Justin Trudeau the Worst PM Since Pierre Trudeau?

Zeitgeist · January 8, 2019

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So what has Justin Trudeau done in the way of Canadian unity while he and other Canadian politicians/media are so busy accusing Trump of sowing disunity "south of the border" ?

Pot...Kettle...White ?

Trudeau is really trying with the West. Quebec always gets a certain amount of appeasement. Ontario is the giving tree that gets ignored. Remarkably, people keep coming to Ontario. BC is la la land. The Maritimes are an expensively maintained historic ocean playground. I don’t really mind. PEI is a slice of heaven. Never been to Newfoundland but it looks beautiful.

WestCanMan · January 8, 2019

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trudeau is really trying with the West.

You're joking, right? Trudeau is killing Alberta's economy and driving away business as fast as he can. Over $100 billion already.

Alberta is still paying money into confederation, and now Trudeau is offering them a $1.6B loan.

If you gave me $100K and then I got you fired from your job and offered you a $16K loan would you say that I was trying? Would you vote for me? If so then go ahead and vote for Trudeau.

Zeitgeist · January 8, 2019

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're joking, right? Trudeau is killing Alberta's economy and driving away business as fast as he can. Over $100 billion already.

Alberta is still paying money into confederation, and now Trudeau is offering them a $1.6B loan.

If you gave me $100K and then I got you fired from your job and offered you a $16K loan would you say that I was trying? Would you vote for me? If so then go ahead and vote for Trudeau.

How has Trudeau lost Alberta money? He doubled down on the Trans Mountain pipeline by essentially having the federal government buy it. Alberta is up against BC, which is blocking Trans Mountain through the courts. BC is really taking Alberta down. Indigenous protesters are even disrupting the liquified natural gas pipeline. The BC government is a disaster and Quebec isn’t helping. Alberta is also suffering from the reduction in oil prices due to overproduction worldwide.

WestCanMan · January 8, 2019

24 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

How has Trudeau lost Alberta money? He doubled down on the Trans Mountain pipeline by essentially having the federal government buy it. Alberta is up against BC, which is blocking Trans Mountain through the courts. BC is really taking Alberta down. Indigenous protesters are even disrupting the liquified natural gas pipeline. The BC government is a disaster and Quebec isn’t helping. Alberta is also suffering from the reduction in oil prices due to overproduction worldwide.

Trudeau is killing coal fired electricity in Alberta and he's also out telling the world directly that the oil sands are being phased out (I can link that). The companies that were trying to get pipelines built have all taken their money elsewhere.

Suffering? Alberta Oil was selling under $16 per barrel while the worldwide price is around $85. That's because our oil stays in Canada and the US, and the US doesn't need our oil imports. Getting 1/6th of what something is worth is a bit worse than just suffering.

Zeitgeist · January 9, 2019

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Trudeau is killing coal fired electricity in Alberta and he's also out telling the world directly that the oil sands are being phased out (I can link that). The companies that were trying to get pipelines built have all taken their money elsewhere.

Suffering? Alberta Oil was selling under $16 per barrel while the worldwide price is around $85. That's because our oil stays in Canada and the US, and the US doesn't need our oil imports. Getting 1/6th of what something is worth is a bit worse than just suffering.

So make the courts in BC approve Trans Mountain and tell Quebec to approve Energy East.

Coal? Is anyone really into that anymore with all the cleaner natural gas? C’mon.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Zeitgeist

WestCanMan · January 9, 2019

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

So make the courts in BC approve Trans Mountain and tell Quebec to approve Energy East.

Coal? Is anyone really into that anymore with all the cleaner natural gas? C’mon.

Bill c69 made it too easy to stop the pipeline process. Anyone has a beef, no matter how moronic, they get to be heard. The goalposts keep moving. Money just sits there waiting to be invested for so ling and then it goes away.

The LNG pipeline in BC that’s on the news now was already approved. An elected chief gave the green light. Now there’s protesting going on.

