AlienB

I did have a second thought on this just now, that sure if the objective is to stop the behaviour from happening then yes it is a foot in the door to stop corrupt dictatorships, although I don't agree with the practice in principle the objective is merited. I think Anne Frank would agree, and that STOP HARPER girl. Where was Michael Chong when she was getting booted from Parliament? Huh? Is it too late, and then they came for you? And people say she was in University. there is probably some young girl in the middle of the Ottawa River with cement shoes for all we know! But saying what a party can do and letting members of the party decide who PM is by legislation. Its like saying MY PARTY is a DICTATORSHIP, can we not all agree that it will be an Oligarchy? Can we not have multiple tyrants instead of just one? What is the commons again? It establishes the case that that is how PM is suppose to be appointed, no no, you don't let the majority or major party decide who is PM, that is the role of parliament, and that is what the confidence vote is for. If you are part of a party that says you can't cast your own vote or you are out of the party.. that is your own damn fault for joining it if you don't want to be a stooge Mr. Chong. Cast your own vote and instead of going to Caucus go door to door in your own riding with that time saved where you would just be nodding your head and trying to angle yourself to but level. Maybe you and Mr. Trudeau could cast up a Merry old time, people run him not the other way around. You might be able to get support from your fans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bf9lUdRWFA

Is that a balloon mounted SAM or a Plasma based sam? Not SAM AAMs Advanced slings etc.. The stuff will have to be in the air already as space deployment is disallowed. Fact is that the fast systems need to be airborn to be effective. If you can't launch fast enough your missiles are going to be gone before you can launch unless they are very very well hidden. The cost of that is incredilous. Then you have those SDI systems but based on land with THEL systems. There are even some crazy antiproton systems. there is no doubt though airbursts like seen in Russia and Canada are some of the only wide area defence systems. Ground everything if battle is possible just blow up the sky, and open up with highspeed laser systems over large areas. The only way you can defeat future systems is area denile. wide area denile systems (WADS)

That looks sexy. ps in AlienB tech Industries. The greyblue paint would be radar and thermal dissipating paint. Scram jets are sick when they get to the mach 9-13 range. Second only to tungsten rods from space Tungsten clusters dropped from hypersonic scramjets, tastey. If only the logic of, those planes will only fight in one war, held, you could give the f35s that type of engine. If you can't see it you can't shoot it. Electron Theory. Unless of course you just spray everywhere with high energy or shrapnel as soon as things start blowing up. Or set up plasma exhaust systems that can deploy in 0.000000000000003 seconds. Cause metal doesn't normally fly in the air, and anything not molecularly air is like either a bird waiting to be cooked or a mechanical one much the same. designation by omission of capacity to be. It should be blatantly obvious that hypersonic scramjets make all military aircraft mostly redundant, if they are two stage. The sheer exception is incredily remote locations like antarctica. Where there is no safe launch area within 1000 or 2000km or so. This at the same time short distance engagements at relative long distances are capable with rail gun systems both ship, and land based, and potentially airbased.

Looks a bit like the downed drone over Iran. It is getting a little silly. I would think you would be able to build advanced drones that act like cruise missiles for about the same cost as a smart bomb these days. There are so many target acquisition systems, target desgination, advanced GPS and see through building sensors capable of advanced material identification, LIDAR etc.. can hardened systems not be made. It almost makes as much sense to be flying spruce gooses painted greyish blue. - No worries it is just a giant wooden airplane, can't possibly be an American aircraft, perhaps it is North Korean or from Africa? The Guatamalan Airforce? It seems gautamala will have more aircraft than Canada if the F35 program goes ahead, well nearly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Air_Force Is there some reason Canada needs a big military? Lots of expensive aircraft. Do you think America would buy as much if they wern't buying from American companies? Who exactly is Canada bombing? Is there some reason the US can't do it? Is there some shortage of military equipment capable of bombing third world countries. Can't it just adopt a nuke or two instead? God forbid a conventional war with China, India or Russia. Is there someone else capable of swimming across the three large oceans that seperate us. Who is attacking, or who is Canada attacking?

