# On the good ship lollipop....Harper's folly



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Is Harper just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic? - The Globe and Mail

guess the vote buying binge is of marginal value....



> *Key Tory ridings in Quebec showered in stimulus money: study*
> Numbers show two Conservative ridings were biggest Quebec beneficiaries


Key Tory ridings in Quebec showered in stimulus money: study - The Globe and Mail

but of course $16 billion for jet jockey toys is just fine....



> *Canada’s $9-billion jet fighter deal raises questions*
> A Canadian Forces pilot has his picture taken in front of a F-35 Strike Fighter mock-up before a news conference in Ottawa on July 16, 2010. THE CANADIAN PRESS
> Critics ask whether such sophisticated and pricey planes are crucial to military needs


Canada’s $9-billion jet fighter deal raises questions - The Globe and Mail

and Days new prisons in a falling crime environment...



> *Stockwell Day cites 'alarming’ rise in unreported crime to justify new prisons
> 
> Ottawa uses 2004 Statscan data to defend costs after dismissing reliability of census*
> 
> ...


Stockwell Day cites 'alarming’ rise in unreported crime to justify new prisons - The Globe and Mail










the lot of them......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gosh, someone open a window will ya?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what's the matter, is smellin yer own stink not pleasant?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Stockpile could hardly be considered an asset to any party except those that do not have him as a member, sort of like Ignats.

That said most of those unreported crimes are not the sort of thing that people get sent to jail for. Vandalism, petty theft and so on. Reason they are unreported is that sooner or later people discover that the police have several hundred higher priority obligations so reporting them is simply a waste of time and energy. Once the damage or loss reaches a point where the victim is going to make an insurance claim, the crime does get reported.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

As usual the length of the op's post and the number of links makes it a, by now normal occurrence, designed to discredit certain people, not to mention fostering a personal vendetta.

And as usual, I will ignore it until some real facts come to light.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> As usual the length of the op's post and the number of links makes it a, by now normal occurrence, designed to discredit certain people, not to mention fostering a personal vendetta.
> 
> And as usual, I will ignore it until some real facts come to light.


It's the usual MacDoc vomit without follow-up. He started this thread but will probably place it on "permanent ignore" the moment he pushes the send button.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

:lmao:


Macfury said:


> It's the usual MacDoc vomit without follow-up. He started this thread but will probably place it on "permanent ignore" the moment he pushes the send button.



puketacular as usual...go iggy...:baby:


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Hip hip hurrah, the right wing Evangelists have come to save the day! God bless us all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well it -is- ALL Iggy's fault. Apparently Harper is letting Iggy play him like a puppet these right wing apologizers said so in another thread.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Hip hip hurrah, the right wing Evangelists have come to save the day! God bless us all.


Hyyyeppp. You know what we could all use use? 










...uhhh


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian., the least you could do is grab something from Canada. 

I agree, though, that the Tinfoil hat crew might actually believe that Ignatieff could be Prime Minister--but those are his supporters.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *PM has some explaining to do*
> 
> Published On Mon Aug 09 2010
> 
> ...


Indeed ....and by the looks of the polls - to his own former and fleeing supporters,,,,,


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Iggy *MADE* them do it!!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Some "true believers" waking up....



> * Stephen Harper flooded with vitriolic e-mail over MP expense audit *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stephen Harper flooded with vitriolic e-mail over MP expense audit - The Globe and Mail


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My, my we are behind. That story happened over three months ago.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Can't we all just, get along?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Poor Sinc. His party is beginning to show cracks.

The story is front page on G&M online -today-


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The _Globe's _choice of words, not mine:



> The rest of the e-mails, many from senders *claiming to be Conservative supporters*, expressed shock that a government elected on a platform of transparency and accountability could be so hypocritical.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh lordy, it's those damn wascally wiberals again!!!

The new conservative party of canada, the party where everything we do bad, is because of the liberals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> The story is front page on G&M online -today-


Yeah, the G&M likes to run three month old stuff.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

*Drat - it has been reported*

Only those "unreported stories" can expect any action from this gov't.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I laugh at the people who read Liberal propaganda rags and then try to pass it off as news. You enjoy your fun, we'll see who is laughing after the next election, AGAIN.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bsenka said:


> I laugh at the people who read Liberal propaganda rags and then try to pass it off as news. You enjoy your fun, we'll see who is laughing after the next election, AGAIN.


Are you implying that the pro-Conservative rags only print facts?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

always the 'nyah nyah na nyah nyah' stuff.

on it goes...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> Are you implying that the pro-Conservative rags only print facts?


