Harper's election to lose? He's trying hard...

[GWiz]

Those two are not part of the election? I'm almost inclined to believe you

Poor Saipan, still don't understand the most basic rule in TROLLING do you?

I told you you can not catch anything without a good SPINNER bait on the end of your line instead of the bare hook you continue to use when you TROLL...

NOW, if Ignatieff WERE in power, and an upcoming election was HIS to lose, THEN you would be much more successful in your attempt to catch something... Maybe next TIME?

[GWiz]

It's pretty funny that you actually never hear this from Liberals.

I have that very same thought every TIME that idea is put out...

[GWiz]

In that case, I must congratulate you on your ability to keep your understanding of "context" well hidden.

You see, this is the type of logical disconnect that really illustrates a failure in rational thinking among people like yourself.

In that case, I must chide you on your total inability in understanding "context"...

You see, this is the type of logical disconnect that really illustrates a failure in rational thinking in people like yourself with comprehension difficulties...

You're welcome. No charge for the diagnosis...

Earlier on, you claimed things would somehow be 'better' with the Liberals in charge. Yet the Liberals themselves were pushing for that "US style Stimulus spending". You condemn the Conservatives for it, but you give a free pass to the Liberals/NDP.

Your comprehension difficulties continue to plague you...

I expressed my point of view to my Liberal friends, some Liberal MPs, and even Ignatieff DIRECTLY... It was not the first TIME nor will it be the last TIME I've disagreed with something the Liberal party does, has done, and probably will do... I also disagreed with the whole "coalition" concept, as did Ignatieff, so no problem there...

Since you can't comprehend the SIMPLE concept of an individual like myself having INDEPENDENT ideas and viewpoints that differ from a party I tend to support, for a great variety of reasons, having a discussion with people, like yourself, with a child like understanding of political issues, becomes very boring, very quickly...

I said;

"So? Stating that I said things I didn't say is YOUR argument? NOW, all you have to do is tell ME if YOU were/are FOR or AGAINST the Harper Regime's "stimulous spending?"

Your answer;

"I think that it may have been a waste to engage in the stimulus spending."

Glad we could agree on something...

You seem to be caught up in some self centered notion that I should care what YOUR warped opinions on totally irrelevent, certainly to this thread topic, subject matter is...

I don't give a damn about what your feeble mind conjures up as being "facts" since I've lived what you may (although I doubt the comprehension skills to do so) have read somewhere...

I tell you that Harper PROROQUED PARLIAMENT rather than debate the "stimulous" issue, you ignor the FACT...

I SHOW you where the Harper Regime BUDGETS $178 MILLION (a HUGE amount to start with) for the G8 AND G20 summits that THEN becomes $1.1 BILLION and you can't understand that it's YOU not I that has to "justify" such a sickening WASTE OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS... On top of which NOTHING, that's right, NOTHING, was accomplished because of the $1.1 BILLION G8/G20 Harper summits...

Your childish comeback is asking me to JUSTIFY the cost of the 2002 Kananaskis G8 Summit...

The FIRST post 9/11 2001 summit, which, because of people like George W. Bush and Tony Blair attending required an EXTRA ORDINARY amount of security messures (most of the higher costs being picked up by the US & GB btw)...

Also in attendance was Putin of Russia as the NEWEST member of the G8 along with a very LARGE delegation of Nation leaders from Africa since the central theme of that G8 concerned aid to Africa and resulted in such aid being forthcoming including a $15 BILLION "aids" fighting commitment from the US...

Overall the 2002 Kananaskis G8 summit was deemed one of the most SUCCESSFUL G7/G8 summits ever held...

All I'm saying to you is to go back to playing in your sandbox and let adults discuss things in an intelligent manner...

You bore me and offer me, nor anyone else viewing this thread, NOTHING of any value...

[Saipan]

Poor Saipan, still don't understand the most basic rule in TROLLING do you?

No. You're the expert.

[PIK]

It's pretty funny that you actually never hear this from Liberals.

Pull your head out of the toronto star and you just might learn something.

