Moonbox

No. They don't. The STOL and VTOL are more expensive variants.

A poor comparison. The Super Hornet is a new airframe but you don't need to be an expert to see it's not an enormous leap forward from the Hornet. Yes, it's a much better plane, but even the US military is going to start replacing them in 15 years. We aren't replacing the F-18 until 2017, so why the hell would we want to replace it with a plane that will be getting replaced in the US in 2024??? I was not implying they were useless. I was simply pointing that you purchase and build this equipment with the hope you never have to use it. If Canada wants to maintain a modern airforce and even entertain the the possibility of being useful support for NATO long term, the Super Hornet is not going to cut it. Possibly. My thoughts are that it's better to spend money on something that could deal with such a threat than to spend money on something (Super Hornet) that would be negligibly more useful than our existing aircraft at pounding primitives in the dirt. This is true but my thoughts are that it's better not to upgrade at all than to upgrade to the Super Hornet.

Personally I'm not super excited about half-assed stealth addons to a 4.5 generation fighter. We don't need an incrementally better fighter here and incremental improvements to an incrementally better fighter aren't likely going to cut it either. The basics of the F-18E design are from the 70's. Which is why we should pick the platform the provides us with the broadest range of ability. You're probably right, but that's the way you'd like to keep things. The USA aren't likely to ever need their Ohio or Los Angeles submarines either. That's not to say they shouldn't have them, however. When you're only buying 65 planes I'm not so sure hedgeing is all that feasible.

I'm with you scribllet. I'm waiting for the bedwetting.

It depends on the amendment. As long as it wasn't something that screwed one province over the other, it could fairly easily be done.

I would say so. This is politics and it's about running an entire country. If anything, she's guilty by association. She's married to a piece of scum and she knows it. Her behaviour sucks (the airport fiasco) and she's an embarrassment to the party. Why would you want her around?? That should be the question. It's not a 'right' to be part of a political party.

Okay so that's your position?? Here's mine from page 2 of this thread: I've already mentioned in other threads that I'm sure other settlements will be made. The totals will amount to the low billions, however, rather than the hundreds of billions or trillions this clown is talking about So what are you arguing with me about? I agreed the Crown can expropriate land. I agreed settlements and judgements would continue to be made. So I ask you, genius, what is it that you're disagreeing with me on? It seems you're just trolling for attention again. I feel bad that's the sort of validation you need. The first two pages of the thread saw CR CLEARLY stating that there were hundreds of billions (or trillions that was from his mouth not mine) in settlements/trusts that the were on their way. I contest that issue alone. I don't contest that the Crown and the government will continue to negotiate settlements. Stop pretending I do. In the course of our disagreement over what sort of settlements would be awarded, CR made it pretty clear he didn't understand what the Crown was and he flat out denied that the People have any power over it (which is easily proven and sourced as untrue). Finally, when it became apparent he was getting chewed up from all sides, he took the boneheaded position that logic is a delusion. That's how the argument proceeded. Your contribution to the thread has been little more than asking inane and pointless questions, childish insults and inept mockery.

Because the ones we have are second hand old pieces of falling apart garbage and won't last us much longer? They were bought for a bargain price as a stop gap measure because we had no heavy-lift capacity. When we bought them we already knew we were buying new ones. Hold on there fella. Your article said we were getting 15 of them for $2 billion. Check your math Yeah you got something screwed up. First, 15 Chinooks for $2B. Second, a Nimitz cost around $9-10B. Good try though. You'll catch on eventually...

Makes you SUCH an expert I'm sure... The second hand info you get from him is no better than anything anyone of us can get hopping on to a US naval forum. Yeah maybe for a nuke, but that's a whole other ballgame. Bullshit. The Brohmas is the best they have and that 30 second detection window is pure balogna. First off, that assumes we're talking hypersonic. While the radar detection window is perhaps 30 seconds for the carrier, you'd have widely dispersed assets flying and sailing patrols hundreds of miles around it. What's more is that a hypersonic flight flying that low (therefore in denser air and directly against a cool water background) would emit an ENORMOUS infrared signature that would be visible even by satellite and easily tracked by anything nearby. You'd have all-aspect heat seekers on that sucker from pretty much every direction possible and the battlegroup would have MINUTES (not seconds) to react. Even if the missile was able to make it to closing distance the new defense systems being integrated into the navy now (Metalstorm is one in particular) would have the missile flying through a point defense blanket of high velocity metal. It'd be torn up well before it hit the target. Ask your bro and law about that.