Everyone has biases, and everyone makes mistakes. The difference is the Globe and the Star lie deliberately. If you read those papers, you will always be misinformed.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Everyone has biases, and everyone makes mistakes. The difference is the Globe and the Star lie deliberately. If you read those papers, you will always be misinformed.


So the pro Conservative rags you enjoy don't lie?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> So the pro Conservative rags you enjoy don't lie?


No such thing.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

10 minutes watching Faux News and you wonder if that con job is even aware of the concept of truth.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Talking about the F-35 Strike Fighter contract, I don't see why people are complaining there weren't other bids. Canada was part of the Joint Strike Fighter competition, which they put over $160 million dollars in. As the Concervatives said, there is no reason to go out for bids, when the Canadian government participated in the JFC competition. There was already a chance for various companies to compete. Otherwise, why waste millions of dollars if your not going to go with the competition winner.

As for whether we need the new planes. Yes, we need them. Russia is obviously becoming more aggressive over the Arctic for one thing, and we don't need our jets falling out of the air like Sea Kings is another thing.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bsenka said:


> No such thing.


Which, a pro Conservative rag or the fact they don't lie?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> and we don't need our jets falling out of the air like Sea Kings is another thing.


so we trade in a dual engine fighter with a longer range for a single engine with a shorter range and throw in a lot of money....gee that sounds...


*FAIL *

How about some more ice breakers, SAR ships and helicopters and Coast Guard cutters with reinforced hulls....maybe that might actually prove useful in the Arctic.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

QUESTIONS ABOUT PETER MACKAY'S CLAIMS ABOUT RUSSIAN BOMBERS AND CANADIAN AIRSPACE; AND WHAT ABOUT THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CONNECTION?

Peter MacKay attempting to justify the decision with fear mongering.

NORAD and Russian Air Force plan cooperative air defense exercise


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I can almost smell the burning in google heating up with willy nilly searches on why the new jet is better.

en (google)guarde!

So, the conservatives get totally bent about the spending of a couple billion on the gun registry, but go totally ga ga over spending 16 billion on fear mongering.

Well I'm shocked...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

don't forget the all important artificial lake.. :greedy::greedy::greedy:

That title should have been plural...*Harper's Follies*..scans better too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Law and order eh....
Transparent honest government eh....

*FAIL*



> *Removal of firearms watchdog has critics screaming 'censorship'
> 
> Ottawa denies role in ‘staffing decisions' after exit of gun-registry champion*
> 
> ...


more
Removal of firearms watchdog has critics screaming 'censorship' - The Globe and Mail


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And good on them for continuing their quest to squash the long gun registry, a useless and much too costly bit of harrassment on duck hunters, farmers, ranchers and target shooters. :clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> And good on them for continuing their quest to squash the long gun registry, a useless and much too costly bit of harrassment on duck hunters, farmers, ranchers and target shooters. :clap::clap:


+1. This is a vote getter for me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Look! Shiny balll!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Look! Shiny balll!!!


groovetube, I've never heard a male with such a fascination for shiny balls as you have.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> so we trade in a dual engine fighter with a longer range for a single engine with a shorter range and throw in a lot of money....gee that sounds...
> 
> 
> *FAIL *
> ...


 
You seem to be misinformed. The range of an FA-18F according to wikipedia is approx. 1275 miles. The range of an F-35 is approx. 1200 miles (wikipedia doesn't state that this is likely dependent on the variant of F-35). The ferry range of both (the addition of external tanks) is over 2000 miles. 

Besides, with the protection of the Arctic becoming a bigger necessity, maybe we need an Airforce Base more northern than Cold Lake Alberta, or is there an Air Force Base more northern?

The main drawback of the F-35 it sounds is the ability for Lockheed to deliver on time. There seems to be manufacturing delays.

Ice Breakers are certainly usefull for northern naval patrolling, but they can't do diddly against a Russian bomber.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I just knew, -someone- would step up to the google plate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I just knew, -someone- would step up to the google plate.


An old smart pappy like you don't need no computer learnin' eh?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

In what scenario will the Russians be bombing us?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> In what scenario will the Russians be bombing us?


right after the liberals have corralled, handcuffed, strip searched, and thrown in jail all the duck hunters, farmers, ranchers and target shooters in Alberta.

edit, I forgot to add some much handclapping:
:clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Ottawaman said:


> In what scenario will the Russians be bombing us?


 
I thought it was common knowledge by now. Russia sends a bomber or 2 every few months to test out Canadian soveriegnty. 

Russian planes intercepted near N.L. - Yahoo! Canada News

Canada Scrambled Jets During Obama Visit After Russian Incursion - CityNews

Canadian F-18s usually intercept them, and the bombers head home.