We now live in a society where almost any group of fifty people can veto any progress, even against the will of the majority of the country. It’s SJW heaven.

Zeitgeist · January 9, 2019

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Bill c69 made it too easy to stop the pipeline process. Anyone has a beef, no matter how moronic, they get to be heard. The goalposts keep moving. Money just sits there waiting to be invested for so ling and then it goes away.

The LNG pipeline in BC that’s on the news now was already approved. An elected chief gave the green light. Now there’s protesting going on.

We now live in a society where almost any group of fifty people can veto any progress, even against the will of the majority of the country. It’s SJW heaven.

Well let’s see if the RCMP uphold the law and ensure work can proceed.

Dougie93 · January 9, 2019

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

. . . even against the will of the majority of the country.

The will of the majority cannot be expressed through the dysfunctional Confederation where Ontario and Quebec have Alberta and the Maritimes boxed out forever.

So it's not the "society", it's structural.

Dougie93 · January 9, 2019

On 1/5/2019 at 3:17 PM, Argus said:

My understanding is only one of our subs can fire torpedoes at the moment, and none can lay mines since we have no mines. These subs are also not really capable of going up to the arctic, certainly not in winter.

As far as I know, all four subs are fully operational now, the torpedo tubes have all been switched over to the American ones with the connectors for the Mk.48 Mod 7 CBASS AdCap II heavyweight homing torpedoes, which are the latest version being used by the USA, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands. They're all in the process of getting upgraded to the American AN/BQQ-10 SONAR as well, at least one of them has it already, I think it's the Windsor (SSK 877)

In terms of mines, I don't think they need the connectors. I don't think Canada has bought any, but in the event of war Canada would have access to NATO stockpiles and pretty sure the mines NATO uses work with any NATO STANAG 21 inch torpedo tubes, such as the Mk. 60 CapTor encapsulated torpedo mine which lays a tethered torpedo smart mine which lies in wait for programmed acoustic signatures of ships it is intended to sink, then releases the torpedo which homes in on them.

It's not the mission of these Canadian subs to go up under the arctic and the arctic is not the imperative that the government makes it out to be, the arctic is just trying to find make work for the military up there, but Canada is not actually going to sink anybody else's submarines up there, so that's not really important.

The only reason to go up under the polar ice is the Russian Delta IV Delphin and one remaining Akula (Typhoon) SSBN's which are designed and built to go up under the ice and hide, then pop up through to launch their ballistic missiles, which, chasing those things down under the arctic ice is way out of the RCN's league.

Only the Americans, the British, and the French can do that, and only the Americans and the British are really expert at it. Although not as expert as the Soviets/Russians, the Soviets were the first to go up there under the ice to hide, secretly, and then the Americans discovered they were doing it and have been trying to counter it ever since.

Reason being, they can track the Russian SSBN's pretty easily in open waters, but under the ice it's hard to track anything, under the ice is where the Russians can shake the American submarines tailing them, and they can't be gotten at by any other means under the ice, which is why the Soviets went up there and the Russians still do with the Soviet built SSBN's which they have left in their inventory

That is the most challenging operating environment on earth for submarines, so that takes more than just having subs that can go under ice, either nuclear or AIP, that requires the institutional knowledge and experience built up over years with the unbroken lines of experienced officers and ratings which have been doing it continuously for decades, so that's not a realistic capability for DND to try to acquire in the context of the slice of the budget which would be allotted to submarine operations.

Doing submarine operations under the polar icecap is like a space program, it's just an inner space program rather than an outer space program. Those in the general public who cling to the pipe dream of somehow rebuilding the already collapsed for all intents and purposes warfighting capability of the CAF will say "just get subs that go under the ice", but even if you could rebuild the CAF, going up under the ice is like operating on another planet, it's a harsh realm up there when you are under the ice rather than above it, so it's totally unrealistic and certainly the RCN has no such delusions that they would have the money for that.

