DogOnPorch Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Indeed...they could teach the Abbie Hoffman candy asses what hardship really means. Manila is only 800 miles...an easy row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Indeed...they could teach the Abbie Hoffman candy asses what hardship really means. Not to mention affluent Red State American conservatives..... ...and etc etc. So your point is meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Not to mention affluent Red State American conservatives..... ...and etc etc. Maybe....they didn't make any such distinction back in 70's when I spoke with them. So your point is meaningless. And yours is without any experience at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Manila is only 800 miles...an easy row. ...and the refugee camps were veritable resorts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) ...and whenever I hear the name "Abbie Hoffman", I ponder Yippies and death by Phenobarbital overdose. I wouldn't term myself a hippie. 1. free themselves from societal restrictions - I think natural law establishes law - there is a clear difference between acceptable thresholds of social behavior and restrictions due to political reasons of a specific group rather than the whole body. I am free, but there is a mediated social consensus - that doesn't always meet exactly with the bounds set by the government, that is why juries exist in part. Reasonable self action is freedom, not reckless endangerment or negligence of social behaviour ehancing the social fabric. Basically do what you want but know what you do. 2. choose their own way - this is paradoxial because we both have absolute choice and no choice at all as environmental products through stimulus response interactions. I beleive in both predestination and self destiniation - but I think things like this exist at a level of faith and that ultimately the grand system determines all, in that sense I am dead but experiencing my universal self fullfillment in my experiences. 3. find new meaning in life - I don't think this really equates with me. Life is the meaning. 4. standard of dress and grooming, which made hippies instantly recognizable to one another I do grow my hair, but I also have it tied up making it appear like short hair quite often. However my clothing choice ain't hippie. I tend to only buy smooth clothes. I like silk, wool for cold weather - I like wool pants, and athletic wear. I like scents also, like colonge if not too strong - as opposed to say pot which makes me nervous if I'm going to be flying within a few days. and no I don't smoke weed. Yes I do run into weed at random times say going to a shopping mall there will be some teens or young adults smoking some weed and they are between the path of the entrance to the mall and the car - those situations make me nervous 5. hippies declared their willingness to question authority, and distanced themselves from the "straight" and "square" (i.e., conformist) segments of society. I'm actually quite square, but have an advanced appreciation for "square with reason, and unreasonable square" Some things exist for a good reason, others don't. Also I don't question authority, they question me from time to times - often purporting false beleifs, or false statements on policy, or breach of policy to alter behaviour that is fully legal but not what they want me to do. I'm not much of a protester, I do however try to get the truth out. I don't force my beliefs on others. I'm not the most politically active person in terms of causes in my family. It is another false lable. I do beleive in the right to individuality, but I also beleive in the right to social cooperation. I think conformity is good, if it is conformity to good values. I can support things I can agree with based upon my knowledge of the overall picture and I invite myself to be convinced on issues that more information can be provided on. I hold myself according to that. It is a false potrayal to say I'm hippie, because I myself am not. Many hippie practices I don't see an issue with, but it doesn't mean I do those things. I'm actually more so a person who is detached from mainstream culture than counter culture. I was definately very open minded around 5 or 6 years ago, I've really grown beyond that now, I'm not strugling for identity and understanding anymore, I know and am. It is mediation ... with self sustainance and finding peace. |||| I don't fit the mold. My main contacts with the government are on ethics issues primarily that are domestic, or issues with government administration directly related to myself. ------------------------------- If you don't like my view that is fine, but trying to limit or marginilize my voice won't do you any good. -------------- Edited March 13, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 I wouldn't term myself a hippie. I said "Yippie"...not "Hippie"...learn the difference by studying American media more closely than you already do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) I said "Yippie"...not "Hippie"...learn the difference by studying American media more closely than you already do. I'm not yippie either I'm rurally based and a survivalist at heart. I like to travel. Doesn't fit. I'm really not professional at heart. I hate administration and red tape. ------- My only plans are travel and living in my place up North to do a little more surivalism practice. (some gardening, swimming, biking, hiking, plant identification, maybe some stone work etc.. You seem to have a false impression of myself. I'm not sure where it comes from. "DISAFFECTED" Dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them. I'm not hippie, I'm not yippie I'm "DISAFFECTED" Edited March 13, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 I'm not yippie either I'm rurally based and a survivalist at heart. I like to travel. Doesn't fit Congratulations...now go build Canada a new strike fighter out of wood and animal gut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Congratulations...now go build Canada a new strike fighter out of wood and animal gut. Ther is a temperature threshold for both those materials. So it means the velocity would be reduced. For instnace wood parts and animal gut lipids as lubricant. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2worldwar2.com%2Fmosquito.htm&ei=EiV9TfS6OIHXrAHjqd3NBQ&usg=AFQjCNGBtRrnx063mnlAa33FMsQXWcnzqQ&sig2=-UtJo6SZk57HucEjVkVhBg Also perhaps the gut could be used as a sail also http://www.piteraq.dk/flight/homesail.html Perhaps you could use the gut to store methane .. from decomposed wood and gut.. thus making it a glider/derigible, with a low speed wooden engine and papergut sail. http://woodgears.ca/air_engine/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighter_than_air#Methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_gliding http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FParasailing&ei=jCh9TdqrE9KMrQG56b3XBQ&usg=AFQjCNHPjlbNAPH_3frKdQa4pF5jQua8mw&sig2=2ZcmABmEBmRySiVA_FA6GQ Edited March 13, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Ther is a temperature threshold for both those materials. So it means the velocity would be reduced. For instnace wood parts and animal gut lipids as lubricant. No matter, as far superior Canadian woodsman technology can overcome such challenges. Show those arrogant Americans how it is done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 can you hear it? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_aircraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Congratulations...now go build Canada a new strike fighter out of wood and animal gut. That was a British plane, it was called a Mosquito. It was built in many Commonwealth countries during WWII. I figure we could do it in less than five years, if we really wanted to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) That was a British plane, it was called a Mosquito. It was built in many Commonwealth countries during WWII. I figure we could do it in less than five years, if we really wanted to. Until then...the deed remains unstarted and incomplete, so boastful talk will have to suffice. The Americans also worked with wood and sinew....it was called the Wright Flyer. Edited March 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 That was a British plane, it was called a Mosquito. It was built in many Commonwealth countries during WWII. I figure we could do it in less than five years, if we really wanted to. You're joking. The Mosquito was a brilliant airframe design that used non strategic materials. Aside from that nothing about it was new or revolutinary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 That was a British plane, it was called a Mosquito. It was built in many Commonwealth countries during WWII. I figure we could do it in less than five years, if we really wanted to. Fighters in WW2 cost about $500,000 in today's dollar figures. A cheap-end fighter of today's standard costs about 120x that. It would take 5-10 years simply to develop the infrastructure and technical expertise to even start a program like this and our economies of scale would be a joke compared to the US'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 ok, ok... let me see if I have it so far. There is time... for a free and open competition. now, I was a bit reticent in not commenting on your earlier suggestion concerning home-grown manufacturing/maintenance centers. That reads considerably more opportunistic than the false Harper Governmentâ„¢ assurances that avenues existed for Canadian companies to reap brazillions worth of supply contracts. I emphasize 'false' since it's now been shown that in 2006 the Harper Governmentâ„¢ did away with the requirement for guaranteed reinvestment, leaving no job guarantees. So, again, with time... and a free and open competition... we could actually leverage that competition to ensure, to guarantee, reinvestment/job opportunities in your described home-grown manufacturing/maintenance centers. Did I get that right? Yup. pretty close to the mark... But there's this here manufacturer called Boeing that in a few years will, for the most part, be switching it's entire PRODUCTION in the United States over to some BRAND NEW 6th generation airframe called UNMANNED FIGHTERS with all sorts of "wierd" performance stuff... And guess what, it's got this here gen 4.75 Fighter Jet that a whole bunch of countries will still be flying for the next 40-50 years that will STILL be in production, and of course will still be needing servicing, SOMEPLACE... Low and behold the company is offering this here "good neighbour" an opportunity to take over ALL of that (well, not ALL, they'll still do SOME of the servicing on US planes), for ALL the planes having the F-18 designation world wide... Ain't that somethin'? 'Course Canada' would have to be flying the planes they service themselves, so it don't look too promising right now, but we'll see, things can change quickly in Canadian political circles... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 ...'Course Canada' would have to be flying the planes they service themselves, so it don't look too promising right now, but we'll see, things can change quickly in Canadian political circles... Why? If there is a depot level maintenance opportunity in Canada, that would be true regardless of the Canadian aircraft. As it stands today, this work goes to American contractors in Canada (e.g. Harris). Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Good luck! Thanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Finally the Harper government has come and said the price of the jet isn't fixed and he thinks it will be around 70-75 per plane. That price can still change if other countries, don't buy as many or even withdrawal their order. The US can also hike the price of the codes for the software to fix them when its needed. Buyer beware for sure. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/14/pol-hawn-f35s.