If Russia were to invade, Canada, we probably wouldn't notice. How many Russian and American subs are running under the ice in the Arctic, I wonder? Russia's probably landed foot up in the Arctic a couple of times already, without us noticing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

So the CF-18s are, doing the job then? Because yes this is common knowledge and has been going on for quite a while. It only hit the news stands to help Canadians stomach the conservatives squandering 16 billion after shrieking at the spender liberals...

Can't keep track.

So if there are nuke subs under the ice, we better spend spend SPEND er all up a few hundred MORE billion to buy nuke subs and a whole bunch more shoot'em up toys.

You know how that kinda stuff gives the right wing a serious woody eh.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

not to say we should roll over or anything, but the idea that Canada should somehow out "military" Russia is insane.

we need patrols. we need a better presence. but we don't need "cutting edge" warcraft, because that's a strategy that has no long term future.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

groovetube said:


> So the CF-18s are, doing the job then?


Yes, but their old already and need replacing. The idea is to replace them *before* they get in the same shape as the Sea Kings. There are only 80 of the 138 that were delivered, and they were delivered in 1980. We're in 2010 already. If we don't get our orders in for the F-35, we'll be running them in 2020.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

i-rui said:


> not to say we should roll over or anything, but the idea that Canada should somehow out "military" Russia is insane.
> 
> we need patrols. we need a better presence. but we don't need "cutting edge" warcraft, because that's a strategy that has no long term future.


No-one says we need to out-militarize Russia. We can't. Like you say, we need to maintain our patrols.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Yes, but their old already and need replacing. The idea is to replace them *before* they get in the same shape as the Sea Kings. There are only 80 of the 138 that were delivered, and they were delivered in 1980. We're in 2010 already. If we don't get our orders in for the F-35, we'll be running them in 2020.


hmmm. I guess they should have thought of that before trying to buy votes with that brainless gst cut that did nothing.

I know how conservatives are so fond of conjuring up the concept of balancing one's chequebooks every month when running a household budget, seems they have some things to learn, apparently.

You just can't keep spending billions and billions and billions of dollars without a way to pay it back. And no cutting a few million here and there from liberals or arts programs, just isn't going to 'cut' it....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> hmmm. I guess they should have thought of that before trying to buy votes with that brainless gst cut that did nothing.
> 
> I know how conservatives are so fond of conjuring up the concept of balancing one's chequebooks every month when running a household budget, seems they have some things to learn, apparently.
> 
> You just can't keep spending billions and billions and billions of dollars without a way to pay it back. And no cutting a few million here and there from liberals or arts programs, just isn't going to 'cut' it....


Who is the party that will get things back the way you like them again?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Who is the party that will get things back the way you like them again?


There's never any going back, and sadly, there's never any party that doesn't have some rotten planks in its platform, so it's a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

The longer we can go without another federal election the better; while in a minority, the Cons can't do as much damage as they'd like, and none of the other parties can currently mount a credible alternative. Thank Zeus for the Bloc... they make great spoilers if nothing else.

We may see something dramatic happen during the next campaign (having been burned by trying to form a coalition *after* the last election, maybe the NDP and Liberals will form a coalition *before* the next one... that'd be interesting if nothing else) but the status quo is preferable to a Conservative dictatorship.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Thank Zeus for the Bloc... they make great spoilers if nothing else.


Anyone who gives thanks for a provincial party, given seats in a federal parliament, bent on separating the country, really needs to seriously re-examine their priorities.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Anyone who gives thanks for a provincial party, given seats in a federal parliament, bent on separating the country, really needs to seriously re-examine their priorities.


Not at all. I think the Conservatives in majority would be far more damaging to Canada than the Bloc could ever hope to be. Ironically, I think these two parties actually have some common ground; they both want to see Quebec separate from Canada, but they aren't working together very well. But by preventing the Conservatives from getting seats in Quebec, the Bloc does more to preserve Canada's values than any other party.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Yes, but their old already and need replacing. The idea is to replace them *before* they get in the same shape as the Sea Kings. There are only 80 of the 138 that were delivered, and they were delivered in 1980. We're in 2010 already. If we don't get our orders in for the F-35, we'll be running them in 2020.


why not replace them with new F-18s at 25% of the cost?

Use the rest of the money to get ice breakers, and put actual people on the ground and develop a real presence?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Who is the party that will get things back the way you like them again?


I donno beav', I guess there's a lotta baaaaad people out there, huh.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Not at all. I think the Conservatives in majority would be far more damaging to Canada than the Bloc could ever hope to be. Ironically, I think these two parties actually have some common ground; they both want to see Quebec separate from Canada, but they aren't working together very well. But by preventing the Conservatives from getting seats in Quebec, the Bloc does more to preserve Canada's values than any other party.