The RCN is desperately trying to hold on to these four renovated submarines, extremely unlikely to say the least that the Government and Public are going to be up for buying submarines ever again after this typically shambolic Liberal Party of Canada Chretienite procurement disaster, with added CBC/NDP led smear campaign on top just to finish it off, so these are looking like they will be the last submarines the RCN ever operates.

Anyways, point being, any submarine is a strategic weapon because it can attack shipping lanes and maritime approaches by stealth, for example the RN basically won the Falkland Islands War with HMS Conqueror sinking the ARA Belgrano, because after that the Argentine Navy fled the field and despite setbacks it was pretty much an inexorable process towards Argentine defeat, because without their navy the British pretty much encircled them. That's what I mean by strategic, tactics win battles, operations run campaigns, but strategic weapons can win wars in one fell swoop. It's actually the torpedoes what make them so dangerous, and the ones that Canada bought, the reason they changed the torpedo tubes to the American tubes, are state of the art.

Basically, even as the military is collapsing writ large as a warfighting outfit, the senior brass have always had champagne tastes on a beer budget, and the military is trying to rebuild itself desperately as the Government of Canada tries to crush it, so they still buy state of the art equipment when they can get there hands on it, and that kit is sprinkled around throughout with the equipment which is mostly rusted out, tho not in sufficient quantities to actually fight a war in the logistical sense.

Like the Globemaster III's for example, those are 5 amazing pieces of kit, in an otherwise pathetically dilapidated air force overall.

Champagne tastes on a beer budget by the way, is where the majority of the budget goes, new equipment is only a priority after being the best paid, best fed, best quartered and best serviced personnel, not only in NATO, but in the world, it was pretty damn cushy when I was in, even during the so called Decade of Darkness 90's, the Canadian taxpayer was berry berry goo to me in terms of lifestyle on base, it was high on the hog, we just had crappy kit and not enough and no logistics tails for actually fighting any wars above the tactical level.

When Americans come up to Canadian bases, they are in awe of how cushy it is, when Canadians go down to their bases, like Fort Knox for example, Fort Knox is a filthy shithole by Canadian Army standards. Camp Petawawa is actually quite lovely, nestled on the banks of the Ottawa in the woods. I mean, we were terrorized and tortured there in terms of hard training, but it's a fabulous piece of land, and when you're not at work it's a recreational paradise.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

Rue · January 9, 2019

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

1-As far as I know, all four subs are fully operational now,

2-In terms of mines, I don't think they need the connectors.

3-It's not the mission of these Canadian subs to go up under the arctic and the arctic is not the imperative that the government makes it out to be

4-The only reason to go up under the polar ice is the Russian Delta IV Delphin and one remaining Akula (Typhoon) SSBN's

5-Only the Americans, the British, and the French can do that, and only the Americans and the British are really expert at it

6-Doing submarine operations under the polar icecap is like a space program,

7-The RCN is desperately trying to hold on to these four renovated submarines,

8-Anyways, point being, any submarine is a strategic weapon because it can attack shipping lanes and maritime approaches by stealth,

9-Basically, even as the military is collapsing as a warfighting outfit,

10-Champagne tastes on a beer budget by the way, is where the majority of the budget goes,

11-When Americans come up to Canadian bases, they are in awe of how cushy it is, when Canadians go down to their bases, like Fort Knox for example,

It is absolutely amazing, a true delight to be part of your military expertise and insights that you share. Thank you and who needs Vladimir Putin.

Now look you have me or some of the other regulars absolutely beat on the sheer volume of truths you can dispense. I mean I thought I was close to the divine

Now in regards to your above comments I numbered for the sake of ease when making references:

1-As far as I know you are wrong.

2-You don't think, indeed. Oh but do share your information for such a conclusion.

3-Of course it is.

4-No its not the only reason of course not.

5-Why if all 3 can do it only 2 are experts?

6-Like a space program? Yah I could see how you would confuse the polar icecap to outer space.

7-Why desperately? How do you know they don't do it with sheer orgasmic delight?