[segnosaur]

Earlier on, you claimed things would somehow be 'better' with the Liberals in charge. Yet the Liberals themselves were pushing for that "US style Stimulus spending". You condemn the Conservatives for it, but you give a free pass to the Liberals/NDP.

I expressed my point of view to my Liberal friends, some Liberal MPs, and even Ignatieff DIRECTLY... It was not the first TIME nor will it be the last TIME I've disagreed with something the Liberal party does...

Umm... you do realize that even though I'm probably much smarter than you, I'm not omnipotent. I have no idea what exactly what you communicate to Liberal MPs/friends/etc. (Or do you think I'm stalking you, reading your emails when you're not looking and tapping your telephone?) All I can judge you by is what you've written here. And all I can see is hypocrisy... You contemn the Conservatives for the deficit, but at no point do I ever even remembering you acknowledging Liberal/NDP plans to engage in similar stimulus spending.

If you really want to appear unbiased, here's a hint: Instead of saying "Harper bad, liberals better", don't ignore what the Liberals had been planning on doing.

You seem to be caught up in some self centered notion that I should care what YOUR warped opinions on totally irrelevent, certainly to this thread topic, subject matter is...

Nope, I recognize quite well that you're a biased individual who is willing to engage in the typical activities of A: avoiding the hard questions, B: bringing up irrelevancies, and C: ignoring information that contradicts your beliefs. You're a lost cost. But as I explained before (see post 75) there may be others who are capable of examining these issues with rational thought.

I tell you that Harper PROROQUED PARLIAMENT rather than debate the "stimulous" issue, you ignor the FACT...

Ignored it because it was irrelevant. The Liberal/NDP wanted increased spending.

Do you honestly think if the conservatives kept going and tried to debate in the house of commons "We don't need stimulus" that the Liberals/NDP would have changed their minds? Really?

I SHOW you where the Harper Regime BUDGETS $178 MILLION (a HUGE amount to start with) for the G8 AND G20 summits that THEN becomes $1.1 BILLION and you can't understand that it's YOU not I that has to "justify" such a sickening WASTE OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS... On top of which NOTHING, that's right, NOTHING, was accomplished because of the $1.1 BILLION G8/G20 Harper summits...

First of all, once again you have failed to give even one major item tossed around that was an example of "waste".

Secondly, once again you have ignored your very own reference which had a quote from an expert who pointed out that the costs are reasonable and in line with what is expected.

Heck, even our auditor General isn't quite ready to condemn the tories for the "huge increases"...

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/05/28/g8-g20-summit-expenses-sheila-fraser.html

...She said she "was and wasn't" surprised to hear the security cost estimate, but added preparations for large events that last only for a few days require extensive co-ordination months in advance. "Obviously, a billion dollars is a lot of money, but I think we have to recognize that security is expensive," Fraser said.... The auditor-general cautioned against saying the costs for the summit have ballooned, because the government's preliminary disclosure of $179 million for summit security spending in the last budget was not an initial estimate of what the full costs would be.

Your childish comeback is asking me to JUSTIFY the cost of the 2002 Kananaskis G8 Summit...

Actually, I'm not asking you to justify the costs of the 2002 summit. I have never complained about the spending for that meeting. I recognize that the ~$200 million price tag was reasonable because, as Fraser said "Security is expensive".

Instead, what I'm doing is pointing out that a similar international meeting had similar costs, when you consider the number of participants, length of meetings, and increased costs due to inflation.

The FIRST post 9/11 2001 summit, which, because of people like George W. Bush and Tony Blair attending required an EXTRA ORDINARY amount of security messures (most of the higher costs being picked up by the US & GB btw)...

I see.

And do you really think that somehow the need for security has gone down? That just because Obama is the president that there isn't going to be any attempts on his life (or the lives of any other leaders)? That Everybody Loves Obama? That all the protesters will now say "Oh, Bush isn't in office. No need to attend"?

Also in attendance was Putin of Russia as the NEWEST member of the G8...

Yup, and guess what... Russia was also in attendance at the G8/G20 summits in Huntsville/Toronto.

Do you think they only need to provide security for the first time a country attends a conference, then they never have to attend one again?