You have got to be kidding.

As much as I like Duceppe as a politician, I detest everything he and his party stands for.

Please explain how the Bloc is preserving Canadian values and how a Conservative majority would damage Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Not at all. I think the Conservatives in majority would be far more damaging to Canada than the Bloc could ever hope to be. Ironically, I think these two parties actually have some common ground; they both want to see Quebec separate from Canada, but they aren't working together very well. But by preventing the Conservatives from getting seats in Quebec, the Bloc does more to preserve Canada's values than any other party.


So, just to be sure I understand you, you condone a provincial party having privilege of seats in a national parliament with the sole intent of dismantling the federation?

Incredible.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

SINC said:


> So, just to be sure I understand you, you condone a provincial party having privilege of seats in a national parliament with the sole intent of dismantling the federation?
> 
> Incredible.


Don't you get it - they stand in the way of Harper unleashing his "secret agenda".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chasMac said:


> Don't you get it - they stand in the way of Harper unleashing his "secret agenda".


Such theory must be an offshoot of the atheist party is it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> So, just to be sure I understand you, you condone a provincial party having privilege of seats in a national parliament with the sole intent of dismantling the federation?


Sure... parliament and politics in general is all about pragmatism and has nothing to do with principles. I don't agree with the position of the Bloc or the Conservatives, so as long as they're mutually preventing each other from achieving their goals, it's all good.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Sure... parliament and politics in general is all about pragmatism and has nothing to do with principles. I don't agree with the position of the Bloc or the Conservatives, so as long as they're mutually preventing each other from achieving their goals, it's all good.


I think you may have just blown his mind.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I think you may have just blown his mind.


Now how could you think that would blow my mind? Things emanating from a blown mind don't bother me one tiny little bit.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

my this is rather unflattering.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I guess that cartoon stung enough to have to go hunting for a counter one of Iggy. No comment, just bu-bu-bu-BUT! LOOK!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Not at all. I think the Conservatives in majority would be far more damaging to Canada than the Bloc could ever hope to be. Ironically, I think these two parties actually have some common ground; *they both want to see Quebec separate from Canada*, but they aren't working together very well. But by preventing the Conservatives from getting seats in Quebec, the* Bloc does more to preserve Canada's values than any other party*.


Nonsense. 

What, Liberal values are Canada's values.... the values of Canada are whatever the people say they are. If the Conservatives do enough things that Canadians don't like they get defeated in an election and the next party has a go at it. Polisci 101.

Your *fear* of the damage that Conservatives would do to the country if given a majority are all in your head. In a democracy there is nothing done that can't be undone. Politics is all short term, a peoples values are not. You have really bought into the media' scaremongering hook line and sinker.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I guess that cartoon stung enough to have to go hunting for a counter one of Iggy. No comment, just bu-bu-bu-BUT! LOOK!


You must have been the kid in the fringes of the field that nobody played with, mumbling things about shiny balls, and waiting to predict what all of the other kids might do while they were really playing games.

Oh...edit:


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

i-rui said:


> why not replace them with new F-18s at 25% of the cost?
> 
> Use the rest of the money to get ice breakers, and put actual people on the ground and develop a real presence?


 
Good question. I wrongly assumed Canada had at least a few CF-18E/Fs, it appears that all our CF-18s were of the CF-18A & B variant. The oldest CF-18s there are. Alot have apparently been upgraded to the same levels of CF-18C & Ds. 

Buying CF-18F Super Hornets certainly sounds like an option to me and was apparently one of the jets the government was considering. I'm not sure why they weren't chosen. Did they not meet a requirement, was there a bias (to Lockheed instead of Boeing), or was there some lobbying going on? There are obviously Canadian connections to Lockheed and Boeing. Canadian companies have contracts from Lockheed F-35 and I'd imagine Canadian companies have or would have contracts from the Boeing CF-18E/F.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> You have really bought into the media' scaremongering hook line and sinker.


I grew up in Alberta; I _know_ these guys. Their social values are repugnant, and their economic policies are as bad as the Liberals.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I grew up in Alberta; I _know_ these guys. Their social values are repugnant, and their economic policies are as bad as the Liberals.


You are equating some Western Conservatives with conservatism, they are not the same thing. There are plenty of conservatives who are not happy with some of the Conservative Government policies. Additionally it is not Conservative Party policy either official or unofficial that Quebec not be part of Canada. To even imply so is merely revelatory of your own biases and prejudices. 



> I grew up in Alberta; I _know_ these guys.


And you say you are a scientist? Since when does limited anecdotal experience equal fact?  