8-Submarines don't "attack shipping lanes" and "maritime approaches". Maritime approach. Oh do explain how you approach a Maritime.. Yooh hoo Maritime want to feel my missile?.Certain submarines might be prepared to target and sink ships in shipping lanes or in the oceans but since WW2 this is has not been done with several exceptions in limited conflicts. and you really need to go find out why Mr. Submarine expert. Also there is this thing called radar. It still works you know. Ping ping. This idea you have that all submarines today are stealth is fun fun fun but not true and stealth if you knew anything about it is not when it comes to submarines reliable but hey you knew that-sk any whale or porpoise why. By the way just to clarify, there are no Artic Char in space. Just so you know. More importantly you knew that the majority of submarines today are used for surveillance and spying not attack and it is far more efficient and less expensive to use small surface ships if one or aircraft whenever possible in an attack formation and that today the majority of naval strategy for attack would be via missiles which submarines can fire yes indeed but are far more expensive at firing than fighter jets or even drones or soldiers with shoulder mounted weapons not to mention these things called wait for it, helicopters. Of course the Taliban and Al Quaeda still have camels swallow bombs and walk into enemy camps and go kaboom. Some of them do it as well although most of them are cowards.

9-Hey now...sit for this one...militaries are designed to fight wars-Canada's armed forces purpose which is to defend against armed attacks by other nations is not collapsing any more than a transvestite collapses when in drag. They are what is called operationally dysfunctional (you know they can't get it up) because they do not have sufficient equipment and the equipment they do have requires to many man hours to repair to remain functional. This does not mean they have ceased being a war fighting outfit. Their pee pees still pee (I put it in words you could understand). Even if only one soldier remains and he can barely pee he still pees.. That is what military outfits do, they pee pee. Next you will tell me Rue Paul does not wear his outfits to be feminine but to instead does it to play NFL football.

10-Champagne tastes? Oh do share some examples. You mean like a jet that can fly, a ship that can float, a gun that can fire?

11-Cushy it is? Canadians "going down"? Sorry it sounded like were sharing a gay porno fantasy before I got to the end of the sentence, and just to make it clear you go for it with those fantasies.....this is Canada, gender fluidity in the armed forces is welcomed. No need to be binary.

Let me conclude and thank you again for sharing. I am in awe of your writings. Not even on the strongest of laxatives cam I come close to such volume.

That said and of course wanting to assure the powers that be that I am sticking to the topic just like you may I again state Justin Trudeau is the worst Prime Minister Canada has ever had and to prove that point may I suggest one consider his policies to date on:

1-paying off a terrorist $10 million dollars; 2-enabling thousands of illegal entrants to Canada to be rewarded with the right to apply for refugee status even though they come from safe third countries where they could have applied for refugee status and contrary to the existing laws that reject refugee applicants coming to port of entries the right to apply for refugee status when they come from safe third countries; 3-an accumulation of so much debt, that Canada is now bankrupt and the interest rate alone on that debt will cause inflation and hardship for the next 10 or more generations of Canadians escalating in a snow ball effect causing damage to generations even after that;4-a complete and utter failure to deal with oil pipelines, aboriginal issues; 5-standing up in Parliament and out and out lying and when caught lying running out of the Parliament; 6-engaging in conflict of interest vacations then lying and saying he would meet with the Ethics Comissioner over the issue then refusing to meet with that Commissioner; 7-lying to war vets and claiming there were no funds for them while (hey Rocky watch me pull a Rabbit out of my hat)paying $10 million to a unibrowed grinning terrorist who now wastes taxpayers money whining he can't speak regularly with his terrorist sister nd Mama; 8-engaging in a tactic in Parliament of now whenever being questioned, refusing to answer the question with a canned statement to avoid answering the question; 9- repacing oral communications with the sound of a seal masterbating...uh uh uh uh uh. How do I know it's a seal masterbating and not a walrus? Come on I understand Liberals. Some of my best friends are seals. Also Lisa Laflamme told me.