There is no missile out there that has made the carrier obsolete. As an armchair general I'm sure you feel that you're an expert but the brightest minds in the worlds most proficient and powerful military seem to disagree and are even still building and designing new supercarriers. I'm not sure you have any clue as to how multi-layered and complex the defence of a carrier really is. One carrier battlegroup probably costs more than Canada's entire military to operate lol.

Okay sure. Correct Absolutely and totally incorrect. You can say whatever you want about what the opposition's job is, but it's left to the voters to decide where they smell hypocrisy and a lack of integrity. If the opposition threatens to bring down the government for a lack of stimulus, and after the stimulus is spent criticizes the stimulus, the average voter can see there's some pretty clear inconsistency and can reasonably question the opposition's credibility. The Opposition is a useful tool to critique the government where it needs critiquing. Consistent, unreliable and unqualified criticism, simply for the sake of criticism itself, is useless to everyone.

and I acknowledged it and stated that even the (uncited as per usual with CR) government estimates were unreasonable. My whole argument was that claims by the Six Nations for hundreds of billions of dollars are neither likely nor reasonable. If hundreds of billions are not what we're talking about, then I may not have any issue at all with your claims or CR's. Indeed, I indicated several times that I believe the First Nations are entitled to settlements and they will continue to receive them. My position was very clear in that, and also very clear that my point of contention was the likely SIZE of these settlements. So, again, I ask, what IS your position on the issues discussed in this thread? Do you even have one, or are you just trolling again? Hahaha. No CR said we were sucked in by the 'myth' of logic. We have several quotes of him saying pretty much exactly that. My argument was that if the Crown were to judge in favour of awarding the equivalent of $300,000+ for each First Nations inhabitant (700,000 of them) and it cost $200+ billion dollars, the Crown could and likely would lose the support of Canadians. You're quite right in saying none of this is 'fact', however. It's pure supposition. CR's claim (and yours by supporting him), however, are also supposition. What the Crown 'will' do is uncertain. We can merely guess at what the results will be and what the Crown's logic/reasoning will be behind their decisions. When one side denounces logic, however, it becomes a pretty pointless debate though doesn't it? Not with you it doesn't. You haven't taken a position. Rather, you've bounced around like a clown asking stupid questions. You tell me how it will happen? Can you do that? Are you going to make plain what you think will happen? Or are you just going to keep trolling like a fool? Only in your strange world would you mistake my sneering contempt of both of you for sulking. I'm having a grand time with both of you. That's been your whole argument this thread. You haven't contested anything anyone else has said based on facts, reason or your own position or argument. You've just trolled and ridiculed. Like I said before, make clear your position, child, or by default you're pretty much admitting you don't have one or can't support one. I'm almost certain, in that mixed-up jello muck you call your brain, you actually have a position on the issue. I'm equally certain, however, that it's beyond your power to articulate it and support it.

If it's over thirty years, you have to compound that amount with a reasonable rate of return. For 30 years at 4% that would be $30/month. Also take into account that only 50% of the population is working and instead you'd be paying $60/month. If the average Canadian salary is ~36000 a year that's a 2% tax increase for the next 30 years. One thing that was never very clear to me, however, is whether the figures Shwa and CR are talking about are for ALL First Nations claims or for just the Six Nations. If we're only talking about Six Nations, then the numbers only get worse. I'd love to see an explanation on how CR and Shwa feel the Crown would justify an effective 2% tax hike on 33,000,000 Canadians so that First Nations inhabitants can each enjoy a $300,000 windfall and enjoy average net worth more than DOUBLE the average Canadian.

Nobody said that. Why are you? What a joke.