Conservatives are not a homogeneous group... I am surprised that someone as intelligent as yourself would suggest that they are.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> I grew up in Alberta; I _know_ these guys. Their social values are repugnant, and their economic policies are as bad as the Liberals.


Thank you. May I have another...

Also, seeing as you grew up in our fair province, does this mean that the same applies to you?

Jes' askin'...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Good question. I wrongly assumed Canada had at least a few CF-18E/Fs, it appears that all our CF-18s were of the CF-18A & B variant. The oldest CF-18s there are. Alot have apparently been upgraded to the same levels of CF-18C & Ds.
> 
> Buying CF-18F Super Hornets certainly sounds like an option to me and was apparently one of the jets the government was considering. I'm not sure why they weren't chosen. Did they not meet a requirement, was there a bias (to Lockheed instead of Boeing), or was there some lobbying going on? There are obviously Canadian connections to Lockheed and Boeing. Canadian companies have contracts from Lockheed F-35 and I'd imagine Canadian companies have or would have contracts from the Boeing CF-18E/F.


Canada participated in the Joint Strike Fighter Program, which basically came up with the f-35, but that's still no logical reason to spend billions of defense dollars on cutting edge planes that don't even fill the need of what Canada actually NEEDS (we'd be better off with twice the amount of F-18s for half the cost).

I don't know the reason our government choose the f-35s, but if i had to guess it'd be lobbying, corporate interests and pressure from the US.

Which is a pretty crappy way to make decisions for OUR country. But the Harper government has been doing this for a while (look at their stance on copy write law, their proposition to switch to US style prisons, etc...). 

I don't have a problem with TRADITIONAL conservative values (small government, fiscal responsibility, etc...) but those days are LONG gone. Modern "Conservative" governments are little more than puppets for corporate money men.

(not to say the Liberals aren't puppets too.... just less)


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

screature said:


> And you say you are a scientist? Since when does limited anecdotal experience equal fact?
> 
> Conservatives are not a homogeneous group... I am surprised that someone as intelligent as yourself would suggest that they are.


Brilliant. :clap:

Were I to stereotype Albertans based on Calgary's city council, I'd come to the conclusion that our politicos were all of the bleeding-heart ilk who spend obscene amounts of money on the arts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Maybe it's me, but I nowhere did -I- see bryanc stereotyping anyone. Just that he's been aware of these politicians for some time having been there before they hit the federal stage. Did I miss something?


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

groovetube said:


> Maybe it's me, but I nowhere did -I- see bryanc stereotyping anyone. Just that he's been aware of these politicians for some time having been there before they hit the federal stage. Did I miss something?


I believe he said he lived in AB so he _knows_ that conservative party members harbour 'repugnant values'.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chasMac said:


> I believe he said he lived in AB so he _knows_ that conservative party members harbour 'repugnant values'.


And THAT is but a single man's opinion that never did resonate with the majority of us Albertans.

You might say he was flying solo.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

SINC said:


> And THAT is but a single man's opinion that never did resonate with the majority of us Albertans.
> 
> You might say he was flying solo.


Sinc, I honestly think he isn't flying solo. A lot in the east think that of us. Chretien, _while he was PM_ denigrated AB.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

chasMac said:


> I believe he said he lived in AB so he _knows_ that conservative party members harbour 'repugnant values'.


hmm. I guess we'll have to wait for clarification.

It's hard to keep up. I'm headed to the cottage tomorrow, so none of this will matter a bit for at least a week.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chasMac said:


> Sinc, I honestly think he isn't flying solo. A lot in the east think that of us. Chretien, _while he was PM_ denigrated AB.


I meant he was flying solo when he was an Albertan, not now.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Maybe it's me, but I nowhere did -I- see bryanc stereotyping anyone. Just that he's been aware of these politicians for some time having been there before they hit the federal stage. Did I miss something?





> I know these guys!!!!


 Are you deaf, dumb, or blind or blind... or maybe all three....

What is that if not stereotyping.... I grew up with the blacks, the Asians, the Australians, etc., etc., etc,... _I know these guys_... no stereotyping there, no not at all... Phhhullease!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

It's the wrong plane for us. It's a medium range multipurpose platform. Close ground support, Aircraft carrier landings (we have none) and bombing is not relevant in the Arctic or in any of Canada. It's a platform best suited to the American military.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I just biked past an Iggy rally here in Victoria.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> I just biked past an Iggy rally here in Victoria.


I guess they don't like him there either, eh?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Conservatives are not a homogeneous group


Of course they aren't. But the Harper inner circle are. 