-

Edited January 9, 2019 by Rue

Charles Anthony · January 9, 2019

Folks,

Please stay on topic. Perhaps it is time for somebody to start a new thread.

PIK · January 9, 2019

3 hours ago, Rue said:

It is absolutely amazing, a true delight to be part of your military expertise and insights that you share. Thank you and who needs Vladimir Putin.

Now look you have me or some of the other regulars absolutely beat on the sheer volume of truths you can dispense. I mean I thought I was close to the divine

Now in regards to your above comments I numbered for the sake of ease when making references:

1-As far as I know you are wrong.

2-You don't think, indeed. Oh but do share your information for such a conclusion.

3-Of course it is.

4-No its not the only reason of course not.

5-Why if all 3 can do it only 2 are experts?

6-Like a space program? Yah I could see how you would confuse the polar icecap to outer space.

7-Why desperately? How do you know they don't do it with sheer orgasmic delight?

8-Submarines don't "attack shipping lanes" and "maritime approaches". Maritime approach. Oh do explain how you approach a Maritime.. Yooh hoo Maritime want to feel my missile?.Certain submarines might be prepared to target and sink ships in shipping lanes or in the oceans but since WW2 this is has not been done with several exceptions in limited conflicts. and you really need to go find out why Mr. Submarine expert. Also there is this thing called radar. It still works you know. Ping ping. This idea you have that all submarines today are stealth is fun fun fun but not true and stealth if you knew anything about it is not when it comes to submarines reliable but hey you knew that-sk any whale or porpoise why. By the way just to clarify, there are no Artic Char in space. Just so you know. More importantly you knew that the majority of submarines today are used for surveillance and spying not attack and it is far more efficient and less expensive to use small surface ships if one or aircraft whenever possible in an attack formation and that today the majority of naval strategy for attack would be via missiles which submarines can fire yes indeed but are far more expensive at firing than fighter jets or even drones or soldiers with shoulder mounted weapons not to mention these things called wait for it, helicopters. Of course the Taliban and Al Quaeda still have camels swallow bombs and walk into enemy camps and go kaboom. Some of them do it as well although most of them are cowards.

9-Hey now...sit for this one...militaries are designed to fight wars-Canada's armed forces purpose which is to defend against armed attacks by other nations is not collapsing any more than a transvestite collapses when in drag. They are what is called operationally dysfunctional (you know they can't get it up) because they do not have sufficient equipment and the equipment they do have requires to many man hours to repair to remain functional. This does not mean they have ceased being a war fighting outfit. Their pee pees still pee (I put it in words you could understand). Even if only one soldier remains and he can barely pee he still pees.. That is what military outfits do, they pee pee. Next you will tell me Rue Paul does not wear his outfits to be feminine but to instead does it to play NFL football.

10-Champagne tastes? Oh do share some examples. You mean like a jet that can fly, a ship that can float, a gun that can fire?

11-Cushy it is? Canadians "going down"? Sorry it sounded like were sharing a gay porno fantasy before I got to the end of the sentence, and just to make it clear you go for it with those fantasies.....this is Canada, gender fluidity in the armed forces is welcomed. No need to be binary.

Let me conclude and thank you again for sharing. I am in awe of your writings. Not even on the strongest of laxatives cam I come close to such volume.

That said and of course wanting to assure the powers that be that I am sticking to the topic just like you may I again state Justin Trudeau is the worst Prime Minister Canada has ever had and to prove that point may I suggest one consider his policies to date on:

1-paying off a terrorist $10 million dollars; 2-enabling thousands of illegal entrants to Canada to be rewarded with the right to apply for refugee status even though they come from safe third countries where they could have applied for refugee status and contrary to the existing laws that reject refugee applicants coming to port of entries the right to apply for refugee status when they come from safe third countries; 3-an accumulation of so much debt, that Canada is now bankrupt and the interest rate alone on that debt will cause inflation and hardship for the next 10 or more generations of Canadians escalating in a snow ball effect causing damage to generations even after that;4-a complete and utter failure to deal with oil pipelines, aboriginal issues; 5-standing up in Parliament and out and out lying and when caught lying running out of the Parliament; 6-engaging in conflict of interest vacations then lying and saying he would meet with the Ethics Comissioner over the issue then refusing to meet with that Commissioner; 7-lying to war vets and claiming there were no funds for them while (hey Rocky watch me pull a Rabbit out of my hat)paying $10 million to a unibrowed grinning terrorist who now wastes taxpayers money whining he can't speak regularly with his terrorist sister nd Mama; 8-engaging in a tactic in Parliament of now whenever being questioned, refusing to answer the question with a canned statement to avoid answering the question; 9- repacing oral communications with the sound of a seal masterbating...uh uh uh uh uh. How do I know it's a seal masterbating and not a walrus? Come on I understand Liberals. Some of my best friends are seals. Also Lisa Laflamme told me.

-

Rue on #6 where do astronauts do a lot of practice, to learn about working in space. In the water.

Dougie93 · January 9, 2019

Merely trying to provide as concise an answer as I could with regards to debunking the myth that Canada would, could or should aspire to polar under ice operations with the Americans and British against the Russian, as they call them; "Nuclear Powered Strategic Ballistic Missile Carrying Heavy Submarine Cruisers" designed and built to use the polar icecap as a protected bastion to position themselves to strike the CONUS as they have been doing since the 1970's.

Please bear with me, as I am used to forums which incite a far higher standard of intellectual rigour than this forum seemingly does, I will endeavor in future to dumb down my answers to accommodate the lower standards here.

Cheers

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

Argus · January 9, 2019

15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Merely trying to provide as concise an answer as I could with regards to debunking the myth that Canada would, could or should aspire to polar under ice operations with the Americans and British against the Russian, as they call them; "Nuclear Powered Strategic Ballistic Missile Carrying Heavy Submarine Cruisers" designed and built to use the polar icecap as a protected bastion to position themselves to strike the CONUS as they have been doing since the 1970's.

Please bear with me, as I am used to forums which incite a far higher standard of intellectual rigour than this forum seemingly does, I will endeavor in future to dumb down my answers to accommodate the lower standards here.

Cheers

I think my point was that if we're going to claim sovereignty over arctic resources then, especially in light of global warming, we need to be capable of at least travelling to those areas from time to time. Harper was going to build a base up north but that fell by the wayside when he grew tired of things military. Trudeau, of course, likes to be seen canoeing in the north but has no interest in things military whatsoever.

As to your intellectual rigour complaint, which kind of comes across as elitist: Phhhhht!

Edited January 9, 2019 by Argus

Dougie93 · January 9, 2019

Well, as per my post, operating under the ice is a special operation requiring a capacity which is at this juncture only within the purview of major military powers, which Canada cannot, will never be and should not aspire to be.

In terms of elitism, I am only in opposition to the Urbane Eastern Liberal Elites, in general I prize all things elite, and do indeed aspire to be elite in how I conduct myself, so, mea culpa I suppose. I am, after all, a monarchist living in a monarchy, which is the ultimate elitist paradigm. /shrugs

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

Rue · January 9, 2019

4 hours ago, PIK said:

Rue on #6 where do astronauts do a lot of practice, to learn about working in space. In the water.

True but...

I challenged this idiotic statement he made:

“Doing submarine operations under the polar icecap is like a space program, it's just an inner space program rather than an outer space program. “.

To start with Astronauts are not submarines. In fact it is of course true astronauts train underwater because the neutral buoyancy can help them predict what it would be like to be in zero gravity in space.

However Submarine training and astronaut training are not the same and have never been, A

A submarine operation in fact has few similarities with rocket propelled vessels that break gravity or re-enter gravity and no their operations are not the same.

I would also suggest you look at this article to see my further point:

https://www.cnet.com/news/how-nasa-trains-astronauts-40-feet-under-water/…

…you will see that article states:

“Forty feet below the pool's surface is the huge ISS mockup. Because the water is crystal clear and totally calm, you can see everything -- and it's bizarre. Your mind tells you something is not right about what you're looking at.”

