waldo

yabut, such a determined highly profiled undertaking... why such a herculean effort to try to land the big ones? There must have been something driving it - yes? What could it be, what could it be? how many LRIPs were there to be initially... and what, (subject to yet further delay/change), will be the number of the "last" LRIP before full-rate? With concurrency and the need to bring forward all those LRIP jets, with all the known major problems still outstanding (the ones allowed to be made public), just when is that full-rate again? Since the other guy just felt keen to pump the Denmark sale, what F-35 state did the Danes actually evaluate? .

that's some fine Copy/Paste there... from a site notorious for it's absence of critical F-35 review/commentary. In any case you burst my bubble as I has seen the "detailed" review summation a few days ago - don't hesitate to speak to how those "Generals" a certain MLW member here so touts, managed to position the F-35 first in "military aspects", particularly survivability and mission effectiveness. Spoiler alert: it's a fine plane on paper... as you say, "it wasn't even close! The first plane delivery when? 2021 you say... wow, that's not even close!

now I am encouraged that you're recognizing number reductions... and acknowledging them; however, that's only a part of what I spoke to. Please encourage me even more by acknowledging the most significant drop in those initial F-35 commitment numbers - sure you can! as for the rest of your statements... the imaginary suggestion is spot on in regards to LockMart projection numbers. If you're going to press the point again, just come forward and present the firm/absolute numbers that the respective U.S. military branches will be purchasing. Of course you can't; anymore than you can present firm/absolute numbers for foreign nation sales. And that's the crux of one of the points I'm speaking to of late... trying to press you to acknowledge that no LockMart numbers projection means anything at this point given the state of flux over available funding. I'll ask you once again, why didn't Bogdan land any 'big fish' on his traveling road show to secure volume sales - is there a problem? Stay tuned for the beginning of the next wave of U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee meetings - starting next week. Care to speak confidently on the monies available for F-35s... notwithstanding what prioritization the respective branches of the U.S. military have had to wrestle with. C'mon take a stab! .

oh pleeese... trotting out the Camel, the Super Tucano... in yet another thread!!! And most of that unrelated stuff over the last 3 or 4 pages that has little if anything to do with the F-35 - there's been a recent, "stop thread drift" notification. .

now I recognize your pattern of trying to get yet another thread shut down; fwiw, my comment that you're whining about was in reply to your initial insult --- carry on! .

whaaa! That's an odd reply of yours to the post of mine you're quoting. This was your actual post that I replied to asking for a transcript... your original post where you state, "All the meetings with Boeing and Trudeau stating openly that we wouldn't buy the F-35 has nothing to do with the discussion, huh?" now that we've confirmed that you can't support your statement concerning Trudeau/Boeing meetings... let's also bring you current in regards that campaign reference you're trotting forward with to deflect from your inability to support your actual statement. Given litigious rumblings over the possibility LockMart might be excluded from an open competition, both Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Procurement Minister Judy Foote publicly and pointedly refused to exclude LockMart from the competition. How embarrassing for you, yes? Geezaz, there was such a flap over this by Rona Conservatives and acolytes... something about Trudeau breaking an election promise! .

no - I'm not defending you; not at all! However, when you make such an outlandishly targeted comment based on 'General Matthew Fisher from Postmedia', I will certainly provide the appropriate reference/perspective on Arctic sovereignty. You can choose to interpret a related factual critique of Harper Conservatives in the manner you've chosen... your prerogative! if the F-35 proves to match it's propaganda/hype, we should getSum... presumably at a reasonable cost. In regards your claim towards 12 NATO allies, "deciding to purchase", notwithstanding "deciding" doesn't buy nuthin, can you put some definition around that "deciding": how many F-35s have actually been purchased... not original commitments... not even rolled back commitments from the originals - how many have been purchased with contracts signed and money exchanged, by which countries and over what time frames? .

and... the extension on that rumour is that it's intended as a "gap-filling interim" measure... one that I interpret as a means to allow the F-35 to properly settle in and prove itself. As you point out, it seems there's a want to accept and push the rumour... but only to fit the narrative of "sole-source, long-term". Go figure! .

I'd like to be privy to those meetings/discussion... stating that openly. Do you have transcripts? .

you did? Then I'm shocked you let the statement from MLW member 'overthere' concerning Arctic sovereignty stand without offering your like perspective on Harper Conservatives doing diddly squat on the file! Shocked. Am I rubbin' ya the wrong way... is that why you're lashing out with the insults? .

I've not read or heard that; care to provide a cite to that end? . there's been no shortage of official (U.S. Republican led/charged) investigation into that incident. Do you have an official review/analysis, non-partisan fueled, that supports your statement? .

media influence... new media influence... 'Media and Broadcasting' forum - seems about right, yes? did that wascally so-called "Media Party" scourge do in Harper Conservatives? I would think this the perfect thread for those so holding on to the vestiges of Harper to let er rip - to really zero in on how that dastardly liberalMedia Party did its bestworst! No more drive-by one-liners slamming CBC, no more subtle references to the Rebel Commander's favoured target. We did a prior MLW thread on the "Media Party", but not focused on Justin Trudeau, the election and the azz-whoopin' Harper took! Time to put a concerted effort forward and really document the unfairness of it all! Oh wait... concerted effort... sorry, carry on! .

says who? It's a most interesting approach that appears to register just a tad too close for some here... but c'mon, just accept that crescent rolls (and croissants too) are a 2-way covert action - one side devouring Islam, the other side nurturing. .

