Handsome Rob

We'll see something like this come back sooner rather than later, and the Sam will have some serious evolving to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-136_Tacit_Rainbow

The problem stems from the fact that those jets started rolling off the assembly line between 15-30 years ago. When we start retiring our hornets 10-15 years from now, they're going to run into the same problem we have right now. Need a car, do you buy a 2010 Accord or a 1976 Rambler to save money in the near term? Do you buy milk that's going to expire tomorrow to save a few bucks? The F-35 is the choice out of necessity. There aren't any viable alternatives. What is the point of saving a billion dollars today, if we're going to spend it in a decade doing the same thing, in addition to the frightening costs in the billions of retraining pilots & crew on new equipment?

So basically ban everything then?

I will, as soon as you (North Americans) stop: -Driving your car. -Filling our landfills with never ending refuse leaking hazardous chemicals. -Using so much energy to end things like the proverbial environmental black hole of the tarsands. -Conducting so much trade with overseas manufacturers and the endless amounts of pollution and hazardous chemicals their factories produce. -Allowing people carrying airborne spread illnesses from showing themselves in public. .... But the political football tumbles on. Look out fat people and fast food consumers, you're next. The campaign of banning is more intolerant than Radical Islam....."Forget all the things I'm doing that are 15 times worse, YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!"

Would this be any different than what other networks routinely release in financial reports to their stake-holders?

So he alleges. Not being named in the original fiasco doesn't make him innocent, or guilty. I'm certain as the truth unravels, a morsel of evidence will be uncovered, perhaps incriminating one person, 15 peoples careers will be ruined, and most Canadians will forget about it before the government even finishes dealing with it.

It's not anger, really. I believe in rehabilitation, for non-violent crimes not involving copious amounts of value, I don't think they should even bother with prison time, a C. record is punishment enough. But at some point, one has to realise that rehabilitation has failed, and the duty becomes to protect society by preventing the perp from re-offending. Best way to accomplish this is to keep them locked up in a humaine way. Forget three strikes, but at some point you have to say, OK, I quit. That, and I find the idea of somebody getting less than 10 years before parole for murder, repulsive.

Isn't that an oxymoron? Theorized citizens taking the law into their own hands because perpetrators aren't punished, somehow being punished for doing so?

We do that too. Well, post sentencing jail time. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1179993.html

Does this ideal include people with 32 priors?

Doesn't a guilty plea suggest a bargain?

And you don't make any money doing it so nobody cares.

You really think that is the case? I don't really think it will cut cost that much, well that I've seen. I've participated in a couple elections at the party level, helping out friends that volunteer, scrutineers, that type thing. I think the big difference between us and our neighbors is that they do a lot of voting. Do you want this bridge? Do you want proposition 8? Etc. What we be the point in investing all of that money for it to sit un-used 99% of the time?

Why do you keep comparing present day to Reganomics? Reaching minimal failure compared to complete failure is an accomplishment to be proud of?

But check the records. Look at the most meaningless private members bill and you will rarely (never?) see more than 5% voting against party positions.

I too am a pessimist, waiting for any sort of a solution to present problems. At this point I feel we have done nothing constructive in the last 10 years at least. I think our best case is global scale war or some sort of disease pandemic to eliminate 2/3's of the population and thus curb energy consumption, because at present, I do not believe humanity capable of solving the problems we have created for ourselves.

Just look at the voting records, (emphasis on) pretty much, all of them vote with the party the majority of the time.

B, but not without question. Simply look at the Republican bailouts to the south, is it really a Liberal ideology alone anymore? Others may call it funneling money into the private sector to promptly disappear.

I think the problem is the ever growing 'me first' mentality of the populace. Problem: MP is faced with a vote that is good for the nation but bad for the local population. MP votes yes, local population unhappy, nation better off. MP votes no, local population happy, nation doesn't gain. An MP backed by the party stands a far better chance of weathering the next election than an independent.

http://howdtheyvote.ca/ If the electorate supports the individual, then it isn't a problem, they'll elect the individual. The problem, I think, is the autocratic voting process that makes the electorate support the party and to hell with the individual.

Unparalleled partisanship aside, what is the point in having a government if one cannot even get the budget signed?

How much of that has to do with the size of tax revenue's and economic climate? How much pressure is being applied to further 'stimulus' spending? Isn't it our present day opposition that has placed consistent pressure on the government to increase budgets? I agree, I'd elect a lamp post if it cost less, but as of right now I think the Harper government, until the Liberals stop acting like the NDP, is the best bet as fiscal conservatism, not without it's penalties, but nothing is free.

In what scope of time? I wasn't alive at the time, but I can't imagine Pearson, Laurier or even Defenbaker being close to as bad as any post-Trudeau government.

Pretty much all televised news sucks everywhere.

After 52 priors, keeping them locked up for an extended period of time keeps them off the streets, keeps them from re-offending because they're in prison. I'm all for rehabilitation, 1st, 2nd, 3rd chance, hell, 10th chance, but at what point does somebody give up? Beyond that, I find the idea of somebody being in prison for murder less than 10 years repulsive. In murder you take something that cannot be given back, it's punishment, forget about rehabilitation.