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 uhhh... SDD would seem to have a prototype flavour - in any case, that was my point... there is production... and there is... production. However, it is heartening to see there is a real (prototype) plane... in the air; one that has presumptions of being... production ready... by 2016. Not sure what your point is. As I've pointed out, not only do they have the first production model flying (you might want to argue whether it truly is a "production" model), the U.S. air force is still scheduled to take possession of the first batch in this fiscal year. (Even the link provided by GWiz shows that). So, GWiz is still wrong... the F-35 is not "far from production". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 sar·casm   /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA Congratulations... you can look stuff up in the dictionary. Good for you. Your family must be proud. 6.that which is manufactured or is ready for manufacturing in volume (as opposed to a prototype or conceptual model) This is the final production model. Except that the U.S. air force is getting their first shipment this year. Sounds like they're "pretty close to production". If you want to LEARN, fine, but don't try to make out you know things you know NOTHING about... Really? Just like the way you were trying to make out like you knew about the F35 program, but you: - Got the variant of the F35 that Australia was buying incorrect? - Didn't even seem to know that they were buying F35s in the first place (since you praised their purchase of the Super hornet and criticized Canada for its F35 plans) - Characterized them as being nowhere near production even though your very own link points out that they're expecting their first shipment of F35s this year. (And that's real F35s... as in "We can load this up with weapons and blow stuff up") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Congratulations... you can look stuff up in the dictionary. Good for you. Your family must be proud. F35s this year. (And that's real F35s... as in "We can load this up with weapons and blow stuff up") You really are stupider, and a whole lot less useful, than a door knob aren't you? Here, I'll try again, see if you can understand any of this this TIME around... You know, I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here. You pointed to Australia's purchase of the Superhornet as "smarter" than Canada's planned purchase of the F35. I pointed out how you failed.. that the Super hornet was only a stop-gap measure. Where does the issue of "flying different types of planes at the same time come in? The issue isn't "will the airforce have more than 1 plane at the same time". (It will since it's impractical to replace an entire fleet at the same time.) The issue is will the Australians eventually replace their entire fleet with F35s. That is currently the plan. Really? News to me, since the last I saw, they were planning on buying the A variant.... From: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/kevin-rudd-signs-off-on-purchase-of-14-f-35-joint-strike-fighters/story-e6frg8yo-1225803790418 Senator Faulkner said the government had approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters... Is this yet another example of you blundering? Should we add it to the list? You know, perhaps before you start accusing others of engaging in (possibly) willful ignorance, you should consider all the mistakes that you yourself have made in this thread alone. So far we have: - The F35 is nowhere near production (sorry, they've already flown their first production plane) - Australia bought the F18 instead of the F35 (sorry, its only a temporary stop-gap measure) - Australia is buying the STVL version (Sorry, looks like they're buying the CTOL version) Maybe its time you did some reading yourself. sar·casm   /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms. Save it for NEXT TIME... PronunciationIPA: /pɹəˈdʌkʃən/, SAMPA: /pr\@"dVkS@n/ Audio (US) (file) Audio (UK) (file) [edit] Nounproduction (plural productions) 6.that which is manufactured or is ready for manufacturing in volume (as opposed to a prototype or conceptual model) This is the final production model. PLEASE go back to playing in your sandbox... You're even more stupid and less knowledgeble here than you were there... Therefore even more boring... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 You really are stupider, and a whole lot less useful, than a door knob aren't you? Here, I'll try again, see if you can understand any of this this TIME around... More ad hominem attacks. Really. You've lost the argument big time haven't you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted April 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) http://www.montrealgazette.com/expert+says+purchase+wrong+deal+Canada/4564357/story.html A US defence analyst has said the conservatives are out to lunch on their "vision" underreporting the costs of the F35. Saying the 75 million per plane might not even include an engine and the planes wouldn't be able to be flown. This line is gold He said Canada should pursue a "fly-before-you-buy" strategy, where several are aircraft are tested before a contract is signed. note an extra are has been inserted by the hackers controling online medium and "free speech..." yet another person the victim of the internet editing boogey men whoever they may be - --- even with more and more high profile data breaches occuring. Bear in mind their "balanced budget is gained by moving expenses into the future." This along side sale of debt laden bonds that are hidden from direct veiw. Harpers plan is hidden taxes -- since the cost defered method means there are future taxes that arn't accounted for in the current budget (250 billion in bonds were sold last year) likewise plans like this and the navy plan spread costs beyond the given term, meaning "there are going to be taxes for things that are bought, but arn't paid for in a given year -really non prudent fiscal policy. This plan has a decade repayment so taxes are spread over a decade for a purchase now if you add up the full cost NOW, then taxes rise dramatically, another example of economic voodoo. Edited April 6, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted April 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 Everything but the engine.... does this mean Canada needs to buy something to tow them too? http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.