I have no major issues with small-c conservatism; indeed I would count myself as a fiscal conservative, but everything I've seen (and almost more importantly everything I haven't seen (inaction can speak as loudly as action)) from Harper and his cronies suggests to me that they are 'Bush-like' neo-conservatives that have no reservations about spending blood and treasure on Holy wars and other "Just Causes" as long as it doesn't require taxing wealthy corporations that keep them in power.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Are you deaf, dumb, or blind or blind... or maybe all three....
> 
> What is that if not stereotyping.... I grew up with the blacks, the Asians, the Australians, etc., etc., etc,... _I know these guys_... no stereotyping there, no not at all... Phhhullease!


calm down. No need for such drama.

If I read correctly, ^^^^ he seems to be referring to Harper and his crew, not stereotyping all albertans or all conservatives.

sheesh.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> calm down. No need for such drama.
> 
> If I read correctly, ^^^^ he seems to be referring to Harper and his crew, not stereotyping all albertans or all conservatives.
> 
> sheesh.


:lmao: sheesh is right. I thought if anyone's skin was thick enough to take the "drama" it would be you gt for you sure can dish it out when something sticks in your craw.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> :lmao: sheesh is right. I thought if anyone's skin was thick enough to take the "drama" it would be you gt for you sure can dish it out when something sticks in your craw.


It's a tough job, trolling the threads to attack Conservative positions but offering no alternative--yet he still has time to kvetch when he's "hurt."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Of course they aren't. But the Harper inner circle are.
> 
> I have no major issues with small-c conservatism; indeed I would count myself as a fiscal conservative, but everything I've seen (and almost more importantly everything I haven't seen (inaction can speak as loudly as action)) from Harper and his cronies suggests to me that they are 'Bush-like' neo-conservatives that have no reservations about spending blood and treasure on Holy wars and other "Just Causes" as long as it doesn't require taxing wealthy corporations that keep them in power.





> I grew up in Alberta; I know these guys. Their social values are repugnant, and their economic policies are as bad as the Liberals.


And from that statement one is supposed to infer your clarification is what you meant? I don't buy it. Oh and by the way, the "inner circle" which is Cabinet (Ministers and Ministers of State), breaks down like this:

BC: 5
Alberta: 6
Sask: 2
Manitoba: 2
Ont: 12
Que: 5
NB: 2
NS: 1
PEI: 1
Nunavut: 1

So Albertan's (including the PM) make up 16% of Cabinet. So your growing up in Alberta, even if you knew each and everyone of the Albertan's in cabinet personally (which I highly doubt) means that you know 16% of Harper's inner circle, so how well do *really* know them? You may like to think you do, but you have yet to demonstrate anything other than opinion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> demonstrate anything other than opinion.


But THEY have...

walks like a duck, talks like a duck....likely is


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> But THEY have...
> 
> *walks like a duck, talks like a duck*....likely is


"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck"... likely is... A heron that speaks duck and knows how to walk like a duck when it is a duck that is charge.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

screature said:


> "Walks like a duck, talks like a duck"... likely is... A heron that speaks duck and knows how to walk like a duck when it is a duck that is charge.


But wait till you see the bill...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But puppy pack leeader Harper knows better than police chiefs after all....



> *Police chiefs to campaign for long-gun registry*
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> Date: Mon. Aug. 23 2010 10:22 PM ET
> ...


Police chiefs to campaign for long-gun registry - CTV News


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I hate the Harper government, but I actually don't have a problem with them scrapping the long gun registry.

I don't doubt that it has some value to police when making calls, but like everything in this world we have to look at cost vs benefit. If it's really costing over a billion dollars to run per year then it doesn't pass that test. That money can be better used elsewhere.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> I hate the Harper government, but I actually don't have a problem with them scrapping the long gun registry.
> 
> I don't doubt that it has some value to police when making calls, but like everything in this world we have to look at cost vs benefit. If it's really costing over a billion dollars to run per year then it doesn't pass that test. That money can be better used elsewhere.


Agreed with that. If the police find it so valuable, why don't they, as an association, support sharing the budget of the Registry among the various police forces? My guess is that they love it because it's free.

I appreciate MacDoc's fairness in quoting the entire article (does he ever not?):



> Not all frontline officers agree with the registry. Randy Kuntz, an Edmonton police officer for 22 years, surveyed 2,600 officers on the issue, and found about 2,400 want to scrap the registry.
> "*With the boots-meets-the-pavement type of policeman who's going to be dealing with the public every day, overwhelmingly there's no support for this registry*," he told CTV's Kevin Armstrong in Edmonton. *"It hasn't saved anybody*."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I believe the $Billions$ was for setting it up and running it costs in the millions. 