...along with a very LARGE delegation of Nation leaders from Africa

Yup, there were African delegates at the 2002 summit (South Africa, Senegal, Nigeria, Algeria). But guess what? The G8/G20 summits Also had a large number of "observer nations/organizations". Not only did they have some of the African nations (like Nigeria/Ethiopia), but they also had Vietnam, a group from the African Union, OECD, etc. So you actually had more non-member attendance at the 2010 summits than you did at the 2002 summits.

Overall the 2002 Kananaskis G8 summit was deemed one of the most SUCCESSFUL G7/G8 summits ever held...

Ummm, so?

The success of the 2002 summit had more to do with the goals/aims of the individual participants.

All I'm saying to you is to go back to playing in your sandbox and let adults discuss things in an intelligent manner...

Do you think you're an example of "an adult"?

Does being an adult involve complete and utter hypocrisy (as in "Harper is wrong in running a deficit even though the Liberals were planning on doing that too")?

Does it involve "cheery picking" information and ignoring facts (Like how you ignored a quote from an expert in an article you posted that said the G8/G20 costs were reasonable)?

Does it involve using irrelevant "facts" and ignoring questions that were posed to you (such as when I pointed to the operating surplus left by Mulroney and favorable global conditions to be key in Chretien's "success", and you responded by pointing to their later election defeat, which didn't deal with the operating surplus at all)?

Boy, if that's what it takes to be an adult I'm going to have to get a lobotomy.

You bore me...

That's because you get bored having your claims debunked over and over again.

[GWiz]

No. You're the expert.

Why thank you Saipan... I just KNEW you'd realize that sooner or later...

[GWiz]

Umm... you do realize that even though I'm probably much smarter than you, I'm not omnipotent.

Hell, you're not even smart enough to know when you've been DISMISSED...

What'sa matter, having trouble finding your sandbox? (don't answer, redundant question)

Boy, if that's what it takes to be an adult I'm going to have to get a lobotomy.

Last I checked Canada is still a free Country, do whatever your parents let you do...

[segnosaur]

Hell, you're not even smart enough to know when you've been DISMISSED...

Ah, once again, you do your best to ignore the hard questions. The ones that expose your hypocrisy. I guess its typical. You're almost like the Charlie Sheen of this thread. All you need to do is shout "winning!"

But just to remind people of your many many failures:

- You condemned the conservatives for the deficit, when the Liberal/NDP coalition also had plans to greatly increase spending. So, strike 1.

- You ignore the fact that Chretien was lucky to inherit an operating surplus and a favorable economy to allow him to "fight the deficit". Oh wait, you didn't ignore it.. you instead posted a wikipedia reference pointing to irrelevant information. Strike 2.

- You praise the Liberals for programs that increased transfers to governments that supposedly helped save our economy, when the Harper government was actually increasing transfers in his first few years of power (by more than the rate of inflation). Strike 3.

- You condemn the costs of the G8/G20 summits, but ignore a statement from an expert in a reference YOU provided that pointed out that the cost of the summits were reasonable. Were you really so lazy that you couldn't even finish reading the article that you were quoting? Strike 4.

- Once again, at no point have you ever pointed out even one significant cost of the summit that was avoidable. Strike 5.

- You are ignorant of statements made by Sheila Fraser (you know, the person who's known for keeping our book keeping honest) that similarly stated that "security is expensive", and that we shouldn't consider the initial $176 million estimate as relevant. But hey, what does she know? Maybe you should contact her and ask to take over her job. Strike 6.

- You somehow think that the security requirements at the 2002 summit were more serious, suggesting perhaps that nobody in the world would ever want to hurt Obama, and that none of the other 'extra' participants actually need protection. Strike 7.

- You express a complete ignorance of the global military situation of the late 50s/early 60s by continually insisting we need the Avro Arrow to stop russian bombers, even though that threat had been overshadowed by the risk of ICBMs. Next thing you know you'll be suggesting we build a wall to keep out invading Mongolian horsemen, even though Geingas Kahn has been dead for centuries and tanks, bombs, and guns pose a bigger threat. Strike 8.