This individual himself stated:

“but under the ice it's hard to track anything, under the ice”.

I am challenging his lazy prose, his sloppy analogies and his absurd comparisons.

Also astronaut underwater training is not done under polar ice caps to move people as if they would be in ocean waters. In fact its done in a tank of water at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) near NASA's Johnson Space Center so as to be able to completely control the water environment unlike the case with an ocean. The water in those tanks is far from what it is like in real waters in the ocean, i.e., they are not subject to currents, electro-magnetic pulses.

Rue · January 9, 2019

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Merely trying to provide as concise an answer as I could with regards to debunking the myth that Canada would, could or should aspire to polar under ice operations with the Americans and British against the Russian, as they call them; "Nuclear Powered Strategic Ballistic Missile Carrying Heavy Submarine Cruisers" designed and built to use the polar icecap as a protected bastion to position themselves to strike the CONUS as they have been doing since the 1970's.

Please bear with me, as I am used to forums which incite a far higher standard of intellectual rigour than this forum seemingly does, I will endeavor in future to dumb down my answers to accommodate the lower standards here.

Cheers

Dumb down? My point precisely. For someone who poses as a peacock you come off as sea gull guano. That's the closest ornithological analogy I could find to describe the substance of your emissions.

Dougie93 · January 9, 2019

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

Dumb down? My point precisely. For someone who poses as a peacock you come off as sea gull guano. That's the closest ornithological analogy I could find to describe the substance of your emissions.

Well since you are apparently unaware that submarines are in fact more complex and expensive than spaceships, and that inner space, which simply means "undersea" by the way, is an exponentially more complex and dangerous realm than outer space, outer space being a comparatively benign vacuum and operations there based entirely on parabolic trajectory in free fall therein, which is inherently and mathematically simple, it is rather difficult to discuss the matter on your terms, without dumbing things down, as you are completely ill informed on the matter and making fallacious and nonsensical assertions as a result. /shrugs

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

Dougie93 · January 9, 2019

Or again, to dumb it down for the unwashed masses;

Space is simple, because the medium of space is a stable vacuum, which is the simplest thing in the universe in fact

Submarines is complex, because the medium of inner space is water, which is exponentially more complex than the vacuum of outer space.

All you have to do to operate in space, is defeat the earths gravity to get there, once you're there, it's easy, and you can just free fall there indefinitely.

And Canada does operate in space, because unlike polar under ice submarine operations, space is affordable for the Government of Canada, because as I said, space is comparatively cheap and easy.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

Rue · January 10, 2019

49 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

submarines are in fact more complex and expensive than spaceships, and that inner space, which simply means "undersea" by the way, is an exponentially more complex and dangerous realm than outer space, ,

Doing submarine operations under the polar icecap is like a space program, it's just an inner space program rather than an outer space program.

Read the above two comments.

Then follow your own comment:

"you are completely ill informed on the matter and making fallacious and nonsensical assertions as a result. "

Only I do not shrug, I just repeat back your contradictions and "explanations" of oceans and space or as you call them inner and outer belly buttons.

Rue · January 10, 2019

As well you made this statement:

"Space is simple, because the medium of space is a stable vacuum, which is the simplest thing in the universe in fact

Submarines is complex, because the medium of inner space is water, which is exponentially more complex than the vacuum of outer space.."

which necessarily contradicts your earlier comment:

"Doing submarine operations under the polar icecap is like a space program..".

Dougie93 · January 10, 2019

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

As well you made this statement:

"Space is simple, because the medium of space is a stable vacuum, which is the simplest thing in the universe in fact

Submarines is complex, because the medium of inner space is water, which is exponentially more complex than the vacuum of outer space.."

which necessarily contradicts your earlier comment:

"Doing submarine operations under the polar icecap is like a space program..".

