to us if you and I took a couple of guitars and sat on a street in Iran, singing Lennon's song?

Just what is your idea of "viable", Dr. Dre? When you look at each of the planes you have suggested, they ALL would be flying bullseyes in a modern combat situation! How about a suggestion that might WORK? You only emphasize my point that if we are not willing to pay for a workable military solution then we should stop BS'ing ourselves. Let's have NO military and forget about playing any useful peacekeeping role. We will depend totally on the Americans for our defence and just accept that we will be forced to dance to their tune as payment. If we ever are attacked we will just immediately capitulate. Without an effective military there are NO other options for us! It's true that we can't afford to spend an equal amount to Uncle Sam's figures but there's a big difference between that and not making at least a reasonable contribution to the group's defense! That was the original idea behind NATO. Somehow over the years the idea was perverted into "let's get the Americans to pay for everything!". Now America can no longer afford to protect the entire globe. She's cutting back and expecting her allies to be more self-reliant. She should have done that 50 years ago! Face it, my good Doctor! We have been freeloaders! Bums! It's time to stop fooling ourselves.

Did he? I read the link and it's not clear at all. I would dearly like to see a transcript of the MP's speech. The only definite claim was that he cited a Texas study claiming that fewer women carrying arms were raped compared to unarmed others. I would think that would be self-evident! Once again, my Utilitarian gene wakes up! I'm looking at this issue from the point of view of what does and doesn't work. Guns don't have to be mandatory to be a deterrent. I've seen studies that show that in states where it is legal to keep a gun the burglary rate is lower, since criminals know that there is a much higher risk of being greeted with a shotgun. In Canada it would seem the only thing a homeowner could do to avoid being charged himself would be to offer the invader a cup of tea! I just don't see how anyone can argue that a woman who MIGHT be armed is not safer than one in an environment where NO women are armed! Telling a woman that she is better off unarmed as an attacker might wrest her gun from her and use it against her is a specious argument at best. She might also get hit by a falling meteor! "What if" scenarios are always an incredible stretch. As for those who say a woman should never resist - I suggest you do the same! Bend over and take it! Now, how do you feel? Do you really think a bit of counseling will make it all better? However, let's go back to the beginning. We know that the MP cited the Texas study. Did he actually suggest that ALL women should go armed? We all know that newspaper reporters would rather imply such, as a lurid claim will sell more papers! They are in the business of telling stories, after all. Hand in hand with this practice is that of Tory critics, who absolutely would accept the implication as Gospel from on High! After all, the MP is a Tory, right? They are all evil! So he MUST have said that! Again as a Utilitarian I could accept the anti-gun side's arguments better if they had ideas to offer that would WORK! Hell, they rarely seem in favour of increased sentences for those who molest women in the first place! It also seems that some people have such a hysterical fear of firearms that they cannot think logically in these debates. The idea should be to ensure that attacks against women do not succeed in the first place. Supporting after-the -attack counseling is truly uncaring towards women and a totally lame-ass approach. I hope more of the story comes out. I strongly suspect this report has been "doctored" by those with an agenda.

You missed the point. The people calling for cancellation of the F-35 are really trying to return us to the same old position of having second or even third best equipment. That is how you LOSE when you need your military! Either you have a military that is effective or you should not bother and accept that you will be dominated. There are no other choices.

How is NATO supposed to work? If all the member countries just relied on America to spend the money and blood it would fall apart! When you join a group you are supposed to contribute so that the group as a whole is stronger than the individual members. You are describing NATO as a club for those who wish to freeload off of Uncle Sam! What a minute...NATO IS falling apart!

Well, I think I understand how you define it. "It'll never fly, Waldo!"