You know, I'm not a baseball fan, but I rather think that 8 strikes is more than enough to consider someone "out".

Now what do I expect? I expect once again you will run away and hide, and engage in nothing more than crude ad hominem attacks. That's probably all your capable of. Sad really. But don't worry, next time you post nonsense, I'll be quite ready to debunk it. Maybe I'll even re-post this list just to remind people of your failures.

[nicky10013]

Ah, once again, you do your best to ignore the hard questions. The ones that expose your hypocrisy. I guess its typical. You're almost like the Charlie Sheen of this thread. All you need to do is shout "winning!"

Heh. Let's get started.

But just to remind people of your many many failures:

- You condemned the conservatives for the deficit, when the Liberal/NDP coalition also had plans to greatly increase spending. So, strike 1.

No, it was the opposition that forced the spending. Now, this has been used with a great deal of glee in the Conservative community. "Golly Gee, it wasn't our fault those socialists and seperatists forced us to spend all that money!"

Yet, $40 million has been spent to promote Canada's Economic Action plan - not what you get with it, just advertising the fact that it's working. So, since the opposition forced it, should they not recieve credit for how well Canada is doing economically?

- You ignore the fact that Chretien was lucky to inherit an operating surplus and a favorable economy to allow him to "fight the deficit". Oh wait, you didn't ignore it.. you instead posted a wikipedia reference pointing to irrelevant information. Strike 2.

So was Harper and look how that turned out.

- You praise the Liberals for programs that increased transfers to governments that supposedly helped save our economy, when the Harper government was actually increasing transfers in his first few years of power (by more than the rate of inflation). Strike 3.

Where are those transfers right now?

- You condemn the costs of the G8/G20 summits, but ignore a statement from an expert in a reference YOU provided that pointed out that the cost of the summits were reasonable. Were you really so lazy that you couldn't even finish reading the article that you were quoting? Strike 4.

Though thinking that one can't read certain facts and come to a different conclusion from said article isn't physically lazy as you're accusing Gwiz of being, it is mentally lazy.

- Once again, at no point have you ever pointed out even one significant cost of the summit that was avoidable. Strike 5.

Fake lakes, glow sticks - take your pick.

Furthermore, the term "avoidable" is absolutely ridiculous. Of course the costs weren't "avoidable." The leaders were always going to need security. The question to ask here is whether those unavoidable costs were reasonable. I say no. You'll disagree, but read below and perhaps you'll change your mind.

- You are ignorant of statements made by Sheila Fraser (you know, the person who's known for keeping our book keeping honest) that similarly stated that "security is expensive", and that we shouldn't consider the initial $176 million estimate as relevant. But hey, what does she know? Maybe you should contact her and ask to take over her job. Strike 6.

I'm sure given the circumstances of the G20 and the horrible way in which is planned probably is the reason why she deemed the expenses weren't so out of whack. One of my professors was Canada's ambassador to NATO and knows a few things about summits. In 2008 he was saying the G8 had become useless and the G20 would takeover and Harper should change the summit to a G20 but had to do it right then as summits of those size take upwards of 2 years to plan. The government decided 6 months out that Toronto would be the host of a G20. When the City of Toronto and the Toronto police recommended the CNE grounds because it was far easier to secure, far easier to direct traffic, far easier to police in terms of protestors, what did Harper say? Hah, screw you, we're going downtown anyway. Whether the costs under the circumstances were justified or not, if it was a properly planned summit given the proper time and the experts at the municipal levels were taken seriously, I seriously doubt it would've cost as much as it did. The cost of other summits bear this out. Every other summit has been substantially less than the Toronto G20. There's no way to get around that.

- You somehow think that the security requirements at the 2002 summit were more serious, suggesting perhaps that nobody in the world would ever want to hurt Obama, and that none of the other 'extra' participants actually need protection. Strike 7.

No, just that we could've done it for much cheaper as I described above.

- You express a complete ignorance of the global military situation of the late 50s/early 60s by continually insisting we need the Avro Arrow to stop russian bombers, even though that threat had been overshadowed by the risk of ICBMs. Next thing you know you'll be suggesting we build a wall to keep out invading Mongolian horsemen, even though Geingas Kahn has been dead for centuries and tanks, bombs, and guns pose a bigger threat. Strike 8.