As this post is entirely fallacious and devoid of any cogent argument or even point, seeing that I never said Canada had a space program I merely said Canada operates in space (the space program therein is the Americans space program), I will simply stand by my previous posts and await any good faith comments, assertions or arguments in the meantime.

ttfn

Edited January 10, 2019 by Dougie93

Dougie93 · January 10, 2019

I will say however, to the forum writ large, that while Canada is able to piggyback its space operations unto the American space program, polar under ice operations in the face of Russian nuclear submarines falls within the confines of the United States - United Kingdom Joint Strategic Deterrent, which Canada is not privy too, as neither the United States nor the United Kingdom would trust the Government of Canada to be, at that ultimate level of secrecy.

Dougie93 · January 10, 2019

Or to dumb it down for the unwashed masses;

The American space program is a civilian run international program and not conducted at the highest levels of national security secrecy,

Polar under ice operations is the biggest of the big leagues at 15 minutes notice to launch on warning, where you need to have your big boy pants on, and Canada, as an infantilized Fake Country pseudo colony, not only never puts its big boy pants on, but rather doesn't even have any big boy pants at all to put on, even if it was ever inclined to want big boy pants, which it doesn't.

There was a brief moment when the Mulroney Government tried to lead the Canadian public to put their big boy pants on for polar under ice operations by SSN in the big leagues and at the time the Americans and British were willing to accept Canada into the fold, however the Canadian electorate shot Mulroney down on that, hard, "No big boy pants for us, that's the American's job!", as you would expect pseudo colonists of the United States to say.

In the ensuing years Canada has become ever more infantilized to the point where the Americans and British would never invite us into the fold now.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Dougie93

Rue · January 10, 2019

I appreciate you now pose as an astronomer, astrophysicist. and oceanographerTO ADD TO YOUR past posts WHERE YOU posed as a military weapons expert on air, land and sea operations.

I met another man like you once. You remind me of him. He insisted on being called Your Excellency and would remind me all the time he was a President for Life, Field Marshal, holder of a doctorate from the University of Kampala and was Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fisheries of the Seas not to mention Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, as well as the real King of the United Kingdom.

Excuse me your Excellency but I have some reservation as to your comment that: "Space is simple, because the medium of space is a stable vacuum, which is the simplest thing in the universe in fact."

No doubt space seems simple to you. I However that may be you self-reflecting your own neurological and cognitive levels of development and therefore reference.

One could also speculate it is also possible that space seems simple to you because you do not have sufficient awareness, comprehension or understanding of the many universal and absolute physical laws of the universe including mechanics, thermodynamics, gases, conservation and relativity because if you did perhaps you would show more humility as to their complexity.

Some of us do know that there is one law of the universe that postulates matter cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed and somatter is believed because of that to remain constant in the universe but do you think the laws and concepts of space end with that one?

One only need look at black holes for example to realize hey are anything but stable yet are an intrinsic component of space and so necessarily contradict your "simple stability" description unless of course you would have us believe dark matter/energy and blackholes are simple let alone stable and don't impact on the stability of the universe.

We also now know that parts of universe (galaxies and galactic clouds) disintegrate and re-form in what is believed to be cyclical stages to sustain general distribution of macro bodies in universe . Why would you think those cycles are simple let alone evidence stability?

Tell me, how do you know that waves of universe destruction do exist and ripple at the speed of light or faster, and so because of that would prevent you from having any idea this destruction was in progress as we speak and is in fact unstable and presumably your individual destruction will happen but far too quickly for you to form any awareness of its inherent nature let alone stability or lack thereof.

I am also curious to know why you find space simple and stable because to make that conclusion you would need to know:

1-how big this universe is

2-how many dimensions it has

3-whether there is more than one universe

4-what process originated all universes

5-what both time and space are

6-how what we perceive abut space is accurate.

What know simply from reading your comment that space is simple to understand and stable is that you have no clue as to the most basic and fundamental aspects of the quantum nature of the universe let alone reality because if you did you would not refer to them as simple let alone stable.