That was CR's claim at the beginning of the thread. I laughed at it then and he continued to argue its validity. The trillion dollar figure was most certainly my focus and CR's focus. We have several pages on this thread to support this. I even stated (immediately after the quotation you just offered on page 2) this: I've yet to see any reasonable reference of ANY intentions to settle the $1 trillion charter.rights is crying about. The $145 million accounts for about 0.1% of the overall amounts we're talking about. I've already mentioned in other threads that I'm sure other settlements will be made. The totals will amount to the low billions, however, rather than the hundreds of billions or trillions this clown is talking about. It doesn't matter what numbers you focus on. I addressed this in the first page. Reduce the figure by 80% and it's STILL unreasonable. Any way you slice and any way you evaluate it, $200 billion is still unaffordable to Canadians and would STILL make the First Nations one the wealthiest demographic in the world at tremendous and unaffordable expense to Canadians. $200 billion, whether as a trust, up-front settlement or as an annuity (do you know what that word means?) is a liability equivalent to increasing our national debt level by 40%. Well there you have it. Now I've dealt with the other figures mentioned. How amiable do you think Canadians will be to paying $6000 each to make every First Nations inhabitants instantly wealthy? You've not presented anything in this entire thread that WAS NOT ad hominem. You're the equivalent of a forum troll. You ask questions, have them answered, and then when asked questions yourself you squirm and wiggle and change the subject and context of the argument. Let's look at your last bunch of posts: For someone so opposed to ad hominem, you certainly do more than your fair share of it. In fact, over the last 5 pages of this thread you've posted absolutely nothing to actually contribute to the discussion. You've asked deflective questions in an effort to change the subject and you've attacked posters, but you've not answered a SINGLE question anyone has asked you nor have you been willing to back up any of your opinions with either fact or reason. Since you're not willing to discuss any of the numbers I've been using (which I got from you and CR), why don't you present me with some of your own? I invite you to present me with numbers or proposals you think likely and reasonable and then you and I can discuss them? Does that sound good? I doubt it will. It's pretty obvious your realm of expertise is asking questions and changing subjects. You won't actually state a solid opinion, nor are you able to defend one. Even the most mediocre posters here can disassemble your thought process and reveal it to be the load of garbage that it is. I think it's more a matter of that being all you're capable of. You've yet to show us otherwise.

Hahahaa nicely done. I like what you're doing here. Keep it up.

That's about my view of things. Anytime I've been to emergency (for myself or for someone else) it's taken HOURS to be seen.

This is just getting funnier and funnier by the minute isn't it. I'm actually excited every time I open up this thread to see what sort of hilariously stupid comment CR will come up with next.

She's an idiot. She'll likely get REPLACED. Perhaps she won't step down, but if she doesn't then she'll just get ousted.

Smallc it's a dumb question anyways. We don't need F-35's to fight the Taliban. That much is obvious. We MAY need them to fight future threats that are better equipped than the Taliban, however. The Taliban are the most ass-backwards enemy we could find anywhere. Moving forward, it's almost GUARANTEED that any enemy we face will be better equipped.

This is what I meant by the difference between you and CR. CR will actually say something retarded like "math is a myth" when presented with solid figures. You, on the other hand just ignore, deflect and cower behind glib one-liners whenever you're pressed on one of your idiotic assertions. I'm not sure which one is more pathetic. How is the math "daft"? Please, share your ineptitude with us. I'm sure we'll all get a good chuckle. Again, please enlighten us. Explain to us how else you're supposed to appraise a $1 trillion Trust. Once again, I'm sure you can't and I'm equally certain you'll not respond to any of these questions. That's how you operate. You're happy to challenge literally EVERYTHING people say that you don't agree with, but you're pathetically incapable of supporting your own points. Beautifully stated bambino. I don't think it's possible to put it any better.