You're fairly ignorant as well. The Arrow was replaced with BOMARC. BOMARC wasn't some ballistic missile defence system, they were nuclear missiles meant to eliminate bomber squadrons with nuclear warheads. So why was it we couldn't build the planes? Furthermore, the reason why we're buying F-35s is for the same reason we were developing the Arrow.

You know, I'm not a baseball fan, but I rather think that 8 strikes is more than enough to consider someone "out".

Considering how you're doing I wouldn't be putting him down if I were you.

Now what do I expect? I expect once again you will run away and hide, and engage in nothing more than crude ad hominem attacks. That's probably all your capable of. Sad really. But don't worry, next time you post nonsense, I'll be quite ready to debunk it. Maybe I'll even re-post this list just to remind people of your failures.

My parents always taught me there's no point in talking to a brick wall. I don't blame him.

Edited March 11, 2011 by nicky10013

[Mr.Canada]

Lets not forget about ADSCAM which defrauded Canadians of $500 million. it would be very hard for Canada to trust a Liberal again after that. Not to mention the coalition with separatists controlling power that almost happened. They might try that again.

[Smallc]

Lets not forget about ADSCAM which defrauded Canadians of $500 million.

Again, where is this number coming from? The whole programs was only $250M, and only $100M was in question.

[Mr.Canada]

Again, where is this number coming from? The whole programs was only $250M, and only $100M was in question.

Bottom line is the Liberals cannot be trusted. Does Canada need another ADscam? Does Canada need another deal canceled like the choppers were which cost Canada another $500 million to cancel? The Liberals promised to get rid of GST yet it still exists.

The provincial Liberals promised not to raise taxes, the first thing they did was raise taxes.

Liberals as a whole cannot be trusted to do what they say.

Ignatieff will raise your taxes to pay for all those new programs he wants to bring in.

[segnosaur]

- You condemned the conservatives for the deficit, when the Liberal/NDP coalition also had plans to greatly increase spending. So, strike 1.

No, it was the opposition that forced the spending.

Well, congratulations... you were right to admit that.

But guess what? The original poster (the one that I was responding to) did nothing to acknowledge the Liberal/NDP role in this; yet he continued to complain about the current deficits. He was hypocritical. So... still a strike 1 (even if you might actually be a little more reasonable.)

Yet, $40 million has been spent to promote Canada's Economic Action plan...

So? Governments advertise their programs all the time. I've seen the ad for programs like the CDIC for decades (under both Liberal and Conservative governments), even though its pretty pointless. (You don't actually have to doanything to have your investments covered by the CDIC). And the Chretien government advertised the Millenium scholarship, not exactly a necessary expense.

And realistically, given the amount of money spent, $40million works out to less than 1% of the total.

The issue was hypocrisy and double standards. If someone is going to condemn the conservatives for something, condemn them for policies/actions that they and only they are involved in.

- You ignore the fact that Chretien was lucky to inherit an operating surplus and a favorable economy to allow him to "fight the deficit". Oh wait, you didn't ignore it.. you instead posted a wikipedia reference pointing to irrelevant information. Strike 2.

So was Harper and look how that turned out.

From the looks of things you haven't been following the thread of that particular argument.

At no point did I ever claim that Harper didn't benefit from past government programs. Heck, I've always made it clear that many of his 'successes' were due to luck. The point I was making though was that Chretien similarly benefited by factors that were outside of his control. The other poster failed to acknowledge that; instead, he called the concept 'manure'.

Now, if you're agreeing that Chretien's success in fighting the deficit was largely due to an operating surplus left by Mulroney, in addition to a favorable global economic situation (low international interest rates/strong growth), then congratulations... you get it. However GWiz does not. He still fails. Still a strike.

- You praise the Liberals for programs that increased transfers to governments that supposedly helped save our economy, when the Harper government was actually increasing transfers in his first few years of power (by more than the rate of inflation). Strike 3.