However at this point we can be sure that the entire system for insecurity reasons needs to be moved to new computers running Windo7er and that will indeed again cost billions.

For this reason alone it should be scrapped, not to mention that the system has as yet to save anyones life.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> I believe the $Billions$ was for setting it up and running it costs in the millions. .


ahhh. I just heard that the revised yearly total is $4 million a year. Should've known better than to believe any number from the Harper Government.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> ahhh. I just heard that the revised yearly total is $4 million a year. Should've known better than to believe any number from the Harper Government.


No it was never stated by the Harper Government that it cost a billion per year to operate, that was your misunderstanding.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> ahhh. I just heard that the revised yearly total is $4 million a year. Should've known better than to believe any number from the Harper Government.


It was the Auditor General who estimated the costs of the program.
*
In December 2002, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the project was running vastly above initial cost estimates. The report shows that the implementation of the firearms registry program by the Department of Justice has had significant strategic and management problems throughout. Taxpayers were originally expected to pay only $2 million of the budget while registration fees would cover the rest. In 1995, the Department of Justice reported to Parliament that the system would cost $119 million to implement, and that the income generated from licensing fees would be $117 million. This gives a net cost of $2 million. At the time of the 2002 audit, the revised estimates from the Department of Justice were that the cost of the program would be more than $1 billion by 2004/05 and that the income from licence fees in the same period would be $140 million.*


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> No it was never stated by the Harper Government that it cost a billion per year to operate, that was your misunderstanding.


perhaps. but he did say :

"It cost taxpayers some $2 billion and it hasn't done a thing to reduce gun crime."

CBC News - Canada - PM appeals to Ont. hunters, anglers to help scrap gun registry

so one side is saying 4 mil a year, and the other says 2 billion since 1996. That's a pretty huge gulf in the numbers.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> perhaps. but he did say :
> 
> "It cost taxpayers some $2 billion and it hasn't done a thing to reduce gun crime."
> 
> ...


Let me break it down for you...

$10 Million for the database and connectivity to law enforcement agencies.
*$1.99 Billion to Liberal consultants and other free loaders.*
$0 for office space and staff (existing space and government employees)
$4 million in operating expenses per annum including staff and office space.

In 1995 I worked on a project that included a very sophisticated warehouse management system which also tied into a "buyer's system". It could do a 1000 times more than the requirements for the gun registry would be. Total cost --$3 million. Similar systems in the same category are in the neighbourhood of $6million. They can handle any number of SKUs, are RF capable, tie into SAP, Oracle, etc.

There is no, I repeat, NO reason that system should have cost the taxpayers of this country $2B. 'Tis a joke and on top of it all totally useless in preventing gun crime.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

government bloat is government bloat. Liberal, PC or NDP it's always going to be there. (witness the 1.2 Billion dollar G20 security tab).

Still, if the money has already been spent and the infrastructure is there, that does change the equation. $4 million a year going forward is much different than $2 billion every dozen years.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> government bloat is government bloat. Liberal, PC or NDP it's always going to be there. (witness the 1.2 Billion dollar G20 security tab).
> 
> Still, if the money has already been spent and the infrastructure is there, that does change the equation. $4 million a year going forward is much different than $2 billion every dozen years.


I agree re gov't bloat. A billion dollars seems like nothing to these wankers and the tax payer get's zilch for it.

As far as the registry is concerned, I've said this in another thread...I don't care as long as they don't come a knock'n to confiscate my legally owned and registered firearms.

Realistically however, that $2b and the subsequent 4m/annum could have been spent better in reducing the smuggling and importation of illegal firearms and to prevent crime which is associated with such firearms.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> perhaps. but he did say :
> 
> "It cost taxpayers some $2 billion and it hasn't done a thing to reduce gun crime."
> 
> ...


No the numbers are correct in both cases. The initial start up costs were over a billion dollars and only most recently has the annual operational cost dropped to $4 million. There is no discrepancy.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> No the numbers are correct in both cases. The initial start up costs were over a billion dollars


is it ONE billion, or TWO billion? There is a pretty wide difference between those numbers.

And if the cost is now substantially lower and that large initial cost behind us, shouldn't the Harper Government stop representing it as a billion dollar albatross around the country's neck?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> is it ONE billion, or TWO billion? There is a pretty wide difference between those numbers.
> 
> And if the cost is now substantially lower, shouldn't the Harper Government stop representing it as a billion dollar albatross around the countries neck?


It's complicated... Gun registry cost soars to $2 billion What ever the cost it is outrageous for something that albeit is used, serves no real purpose in terms of actual results and greater public safety. Maybe the police chiefs should stop misrepresenting it, just because it accessed doesn't make it useful in terms of actually making us safer and their is plenty of evidence that it doesn't.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

fair enough. 4 million a year is still a lot of dough, and i guess that would be best case scenario. i'm sure it helps police officers but if the benefit is outweighed by the cost then it should be scrapped.

