justme

Exactly. The F-22 has the edge over the F-35, and it seems that the F-35 isn't going to be much cheaper than the F-22, but the F-22 isn't available for export and even if it was, it's not a multi-role plane. The F-35, however, does have some of the same technology as the F-22.

Canada has taken in more permanent residents from Pakistan than the US and UK from 1999-2006, and in some years, more than both the US and UK combined. It's worth noting that Osama is more popular in Pakistan than Obama is in the US. And, of course, stating that the US and the UK are the two countries that Canada has the most in common with in the world is simply stating the obvious. However, this trend has started to reverse since 2007. Source: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/research-stats/facts2008.pdf (Canada - Permanent residents by source country pg. 23)

I'm not reading through 24 pages to see if this has already been said or not, but: I think you'll find that the total price tag for the F-35s also includes maintenance and that the cost of the F-35s is actually much lower. My concern is whether or not 65 is enough. I mean, that's about half the number of F-18s that Canada bought and you can fit all of them on one US aircraft carrier. This seems to be a trend as they also cut down the number of F-18s when they upgraded them. Meanwhile, we have the second largest land mass in the world to cover and we're part of both NORAD and NATO.

They call it a big tent, which is what you need to win elections. Dion was a far left environmental nut, but he belonged to the same party as a fiscal conservative like Martin. The same holds true with the US btw. You like to go on about the Republicans, but the truth is that there is a lot of diversity in opinions within both the Democrat and Republican parties. There is no center party. The Conservatives are right of center, the Liberals are left of center and the NDP is far left of center. The Liberals and Conservatives do tend to move towards the center to gain support however, save when the Liberals try to take votes away from the NDP. Also, either you're forgetting or you're ignorant of the fact that the Conservatives won the most seats in Canadian history under Brian Mulroney. That election was also the last time that the winning party received over 50% of the vote - something Chretien failed to do even though he won 3 majorities.

I thought I was pretty clear that I take issue with Quebec slapping the rest of Canada in the face while it's more than willing to take their money year after year, and in fact, demand more. The Conservatives aren't the only federal party to choose from. I believe that uniting the right was one of the best things to happen in Canadian politics in years because it gives Canadians a viable alternative to the Liberals - neither the NDP nor the Bloc will form a government. I'm for a united country with a strong sense of national identity, clearly defined culture, common history and federal political parties that run in elections across the country. In other words, I'm for what keeps the country healthy. That means that I'm opposed to things that would threaten that such as separatism and multiculturalism.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/3088215524_ffd54d31f9.jpg

A majority government means that one party has the majority of the seats, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the majority of the population voted for or supports that party - see Chretien's 97 win for an example. Minority governments are the result of the vote being split among four parties. People who vote Bloc don't support Canadian federal parties period, and that takes away a significant number of the seats from federal parties. It's disgusting that a province that benefits, at the expense of others, from multi-billion dollar transfer payments every year, yet refuses to vote for political parties that represent the nation as a whole. By voting Bloc, they're essentially saying that they're happy to use Canadians, but don't want to be part of Canada. Also, to be consistent, you'd have to apply your argument about minority governments not only to Harper, but to Pearson and Martin as well.

To many of the people that complain about Harper, this is one of Canada's greatest leaders. Foot meet mouth.

I knew it was less than 1 percentage point difference, but by memory, I thought it was the other way around so I was off a little. That does nothing to change the fact that Chretien got a majority with a low percentage of the vote, yet it's always Harper's minority government that we hear about. Therefore, the point still stands: the people who complain about the percentage of the vote that the Conservatives got are hypocrites.

Funny, Pearson never had a majority either.

Iran is a Muslim country and to compare the Canadian PM to the religious leaders of Iran is absurd. Who is it that you think is f**king up US politics and how?

Actually, Christianity is an important part of Canadian culture and history. You're also wrong about the electoral system because he has a minority government with a higher percentage of the vote than Chretien got a majority with. If anything, if it was acceptable that Chretien got a majority with less, it's f**ked up that Harper doesn't have a majority. I like Harper because he upsets the right people and takes care of things that matter. You can complain about him all you like, but there's not a person in the Liberal party that has a hope in hell of replacing him.

That's not what I was saying at all. They want a piece of what's already been built here instead of building their own country. Do you think they'd want to come here if Canada didn't already have a high standard of living? No, they'd pick another country. Also: "But why look at these groups at all ? What suggests to you that we need to change how we've done it ?" The answer is in his paragraph.

That's why Peel Police has a diversity unit They come here for a piece of the good life instead of building their own countries into better places to live. It's like the little childrens story about the hen that baked a loaf of bread: nobody wanted to help, but everyone wanted a piece when it was done. And hey, when multiculturalism encourages them to bring their ways here, as though this country is nothing more than an empty glass to pour foreign cultures into, they get the best of both worlds.

We can do that too: It wasn't ethnic diversity in the West that won the Cold War; it was the fact that Western economies were open while the Soviet Union was closed, and it could not keep up with American military spending.

Canada's success is based on the fact that the US buys more than 77% of its exports not on it's ethnic diversity. The US sends no more than 20.1% of its exports to one country and the per capita income in the US is $8000 higher than in Canada despite the economic downturn. It is Canada that has catching up to do, but don't let facts get in your way.

Your idea of a generation is a little bit on the long side. However, countries like Canada, United States and Australia are young compared to other countries that still can't get it right.

France gave in to what they thought was inevitable in WWII. The British refused to give in and the Jews went on to create a country and have done pretty good for themselves. For better or for worse, the world is defined by those that take the driver's seat not by those that are content to sit in the passenger's seat.

Because someone else may have lived in your house before you bought it, does that mean that anyone off the street should be able to walk in when they want? Many Muslim countries used to be Christian, and no, I don't argue that they should return that land to Christians. European settlers built this country, and their descendents shouldn't have to feel like minorities. Instead of regurgitating the same old tired argument that liberals have been ramming down everyones throats for years, try thinking for yourself. And they have suffered terrorist attacks, racial riots and burning cars, to name a few examples, as a result, but hey, that's just part of life in utopia right?

The last Islamic invasion, not including recent immigration, of Europe ended September 11th 1683. You fail to grasp one of the key points that started this debate: the population of a democractic country should not have such radical change forced on them by people that are paid to represent them without their consent. If it is so good and has so much support, why use deception?

Or where they aren't qualified for the jobs that are available. It's called white flight and it's been around for decades.

Here's something for you to chew on: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid Lawrence Summers, who was Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, pushed for deregulation such as repealing the Glass-Steagall Act that caused much of the mess today. Guess who Obama chose for director of the White House National Economic Council? Now who is laughing?

You were saying?

erm... better check your math. Bush's deficits were measured in the billions; Obama's deficits are measured in the trillions. And what problems are the expenditures intended to fix? The financial crisis that started under Bill Clinton or the wars that Obama is continuing?

I never was, but I concede that the country has been choking on political correctness.