Where are those transfers right now?

Irrelevant question.

It was the argument from GWiz that the stimulus spending wasn't necessary because Liberal programs (including increased transfers to the provinces) would already have fixed the problem. If you disagree with that premise, then I suggest you take it up with GWiz, and tell him he's wrong; that provincial transfers alone would not have helped recovery.

My argument was that if such transfers did help, then Harper deserves some credit because he increased those payments. Once again, GWiz was either ignorant or deceptive when he suggested that all such funding was due to the Liberals. So, GWiz still failed. Still a strike.

- You condemn the costs of the G8/G20 summits, but ignore a statement from an expert in a reference YOU provided that pointed out that the cost of the summits were reasonable. Were you really so lazy that you couldn't even finish reading the article that you were quoting? Strike 4.

Though thinking that one can't read certain facts and come to a different conclusion from said article isn't physically lazy as you're accusing Gwiz of being, it is mentally lazy.

GWiz didn't read certain facts and come to a particular conclusion. He completely ignored facts that contradicted his arguments.

- Once again, at no point have you ever pointed out even one significant cost of the summit that was avoidable. Strike 5.

Fake lakes, glow sticks - take your pick.

Ah yes, the "fake lake" issue. Once claimed to cost "millions", but later revealed to be less than $60,000 (or a tiny fraction of the cost of the media center.)

You do realize that facilities for the journalists were required. Rightly or wrongly, they thought that recreating the "muskoka" experience would help put Canada in a better light. Perhaps you think the media should have been confined to an empty room with plane white walls.

Furthermore, the term "avoidable" is absolutely ridiculous. Of course the costs weren't "avoidable." The leaders were always going to need security.

Tell that to GWiz, who somehow thinks that the security costs should be less because, well, darn, it was no longer Russia's first appearance at the G8, an argument that makes no sense.

- You are ignorant of statements made by Sheila Fraser (you know, the person who's known for keeping our book keeping honest) that similarly stated that "security is expensive", and that we shouldn't consider the initial $176 million estimate as relevant. But hey, what does she know? Maybe you should contact her and ask to take over her job. Strike 6.

I'm sure given the circumstances of the G20 and the horrible way in which is planned probably is the reason why she deemed the expenses weren't so out of whack.

How about the fact that she deemed the expenses "weren't so out of wack" because any such global meeting will always have high security costs.

One of my professors was Canada's ambassador to NATO and knows a few things about summits. In 2008 he was saying the G8 had become useless and the G20 would takeover and Harper should change the summit to a G20 but had to do it right then as summits of those size take upwards of 2 years to plan.

Even if the G8 had "become useless" (not saying it has or hasn't), it wouldn't have been Harper's call to make. Canada is a member nation, and we are a host to events (in rotation) but we don't have final authority whether such meetings should continue to be held.

The government decided 6 months out that Toronto would be the host of a G20. When the City of Toronto and the Toronto police recommended the CNE grounds because it was far easier to secure, far easier to direct traffic, far easier to police in terms of protestors, what did Harper say? Hah, screw you, we're going downtown anyway.

Did you ever consider there may have been other considerations apart from just "securing the area"?

From: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/830274--toronto-s-advice-ignored-on-g20-miller-says

...the Exhibition grounds had been ruled out because it had no hotels for the leaders, and additional challenges that would create to travel and security in and out of the areas.

So, you make the event itself easier to patrol by holding it at the CNE, but you create additional security risks by requiring significant transport from hotels to the CNE grounds.

Oh, and think it might eliminate the need for police to stop protesters? Well, when they had the G8 summit in Kanaskis, they still had to deal with protesters in Calgary (the closest 'large' city, miles away). So even if they did move things to the CNE grounds, they'd still have to have police around to deal with potentially violent situations far from the event itself. Plus, I should point out that other major costs (such as regular flyovers by the military) were not going to be affected by the location.

So, by holding it at the CNE you might make the site of the event itself a little more secure, but you still:

- Have to have security around downtown hotels where the leaders are staying (so, headaches in 2 parts of the city instead of one)

- Have to deal with secure transportation too/from the event (wonder how commuters would feel if they had to close off parts of the 401 in the morning for motorcades. And I wonder just how much more that would add to expenses).