I still do resent the way the Harper government is representing the cost of it. It just makes an intelligent discourse on the subject more difficult.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It was estimated to cost one billion by 2005. I believe the current figure represents costs to 2010 to register only 7,000,000 rifles. I have heard that the figures used to substantiate high use of the registry by police include all routine background checks that access the database--they have no choice whether or not the registry is accessed in such a check.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> fair enough. 4 million a year is still a lot of dough, and i guess that would be best case scenario. i'm sure it helps police officers but if the benefit is outweighed by the cost then it should be scrapped.
> 
> I still do resent the way the Harper government is representing the cost of it. It just makes an intelligent discourse on the subject more difficult.


$ 4 mill only covers things until the wackos in charge discover it is useless and try to fix it. Then Canadian taxpayers will be asked to fork out more $billion$.

May not be totally useless. Grease a few palms or maybe just a simple hack and a thief could find out exactly who in his area owns the particular variety of gun he wishes to steal.beejacon


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

NORAD downplays Russian bomber interception



> "At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or United States sovereign airspace," said NORAD spokesman Lt. Desmond James, a Canadian naval officer.
> 
> "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the North. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The list of utter bits of stupidity getting longer and more intense....

Blue Ribbon panel says the long gun registry works and is cost effective....HARPER FAIL
Mr. Law and order gets it way wrong.

Now he "fights" off a non -existent Russian "threat" :lmao::lmao:

This is the economic guru that said there was no recession coming.....and then oversaw the largest deficit in Canadian history....but buys boy toy jets. 

What an outright idjit.....shades of Mulooney. XX)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Boy, for a smart guy you sure are lost on the long gun registry and its effectiveness: ZERO.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Nope.

The long gun registry is extremely good at what it was designed to do. It sucks money out of taxpayers wallets to collect, collate and indefinitely store reams and reams of useless faulty data.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

more international embarrassment for Canada courtesy Harper's anti-science idiocy...



> Steven Chase
> Ottawa — From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> Published on Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2010 1:04PM EDT
> Last updated on Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2010 11:26PM EDT
> ...


Two profs attack Harper’s ban on long census - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> more international embarrassment for Canada courtesy Harper's anti-science idiocy...
> 
> *Two profs* attack Harper's ban on long census - The Globe and Mail



Those will be two mighty disappointed professors. Ain't ya a little bit nervous firing off those big guns, MacDoc?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Statisticians who demand that governments supply them with free stats? Gee Shocking. 

If special interests hate it, that alone is proof that it's the right thing to do.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Removing the threat of jail time and fines in a democracy is certainly the RIGHT thing to do. Those two "scientists" are just that, "scientists" who know diddly most of the time if you follow the AGW group.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Long-gun registry efficient: RCMP report*



> An RCMP evaluation report of Canada's long-gun registry concludes that the program is cost effective, efficient and an important tool for law enforcement, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The findings of the report, conducted with the help of outside auditors and completed six months ago, have been in the hands of the government since February, but have not yet been released.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, of course the RCMP has received so much praise for the efficiency of its operation that they're just the right group to decide.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

very efficient at providing employment for unemployable political inlaws


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh yeah - add wanting to sell off the nuclear industry we've spent billions nuturing.....shades of Diefenbungler



> BAY STREET-Nuclear boom shines light on Canada uranium miners


XE.com - BAY STREET-Nuclear boom shines light on Canada uranium miners

and of course the mishandling of the Chalk River reactor situation 



> *Government 'must be made accountable' for isotope shortage: CMA president*
> 
> 8/19/2009
> SASKATOON —_* Canada’s Conservative government has mishandled the medical isotopes file, the Canadian Medical Association’s outgoing president says.*_
> ...


more embarrassment on the world stage....

and now the vets are none too happy



> * Aldolph Harper Fires another "Honest Canadian"
> 
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> and now the vets are none too happy


That is indeed odd. The Legion branch I belong to takes no issue with having a new representative. Nor does my neighbour, a retired Afghan/Bosnian theatre service vet of seven tours.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I'm waiting for: "...and Harper has a poopy pants and smells bad." That's a pretty motley collection of "embarrassment on the world stage."

MacDoc is right on one thing. We have spent billions nurturing that sick patient we call the Canadian nuclear industry. They've been sucking the taxpayer's teat for so many years they don't know what solid food tastes like. We have to give away those reactors with all sorts of gifts and preferential financing to make people buy them. Let it go!!


----------

