ReeferMadness

Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass. I've posted a number of sources that say not only would the Gripen be cheaper to buy, it's operating costs (which are much more than the purchase cost over time) are far far less than the butterball. Why are you hooked on this particular shiny trinket? Do you have shares in Lockheed Martin like the others around here who want war toys in their stockings?

Apparently, when you're a hardcore butterball supporter, nothing else will do!

The current meteor won't fit in the butterball - they "plan" to modify it.

It's too late - the jury has already found these two bozos guilty. Now the judge has to decide if the RCMP's illegal actions constitute entrapment.

So, we agree. They were a mistake and it would be another mistake to buy the butterballs.

You can use the F35 as an air-to-air combat fighter and use the Gripen as a ground attack bomber but that doesn't mean the 2 are equally good at both tasks. I can use a rock as a hammer - that doesn't mean it's as good as an actual hammer. The Gripen is faster, has better thrust-weight ratio, lower wing loading (implying better maneuverability), much lower operating costs and can operate off of short, snowy runways. Unlike the butterball, the Gripen will definitely be able to use the new meteor missile (which will be much superior to the American AIM-120) The only advantages of the butterball are stealth ability (which could always be nullified by future technical improvements) and inter operability (which is a mixed blessing in my view because it inevitably means we get dragged into stupid wars).

Human Rights Watch has expressed concerns over this case. And the presiding judge came close to declaring a mistrial over inflammatory tactics used by the prosecution.

Yes but maybe we would get a fighter that could defend our air space instead of becoming a cog in the big NATO war machine. No bomb trucks for us. And as for the gap, we could buy Gripens. Even if we only kept them for 20 years, the much lower operating costs would result in net savings compared to the butterballs.

Great thinking.

Maybe we should get in on that and leave the butterballs for someone else.

Sure, let's all focus on the latest Russian war porn as a distraction. That way, people won't be inclined to ask intelligent questions - like where did ISIS come from and why has 14 years of bombing only made the problem of Islamic extremism worse.

I guess the UK has a turkey shortage. No point letting a perfectly good terrorism panic go to waste - time to ramp up the military spending.

Careful, now. You're dangerously close to disagreeing with "hang-em-high" Harper.

In fairness, it would be a lot easier for principled politicians (they do exist) to say and do the right things if people would become better informed. The media could definitely do a better job there. There are too many people who vacillate between apathy and fear.

In the sad case of Amanda Korody and Jeremy Nuttall, a pair of deluded addicts convicted of planning to plant a bomb at the BC Parliament buildings on Canada Day, the RCMP went above and beyond to get their man (and woman). Left to their own devices, the pair were reportedly more inclined to play video games than anything else. At least twice, they were castigated for failing to write terrorist plans for their undercover RCMP masters.. When they did prepare a plan, it was to attack a Via rail service in Victoria that had been discontinued 3 years earlier. Other plots hatched by the two included firing short range missiles and commandeering a nuclear submarine. Their RCMP handlers told them to come up with something more practical. At one point, they demanded guidance from an Imam who would confirm that this was really in keeping with Islam. In the hours of secretly recorded conversations, they discussed backing out but expressed fear that their RCMP "jihadi warriors" would kill them. In short, it's highly questionable whether these two would have done anything without assistance from the RCMP. Here's the kicker. The investigation involved 240 officers for 4 months. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/11/24/BC-Terror-Trial-Twist/

I'm happy with you accepting the risk - providing I don't need to accept it as well.

We have 2 major adversarial institutions - criminal law and party politics. Both are in a constant state of disrepute. I don't think that's a coincidence.

I don't believe there are two mutually exclusive groups. When laws are created, politicians always cite the worst case examples to justify them. Inevitably, a whole bunch of more nebulous cases (which are probably more the rule) get dragged into the "justice system". Law and order types (and the NRA) like to believe that you can neatly divide the world into "law abiding folks" and "criminals". The real world isn't like that. I think the police already have too many "tools". I don't trust them to not abuse them.

Western bombs fill ISIS with joy. The only thing that could make them happier is western boots on the ground. What will it take for us to learn?

Who are these non-criminals? I understand they theoretically exist (like unicorns) but do they really? Between youthful mistakes, human error, human propensity to cheat when nobody is looking, dumb-ass prohibitions and overly broad laws, is there really anyone out there who has truly not committed at least one criminal act in his/her life?

Ranked ballots is not a PR system.

Wouldn't it be hard to stab anything (even a metaphor) to death with a protractor?

If you really want to hurt ICBC, here's how you do it. Contact the Ministry of Transportation and the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and demand that they work on regulations for self driving cars. The overwhelming majority of accidents are caused by drivers and are therefore avoidable. Once you get drivers out of the cars, the accident rates will plummet and insurance rates will need to plummet with them. ICBC will no longer make economic sense and with its reason for existence gone, it will disappear. Sure, it will take a while, but I would say it's inevitable. People just aren't very good drivers. They're easily distracted and prone to risk taking.

On the flip side, ICBC deals with a lot of fraud artists. I knew a guy who had a nice safe union job and was suing ICBC for an accident that happened years previous. He was only able to work part time because his injury was bothering him. Once his claim gets settled, he's suddenly able to work full time. Then he quits his safe union job to work independently where he has no extended medical benefits, sick leave or disability insurance. It's pretty hard to prove fraud in cases like this but you have to look and shake your head. ICBC's mandatory insurance is regulated by BCUC and the business is supposed to be run to break even over the long run. There are 2 factors that negatively affect ICBC's rates that are beyond its control: 1. BC is one of the few jurisdictions that run on a full tort system (meaning there is no limit to damages that can be awarded, other than the limit of the insurance). 2. ICBC is an insurer of last resort. Unlike private insurers they must insure everyone. Many of the rules are set by the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (OSMV) for drivers and the Ministry of Transportation for vehicles. BC does not have no fault insurance. Quite the opposite, it is a full tort jurisdiction.

The Russian media aren't exactly famous for being impartial. And this is the first I've heard that the Turkish plane was in Syrian air space. But what if it was? I don't think Assad wants NATO to pack up and go home because that's going to leave him and the Russians to face the all the various rebel factions, including ISIS. There's a reason that he was losing the civil war - he wasn't very popular.