No, it is about legitimizing the current extortion conducted by the party. MP's have free votes. If you don't want to follow the party rules don't follow the party rules, start your own party. The bill is nonsense to be in parliament. This bill is trying to determine how political parties run themselves, and that is nonsense. People should be able to freely associate and as long as those associations live up to mortmain and corporate ethics then there is no legal issue. If it ain't against the law there shouldn't be laws forcing private parties how to act and carry on their business. However if there is any extortion ongoing then that is criminal, look up extortion in the criminal code. If the court system wasn't so corrupt in Canada then there would be protections from extorting MPs. None the less if you don't want to follow party rules start your own party such as the Free Conservatives of Canada. Or join the Social Party, a party that is libertarian and respects individuals rights to self determination so long as it doesnt violate others fundamental personal freedoms EXTORTION 6. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. If it ain't extortion who cares, you want change in how your party operates change how the party operates. You don't have voice in your party but want to run it, the choice is obvious, start your own party cause the one you are in isn't. The cabinet soildarity principle is fairly well established but we must realize ultimately it is the crown that appoints cabinet, and that mechanism is by who is selected as prime minister through conventions that have long existed, is there a reason why the convention should turn the PM into a second speaker of the house to be voted up and down at the floors wishes? Generally speaking the PM has higher standing but all P.C. privy counsellors have direct input into privy council and thus the office of PM. However we know how this thing works. This is basically I want to be in the party but don't want to follow its rules. The issue is not how the party is run, the issue is that you support a party, even today that runs itself that way. The real solution is to say I am out if you don't do it this way. That is all there is to it. However in Machevellian prose it is obvious some stooge will just take your place if there are party supporters out there who don't agree with or don't hear your reasons. But if that is the case you were a stooge to begin with. None the less, hopefully things sort out but the fact you are still in if the conduct of the party is contemptuous means you are supporting the wrong party.

Well leave caucus if you arn't a member. If I'm not mistaken normally there is a leadership convention for party's and confidence votes for governments. caucus has nothing to do with parliament other than perversions that have been grafted by partisan corruptions and de facto function, as opposed to de jure realities.

This is just hilarious, there is something called a confidence vote. Why make a law to limit power you already have? It is basically trying to legitimize the powers that the Governor General already has. The PM can be replaced at anytime. The PM has no term. Only governments have terms. These are just perversions to provide privileges that don't already exist. It looks all dandy but the fact is, they already have those powers. They could pass a motion to achieve as much. The act actually doesn't "limit power" it actually serves to create a case for how the role of the PM works, as opposed to the broad capacities of the house to vote in confidence or not. The GG is left to determine the course of action. In some respect what it does is limits the power of the governor general, not the PM.

Well without going into depth with how budgets are forward projected, this means all debt incurred is not just for the fiscal year in question. http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/ We have an easy 200 billion various other programs, and bonds put that over 300 billion. If you have time I can go more into depth on all the spending you don't think about that exists. As well as spending that is being defered to future years but is being paid into now and that money really doesn't exist now except for those programs but is being spent anyway creating a greater burden on the future costs which is in effect spending tomorrows money today. It just isn't transparent to the uninitiated. Its a bit like how the Conservative Government viewed the F35 as a 9 Billion dollar purchase for super jets without engines and no additional costs to fly. Program costs are not all costs, and the consolidated revenue fund aint just for programs. This years budget is not this years budgets there are also future projections which are costs that arent realized but budgetted for. You buy 40 billion dollar ships today you are spending 40 billion dollars today you just arnt paying until tomorrow. That is still debt you are creating for the public even if it isnt on everyones tax radar yet, you are paying for it and you will be paying for it. You need to think proactively about the real costs. Selling 10 billion of GM stock means you don't get that revenue from dividends, but you need to question what costs more dividens or interest on debt? If you are making more of the dividens why not pay the debt interest with the dividens. Is it just to look good for an election year? What is the real cost in ROI bearing the weight of assets and liabilities ... ask yourself what costs more. Say GM shares pay out 1.5% per year what is the interest rate on the bonds annually? say GM peg in a $40 a share and the pay out is 60 cents per share you can see how that roi is rational that it will take a long time to see return on those but they are creating revenue something the government has wrongly depended on taxation for for the last 100 years. They need to keep the revenue streams and convert tax payer funds into revenue streams. They need to cut costs so that they don't pay money they don't have and they don't need to tax people to pay it. It may make sense to cash out of GM but if you are going to build ships why not buy shipyard shares where you are pumping 40 billion dollars into for ROI on the investment because its like taking a percent of your investment. None the less it still defeats the premise of lowering costs. Selling assets is not lowering costs, it is buying time. While deflation must be done sensibly it should not be faked by selling assets like GM and the CBC and pretending you are a houdini of budget control. Its not even balancing the budget anymore its balancing the deficit. Sure the GM stock may only be 100 million of revenue each year which may be small fries for big government but it is revenue the government needs to maximize ROI and stop depending on taxes to pay its bills.

