quote:

Originally posted by MarkT the CPC is like EVERY other gov't that takes power…full of shit, hiding things, spending and/or wasting money and covering it up or spinning it. At least everyone could skip the comparisons to previous administrations because it's long past the time when this gov't should be evaluated on its own merits. this constant pointing backward is nothing more than a lame smokescreen... previous scandals do not give this gov't carte blanche to do as it pleases, piss away our money and lie about it or hide the true costs. this gov't was found IN CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT for a reason, yet the CPC and many of its supports are passing that off merely as partisan bickering? the arrogance and contempt for Canadians in adopting that position is just disgusting and reason enough for Harper to go...

well said

Harper willing to increase the amount you can put into the TFSA, instead of $5000 it will become $10000.

quote:

Originally posted by jester Harper willing to increase the amount you can put into the TFSA, instead of $5000 it will become $10000.

only when the budget is balanced which will be in like 2015, if at all.

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess only when the budget is balanced which will be in like 2015, if at all.

Do you think the Liberals will be able to balance a budget?

quote:

Originally posted by jester Do you think the Liberals will be able to balance a budget?

ummm. each party has the same chance of balancing a budget. it really doesn't make a difference who is in power. in fact the last time the budget became balanced was when liberals were in power.

The Liberals were guilty of misconduct with the sponsorship scandal, and they paid the price for it.

Now it is time for the CPC to pay the price for their contempt towards parliament and canadians in general. They have shown themselves to be the very wolves in sheep clothing that so many people thought they were.

The millions lost on AdScam (yes, not billions as may be otherwise suggested, but still disgusting enough in its' own right) pales in comparison to the BILLIONS that are to be squandered on the fighter jets and the prison expansion alone.

Old news, but Conservative bigwig Gary Goodyear apparently does not believe in evolution.

He's the Minister of State for Science and Technology. That's an important job, and having someone in there with stone age beliefs is a bit much. It kind of explains how the Conservatives can make shitty deals such as the new jets that are going to be hugely expensive, they are clueless about science and technology.

As for Goodyear's qualifications in science, he took some courses at the University of Waterloo, but did not finish a degree, and later became a chiropractor. IMO chiropractic services are worthless quackery.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...-evolution.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Goodyear

I suspect a number of senior Conservatives, including PM Steven Harper, don't believe in evolution and are creationists. Others are probably MPs Chuck Strahl and Stockwell Day (they are retiring to collect fat pensions (Senate next?) even though they were initially elected on promises to reform the government by reducing MP pay, pensions, and benefits).

Last edited by tvmann on Apr-07-2011 at 22:32

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Speaking of those fighter jets: Nothing to see here guys..

I beg to differ...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon chinamon is INCH MOAN. LOL so fitting.

POS.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html

Claims by the Joint Strike Fighter program office and manufacturer that the Joint Strike Fighter can outperform “Sukhois” in air combat operations are impossible to reconcile against what is known about recent developments in Sukhoi Flanker capabilities, and the known design limitations of the Joint Strike Fighter. This paper performs a critical analysis of these statements against known Russian technological capabilities, tactics and doctrine. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the claimed simulations which yielded a "400 percent result" did not represent the variants of the Flanker which the Joint Strike Fighter will have to confront in operational service, and did not account for known Russian doctrine and capabilities intended to support these fighters. The only feasible explanation for such results is therefore that the simulated engagements were flown by Joint Strike Fighters against legacy Flanker variants with low power N-001 radars, 1980s generation missiles, warning systems, defensive jammers, and supporting systems. Therefore, a 2015 Joint Strike Fighter with its supporting systems is pitted against a 1980s threat without its supporting systems. Such results are only useful in assessing the effectiveness of the Joint Strike Fighter against some African or Middle Eastern nations and are clearly not representative of the Asia-Pacific environment post 2010. The reality is that the “threat environment” the Joint Strike Fighter will confront in the Asia-Pacific is very different to the environment expected and envisaged when the Joint Strike Fighter was conceived during the early 1990s. There have been significant technological advances in two metre band counter stealth radar, passive emitter locating systems, infrared sensors and high power-aperture X-band phased array radars. Moreover, DRFM jammers are proliferating, and Flankers now have the option of towed decoys like the KEDR, both diminishing the effectiveness of the AIM-120 AMRAAM which is to arm the Joint Strike Fighter. For all practical purposes, technological evolution has rendered the concept of the Joint Strike Fighter obsolete before it has even completed Flight Test or entered full rate production. This is a clear case of failed technological strategy on the part of the Joint Strike Fighter planning staff. It is now abundantly clear that the Joint Strike Fighter is not going to be viable in Beyond Visual Range air combat, just as it was clear from the outset that it would never be a serious player in Within Visual Range air combat. Improvements in the capability and number of internally carried missiles will not turn this problem around, since the opposing sensor and weapons capabilities will continue to evolve over time. The remarkable claims about Joint Strike Fighter air combat performance made recently by the program executives and manufacturer's public relations staff can be explained only if the cited simulations were conducted against 1980s Sukhoi variants, devoid of the capabilities of contemporary and future Flanker variants. As such these claims clearly lack analytical rigour and cannot be taken seriously.

1980s SU-35 versus 2015 F-35, still kicking ass.
Enjoy your failure, comrades.

___________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

stolen from Jem:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

___________________
Do I exist?

That's great, but the esteemed perfesser forgot to mention that the seventh through tenth men are opportunistic multinational corporations with little to no environmental or social conscience who almost always find the means to exploit the taxation system so that the first four men continue to earn so little that they probably wouldn't be able to afford their beer even if they wanted to.

But thanks Mr. Economics Professor, for dumbing it down for the plebes to understand, I feel much smrter now.

Unless a truly progressive and visionary political party that is capable of uniting the hearts and minds of voters steps up to the plate, this election will simply end up as the next group's turn to feed at the public trough.

The entire electoral system needs a revamp, but alas, as a species we tend to only be prone to change when situations turn absolutely dire. I like my friend Matt's proposal that all candidates run as independents, with endorsement coming from political parties and not the other way around. Current federal politics are obnoxiously out of reach of the average Canadian, which accounts for continuing voter apathy - this would be one way to turn that around.

___________________
4a.m.deepdarksweatypulsingwarehousemusic

WestsideWax Soundcloud

WestsideWax Mixcloud

New! WestsideWax Archives

Last edited by PivotTechno on Apr-09-2011 at 14:54