- Still need police in the downtown area to handle protesters

- Still need basic military services like flyovers

The cost of other summits bear this out. Every other summit has been substantially less than the Toronto G20.

No, they haven't. And the article that GWiz referred to (the one he cherry picked from) explained that.

The costs of summits in (for example) the U.S. appear to cost less, but its because they handle their costs differently. They have a greater military infrastructure, so an event like a G8/G20 summit doesn't necessarily create the same overhead.

- You somehow think that the security requirements at the 2002 summit were more serious, suggesting perhaps that nobody in the world would ever want to hurt Obama, and that none of the other 'extra' participants actually need protection. Strike 7.

No, just that we could've done it for much cheaper as I described above.

Once again, it was GWiz who was suggesting that was suggesting we wouldn't need the same level of security as we had at the 2002 G8 summit (because everyone loves Obama, or some bizarre reason.)

Oh, and I explained why your alternative (holding it at the CNE grounds) may not have resulted in a more efficient summit.

- You express a complete ignorance of the global military situation of the late 50s/early 60s by continually insisting we need the Avro Arrow to stop russian bombers, even though that threat had been overshadowed by the risk of ICBMs. Next thing you know you'll be suggesting we build a wall to keep out invading Mongolian horsemen, even though Geingas Kahn has been dead for centuries and tanks, bombs, and guns pose a bigger threat. Strike 8.

You're fairly ignorant as well. The Arrow was replaced with BOMARC. BOMARC wasn't some ballistic missile defence system, they were nuclear missiles meant to eliminate bomber squadrons with nuclear warheads.

I'm quote familiar with the BOMARC. They even have one on display at the Aviation museum in Ottawa.

Not sure what your point in bringing them up is though. If anything, it proves that the Arrow was even more useless, since its function could easily be handled by the BOMARC.

So why was it we couldn't build the planes?

Because they would have been prohibitively expensive, and the role we needed them for was not needed.

Furthermore, the reason why we're buying F-35s is for the same reason we were developing the Arrow.

Not really.

The F35 is a multirole fighter. It can be used in an interceptor role, but it can also be used as an air superiority fighter, or in an air-to-ground attack role.

The Avro Arrow was an interceptor. It was more or less a single purpose plane, specialized to climb quickly/fly fast. However, in general interceptors usually are limited in manuveribilty, and heck: I don't even think the Arrow had the ability to carry anything other than missiles (so it would be limited in an air to ground role.)

You know, I'm not a baseball fan, but I rather think that 8 strikes is more than enough to consider someone "out".

Considering how you're doing I wouldn't be putting him down if I were you.

Well, here's the thing... you seem to have ignored most of the posts/arguments that GWiz and myself were actually making. Instead, you jumped in at the end, made your own 'straw men', and criticized me for things that I never argued to begin with.

[Bryan]

If Ignatieff wins seats, he stays.

Of course he's going to wins seats. He's just going to win LESS seats than Dion did, that's all.

[Smallc]

Bottom line is the Liberals cannot be trusted.

So you made it up then.....thanks.

[scribblet]

And if he loses will Dion come back?

Nope - Bob Rae will take over with an attempt to bring the NDP into the Liberal fold, either a merger of some kind or simply a 'coalition'.

While the media and liberal types on places such as MLW are working towards creating the narrative that an election is justified, the average voter isn't buying into the faux outrage and hyperbole. Most people don't care and are fed up with the opposition temper tantrums being more concerned about the future economy.

[GWiz]

Many people have said, "this will be Harper's election to lose"...

Harper is trying hard to reach that outcome...

ON TOPIC and IN THE NEWS:

1. Christiane Ouimet

2. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda and KAIROS

3. On the road to the Harper government's tipping point

THAT is just the very tip of a massive iceberg repressentative of possibly the most CORRUPT, anti-Canadian values, Pro-American, Government REGIME in Canadian History...

There are over a dozen more, and far worse, "issues" I could, even now, post on this thread...