Changing the context or topic is your realm of expertise. Here you're just trying to confuse the issue. What realistic difference does it make whether or not we're talking about a $1 trillion settlement or trust? A trust is a legal arrangement where property is managed for the benefit of another party. How would a $1 trillion trust held for the benefit of a tiny First Nations population be acceptable to ~10 million Ontarions? Neither are affordable. My basic argument remains unchanged and unchallenged. It doesn't make sense to make a tiny minority fabulously wealthy at the great expense of the majority. You made that up yourself. I never said that so it's pretty irrelevant. I said that $1 trillion in settlements (or trusts it doesn't matter) is entirely unaffordable and thus impossible. That's practically Canada's entire GDP for a year. Something isn't clicking in your brain. You asked if the Crown can seize land. I said yes, but that's no indication on how big future settlements would be. My 'say' has nothing to do with it. The Crown's adherence to common sense (another concept that escapes you) is what matters. Not only have you demonstrated you have no understanding of legal theory at its most basic level, you've also been proven (about a dozen times in this thread) to have no clue about our legal system here in Canada, particularly on the subject of what the Crown is and from where it gains its legitimacy. That's all you and CR are doing: Fantasizing. The $1 trillion in trust for the First Nations will coninue to elude you and we'll continue to snicker at your belief in it. Just to clarify, by scale I mean size. From your quote I'm not sure you get that. The size of claims being settled, and the speed at which they're being settled, indicate that the total value MIGHT end up being something like 2-3% of that $1 trillion when it's all said and done. There is absolutely ZERO indication ANYWHERE that this is incorrect. Yes. I do have proof. $1 trillion = $1,000,000,000,000. There are 700,000 First Nations inhabitants in Canada 1,000,000,000,000 / 700,000 = $1,428,571 in settlements (or Trust) for every single one of them if what you and CR is saying is correct If you want to see what impact that has on Canadians, simply do the math 1,000,000,000,000 / 33,300,000 = $30,000 is the cost to each Canadian In 2005 the average net worth of Canadians was $148,000. A $30,000 liability, whether it be in the form of trust or settlement (makes absolutely no difference) instantly evaporates 20% of their wealth. So, again, I ask the question: Why would the Crown (which gains its legitimacy from the People of Canada), judge in favor of making 700,000 Natives instant millionaires and in so doing erase 20% of every Canadian's wealth? If it were to do that, why would the Canadian People continue to support the Crown? Without the support of the People, who would enforce the Crown's will? I'm betting you won't answer those questions, because you and CR squirm and disappear or change the subject whenever you're actually pressed with reason supported by FACT. My FACTS there were the math and you can't argue with that. From the FACTS, I came up with a few questions. Answer them or go home. Finally, in anticipation of another dumb argument, don't try and tell me that a $1 trillion Trust makes things any more reasonable. Whether they settle this amount up front or as an annuity, it's still the exact same cost. It's unaffordable, and thus it doesn't make sense.

August I don't mean to be rude...but really? You had to make a THIRD thread on the exact same subject??? There are already 2 threads on the first page of this forum complaining about the F-35. Seriously.

It seems you don't understand what logical means either. It's pretty simple. Centuries ago, the British Crown made all sorts of different agreements with its First Nations allies and signed treaties. Hundreds of years, and countless subsequent agreements later, the terms, context and conditions of these treaties changed. Nonetheless, it's fair to say that the First Nations have not been dealt with in good faith. As a society that respects the law and concept of fairness, the Crown should do what it REASONABLY can to make amends. As such, we've seen all sorts of land settlements and I'm sure we'll see more within reason. That's the basic point that you and CR seem to drown in. Reason isn't in your vocabulary. The people whose property is seized, however, are reimbursed by the government. Why? Because it would NOT be fair or reasonable to kick them off land they worked for and purchased. No I'll tell you what actually happened. CR and I were arguing over the SCALE of future settlements. We were not arguing about whether or not future settlements would actually happen. Your question, therefore, was completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. For the record, I answered your question with a "yes", but the fact that the Crown CAN seize land has no bearing on the question of how big the settlements will be. It's another example of how bad you and CR are at formulating a reasonable argument. The 'revolution' I spoke of was no less likely than the settlements CR claims will happen. Let's try answering your question with a series of questions. An intelligent, inquisitive mind would have figured this out a long time ago, but let's see if you can catch up: 1. Why would the Crown (which gains its legitimacy from the people of Canada) enforce lopsided judgements in the favour of the First Nations that would impoverish tens of millions of Canadians for the benefit of a tiny minority? 2. Supposing the Crown actually did that, why would the people of Canada continue to support it? 3. If the Crown lost the support of Canadians, who would enforce its will? Any reasonable and intelligent being should always be asking, "Why?". My answer to your question is implied in the questions I asked you. Make an effort to answer those questions and I'll answer anything you ask. I promise.

I think it's pretty clear their educations go anywhere near that far