Postmedia's Matthew Fisher? Apparently... that's one of the generals that another MLW relies upon here! Without speaking to the particulars of that article, just reading the linked title gives me pause... begs the question to you as to just what Harper Conservatives did in regards their much hyped emphasis on Arctic sovereignty? Remember, Harper's yearly photo-shoot doesn't count! .

you're asking? I'm shocked this thread went a similar way as... how many others? I would think you would have those/that number. I can tell you what I've read earlier this morning... that this is the 16th mass shooting that U.S. President Obama has had to come forward to the American people and speak to. Start there... do your 'Islamic math' on those 16 - yes? .

public presentation: reading cynic concerns that Clippy could return and fixmess with resumes! .

"LGBTQIAP+"... geezaz, that alphabet soup keeps getting longer and longer! But we learn stuff here - you made me look on a couple of those: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-spirited, Queer and Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Pansexual and other marginalized orientations/identities. what was actually stated by Defence Minister, Harjit Sajjan: "ISIS is a threat, no doubt about that. Should we fear it? No. The Canadian population should have full confidence in all the security services to keep us safe." now whether or not one accepts that statement and to what degree one accepts it, if the reference being used turns out to be this possible, "homegrown, radicalized, lone-wolf with uncertain mental faculties... and no criminal record", how might security services give you greater confidence, factoring the distinction between Canada and the U.S. gun culture and ready/easy access to assault rifles. .

early days yet... reading the guy repeatedly referred to as a 'devout Muslim', without any attached qualification to that end, gives me pause. The very nature of the "Lone Wolf" designate you apply calls into question, for me, what actual degree of indirect influence/motivation from "the outside force" was an actual driver. I'd certainly give it more credence if follow-up investigations bring more substantive weight to bear in that regard. And, again, just what mental state/capacity applies here? And, again, there's the described history of saying things... outlandish things... simply to get reaction/attention. .

oh kimmy! I missed it... if you saw it, where do peacenik and regular-JoeMo Muslims fit in the mix? .

I'm reading the picture of a guy who went out of his way to be noticed by saying almost anything... boasting in high school that Bin Laden was his uncle... I mean I guess that could be true??? To me, the fact the FBI investigated him 3 separate times and closed those investigations without substantive concern, that the FBI didn't have him on any active surveillance... to me, this certainly calls into question the reality of his "caliphate ties/allegiance". .

given your prolific related posting across many MLW threads... I think I'm not going out on a limb here in suggesting that, from your perspective, all Muslims are the radical ones... amirite? .

I'm shocked! Shocked that you'd single out this particular instance to imply, most broadly, that all American born children of immigrant parents don't integrate into American society. Shocked I tells ya! Notwithstanding, of course, the mental state/capacity of the individual... still under review/speculation. .

which is hardly a representative comparison. If nothing else, the JSF program has impacted upon potential sales for all other manufacturers... directly and indirectly as countries are waiting it out to see if the F-35 can actually prove itself. That, coupled with military budget cutbacks, recessionary impacts, re-prioritization within some countries, natural ties/allegiance to prior same manufacturer purchases, etc.. There's are reasons the head of the F-35's volume-sales pitch 'road show' didn't land those big fish... what are they? .

oh snap - I'm really feeling your burn! Considering you yourself indicated you don't have any knowledge on the subject matter, how are you able to determine "informed"? Reading your frustration come out in you once again referring to me as 'general' is gold, real gold! in the past I've brought forward many comments from the "real Generals" you presume to leverage... very critical comments towards the F-35. Invariably, some of those got walked-back once the "PR machine" went into damage control. But again, for your reliance to mean anything you actually have to demonstrate the end result of your "real Generals" translated on through to political will/approval extended to signed contracts; you know, the following that you continue to avoid or even acknowledge: - of the official JSF partner nations, (United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway)... how many F-35s have actually been purchased... not original commitments... not even rolled back commitments from the originals - how many have been purchased with contracts signed and money exchanged, by which countries and over what time frames? .

way to shake it up since your last like attempt - here: ... setting aside your prior reference and graphic actually has 2 years more data, c'mon, does using the word "rampage" rather than "mass" mean anything, particularly since the definition of "rampage" doesn't seem to exist in your linked article. In any case, I'll just offer up the same (now tailored) reply as last time, since there's a like attempt to diminish impact and the results are somewhat alike between your two respective references/charts: again, both your references (this latest) and the one from your prior post (link as provided above), choose a straight population per capita to arrive at a fatality number... instead of one aligned to the actual (estimated) number of guns within the referenced countries. In my prior reply I took the liberty to add an accompanying tally showing the number of guns per capita for the same countries shown (per the Swiss based Small Arms Survey). (notwithstanding that somewhat dodgy approach that includes outlier data skews where countries like Norway, Switzerland, Finland... have but 1 or 2 mass shootings in total as compared to the U.S.' 133 over the same period). .