I know maybe they can apply the 3 Billion surplus to the 300 plus billion in debt they've accumulated since 2008. But really how much of that surplus is from the sale of GM shares that cost how much? This seems to be perhaps just a asset sale rather than a budget victory. In the US it amounts to 10 billion in losses how much in Canada? This article says it cost 13.7 Billion so is that a 3 Billion Surplus or a 10 billion fake deficit shell game? http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05/31/canadas-auto-bailout-still-waiting-for-payback/ http://blogs.wsj.com/canadarealtime/2013/09/11/canada-sheds-gm-shares-as-it-eyes-bottom-line/

What and risk going to jail as a regular person? Being PM has percs like being very difficult to throw in jail.

Sounds like SmallC would be happier in the US where there is a seperation of church and state. Religion is definately supressed in Canada, but bear in mind Anglican Cannon Laws forms part of the constitution of Canada and likewise the defence of the Catholic faith in areas of New France is constitutionally gaurenteed. None the less most people not of those religion probably don't want them to be the dominant religions but they are legally. None the less, the law really doesn't matter much, its not followed anyway. If you don't have government religious policy you'll have religious poeple in government with passive religious values. There really isn't anything to religion but funny symbols anyway. It more or less just amounts to philosophy. ---- I am hopeful eventually Canadians will wake up and grant universal non licensed access to weapons. The right to bear arms is an old right and the basis of not allowing a public militia is only supporting a police state where individual liberties and rights are more grossly violated. People will still kill anyway and people can make guns to do killing anyway if they want. Why block the commerce? Illegal people will do illegal things anyway. Guns are way too restricted. It is absurd that people in remote northern areas can't buy or use restricted weapons because there are no shooting clubs in their back of the woods.

http://www.albertasurfacerights.com/articles/?id=1463 ", the company reported that 43 per cent of 6,692 offshore wells tested in the Gulf of Mexico by U.S. regulators were found to be leaking" http://www.ucalgary.ca/wasp/Well%20Integrity%20Analysis.pdf This goes hand in hand, with "we don't need to protect any waterways"

It happened in Alberta at a number of sites. Here is one more recent report in relation to some of the issues. There are numerous examples about problems with uncontrolable leakage. http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/10/09/AB-Regulator-Fracking-Suit/

From what I have read of the the cuts they are mostly aimed at administration, and services. However, one must realize a chuck of the defence budget went to Afghanistan. There is talk much of the savings will be found in not having any major deployments. Technology is changing quickly. The Rafale is still in development. The F35 isn't done development either. This is why I support a limited acquisition and wait and see approach. Likewise conversion of the CF-18's to drones. The F-35 is too unknown. It is best to wait for the US invasion of syria or Iran to see how it performs. It just makes no sense to put all in. While Canada does need aircraft for some roles. There is no foreign deployment it is needed for in the short term. The US has more than enough of them to bomb 3rd world countries with. My gosh, if the US ain't interested in bombing that undeveloped state, I gasp to think Canada would want to.

Canada doesn't have a strike fighter further it has me wonder seriously why the hell Canada is buying into a strike fighter. A government facing the polls very may give a bone to the public on this issue to appease those with more common sense. It could happen. Going all in on this for the next 30 years is just complete stupidity with the information available. The US has no plans on that course of action and either should Canada. The plan has to budget for future acquisitions the price tag and quantity isn't right.