BUT, to tell the TRUTH, as my sig line states it's what I do, I REALLY DON'T CARE ANYMORE, at least no more so than most other Canadians that have "tuned out" of politics all together...

Don't get me wrong, being a VERY PROUD CANADIAN, I'll still be voting Liberal, as I've done since Diefenbaker when he, at the behest of his American puppet masters, scrapped the Avro Arrow... Yup, I'm a PEARSON/TRUDEAU Liberal, if for no other reason than PEARSON & PET being SMART ENOUGH, and PROUD CANADIAN enough, to garner my RESPECT...

"The best of bad options is still a bad option and still the best option." - GWiz

Regardless of what I say or do it will make not one bit of difference whenever the next election comes about; unless an apathetic, mostly STUPID and ignorant, Canadian Public realizes that it's THEIR GOVERNMENT and that no matter the outcome of an election; it's THEIR CHOICE...

Canadians will ALWAYS get exactly THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE and no better...

The "BOTTOM LINE" being that it's starting to appear that Harper is RIGHT in his evaluation of the Canadian Public and since he has CONTROL of Canadian's "money matters" (Corporate Entities and the MEDIA) he can manipulate a STUPID Canadian Public any way he wants... Something becoming more and more "evident" by the day...

[Mr.Canada]

GWiz, please explain how anything the Harper Government has done has negatively impacted your life.

[no1ninja]

LOL,

Under the guise, "of being worried about the economy", the Americans gave out 7 Trillion to banks. Let's be careful who's interests we are serving. Looking at just the economy, may put us in the same prediciment our neighbours down south are facing.

Edited March 11, 2011 by no1ninja

[GWiz]

GWiz, please explain how anything the Harper Government has done has negatively impacted your life.

Fair question...

NOTHING any Canadian Government does directly "impacts" MY life in any significant way...

I'm far more concerned about the impact the Harper policies and actions have on my GRANDCHILDREN'S lives...

LIKE running up the "record" (prev $43 Billion for MORONey) breaking $56 BILLION, totally unjustifiable, deficit, with more deficits to come, on Canadians... Trying to undermine and usurp Canada's system of government, and things like that...

[GWiz]

LOL,

Under the guise, "of being worried about the economy", the Americans gave out 7 Trillion to banks. Let's be careful who's interests we are serving. Looking at just the economy, may put us in the same prediciment our neighbours down south are facing.

Now THAT is an INTELLIGENT viewpoint of ALL the issues...

[no1ninja]

Now THAT is an INTELLIGENT viewpoint of ALL the issues...

The point is that you can marry for money or you can marry for love. Some will be lucky and marry for both. However, if you only worry about the money ("as in the economy") you can easily walk into a bad marriage.

Regan looked like a champ spending the money... his successors are the ones stuck looking like fools.

Edited March 11, 2011 by no1ninja

[GWiz]

The point is that you can marry for money or you can marry for love. Some will be lucky and marry for both. However, if you only worry about the money ("as in the economy") you can easily walk into a bad marriage.

Regan looked like a champ spending the money... his successors are the ones stuck looking like fools.

Again, right on the money (in more ways than one)...

A good "money point" would be Paul Martin... He was GREAT when it came to matters involving Canada's economy and managing Canada's finances...

Yet, as the Liberal LEADER and Canada's Prime Minister, he failed miserably, although he never had the chance to "warm to and learn" what it took to "run a Country" vs running the financial aspects of a Country... There truly IS a difference... One is managing the reality of the situation, the other "just politics"...

NOW-A-DAYS, it seems, "politics" trumps "managing reality" every TIME... To HUMANITY'S DISGRACE I might add...

[Mr.Canada]

Fair question...

NOTHING any Canadian Government does directly "impacts" MY life in any significant way...

I'm far more concerned about the impact the Harper policies and actions have on my GRANDCHILDREN'S lives...

LIKE running up the "record" (prev $43 Billion for MORONey) breaking $56 BILLION, totally unjustifiable, deficit, with more deficits to come, on Canadians... Trying to undermine and usurp Canada's system of government, and things like that...

So you're a fiscal conservative?