News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

Our police and military are over funded for the work they do......I would rather see a great deal of that cash go towards educating our children.

Great sentiment. Let's take it to its logical conclusion and get rid of the military, the police, border services, prisons, etc. We should get rid of anybody and everybody with authority that you dislike....after all who would not want more money for schools and hospitals.

Now tell me how you would fulfill the following functions provide by various organizations:

Search and Rescue (Air Force and Coast Guard)
Maritime EEZ surveillance (Navy, Air Force)
Arctic Sovereignty and northern territories overwatch (Canadian Rangers, Air Force)
Disaster Assistance (Army)
Counter-Terrorism Response (Army)
Border Surveillance (CBSA)
Customs (CBSA)
Immigration Control (CBSA)
Countering organized crime, narco-trafficking, etc. (RCMP)
Countering terrorist threats (CSIS)

we'll keep the list short till there. Now, since you seem to know how to run the country better than anybody and everybody else, please tell us how those functions would be achieved since you don't believe in the organizations that do those jobs existing.

I don't want Canada to turn into a police state but instead I would prefer we get a tight leash on our police and military so we know where our money is going.

The CF, RCMP, CSIS, CBSA, etc all publish audited budgets and reports to Parliament annually. They are available online and any citizen can make submissions regarding those budgets before the appropriate Parliamentary committee. Hardly non-transparent. I assure you the government knows where every cent goes. It's well documented...particularly in the post-sponsorship scandal era.

And do answer AoD's question....please tell us what your definition of a police state is and at what level of expenditure you assess that we would become a police state. We spent incredible amounts during both World Wars and Canada didn't become a police state then. So feel free to enlighten us on what the threshold is.

Perhaps we should cut back on the extravagant spending of the military brass and spend that cash on protecting the kids we send over seas to fight pointless wars.

Another generic statement from the ignorant. You should have a look at the various submissions before SCONDVA. We have no 'extravagant spending of the military brass'. Come up to Ottawa and take a look. DND is one of the few government departments without proper facilities. In ottawa, DND is spread out over nearly 30 buildings. National Defence Headquarters is hand-me-down building which Transport Canada built and then refused to occupy, so they gave it to the military.

As for our brass. I for one think they don't get enough perks. Ottawa is the only place I have ever been to where Colonels and Generals take the bus to work. No parking spots after 20+ years of service. In fact, the perks they get are so poor, that we often give them more when they are abroad just so we don't embarrass ourselves. Yet, even then you'll find most of the senior brass humble enough to turn down their perks. They often fly commercial instead of using the Challengers (which politicians all of stripes seem to have no problems abusing when in power). And they often don't fly business even when they are entitled to it.

And beyond that....you will find that those of us lower down the food chain do sincerely appreciate our leadership. Unlike the corporate sector there is no finishing school for generals. They don't get an MBA and then sweep into the corner office. They start at the bottom and work their way up. And their promotion criteria is often far more stringent than their civil service counterparts. These days every military officer above the rank of major has a masters and is fluently bilingual. Most of our top brass have phDs or two Master's degrees. The education requirements were a direct result of Hillier's reform efforts. I challenge you to find executives who manage similar size organizations in the corporate or public sector with the same breadth of experience and education.

Perhaps instead of allowing our police to interfere in our politics and cover up their incompetence we should have better oversight of their less than stellar behaviours.

Nobody is disagreeing with you that some of what the RCMP has done has been terrible. And that's why there are commissions and a small forest's worth of reports looking to fix that force. But you are suggesting that instead of reform we throw the baby out with the bath water.

We really are at a crossroad here in Canada and it's time to evaluate what we want in our future in terms of authority figures who don't always do the right thing.

Be more specific, there's a whole list I have given above. Tell us what we should cut. Enlighten us on which authority figures we should get rid off. Perhaps you prefer the Hells Angels to the RCMP?

People who sit on the fence or defend policies that are contrary to the Canada I grew up in and the Canada I love may be Canadian but they are not people with opinions I value...

You have shown that in spades. In fact, you don't just 'not value' their opinions, you have stated that you don't consider them Canadian. A statement you still have not retracted or apologized for.

I will defend this great country with my political voice, vote and against those who want to change Canada into a Canada that is foreign to me.

In other words, the world would be a better place, if we made you King and those of us who don't align with you 100% are not subjects worth having in your serfdom.
 
Talk about ruffling feathers!
I compliment you all on your ability to twist words and find fault in everything I type!
My my how sensitive people get when they disagree. Pity. Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I tend to take offence when some ignorant bigot suggests I am not Canadian enough. Everybody take note, there has yet been no retraction of the offensive comment. And now that jade_lee has no intelligent response he/she accuses others of being too sensitive. Classic troll.
 
Jade_lee. You can demostrate you are not a troll by answering several of the questions posed by me and others in this thread. Your constant evasive behaviour notwithstanding, perhaps you might have something intelligent to offer. For starters you can tell us who you consider to be Canadian. Next, you can tell us what level of spending is appropriate for defence, police services, etc and what you would cut. Perhaps, you don't want the air force patrolling the north or the Navy watching our EEZ. Maybe you don't care about organized crime so you don't care for a national police force. If you can get away from the troll instinct, you can start with these questions.
 
Careful now, if you respond directly to her thinly-veiled insults and demand she get on topic she might get all huffy and threaten to leave again. ;)
 
In real life I refuse to suffer fools and this here environment is no different. If I don't answer a question it's because I don't think it's worthy of a answer. It's my choice, it's my call and badgering doesn't work by the individuals I tend to rarely read. As for the comment about me leaving, I am rather surprised the gang has not put forth the effort to ban me as that seems to be the M.O. of this type of situation online.
Some people can dish it out but man oh man they do get offended very easily don't they. I have had a good laugh when I re read these threads.
Tis a sign of the political times in which we now live.
I don't have to prove anything here. You all have clearly made up your minds. I have been called out several times for not opining the official positions here.
All the twisting of words will not change how I feel about the corruption of police and the ineffective stance of our military thus far in Afghanistan. The first "baby" step would be to stop the denial about the problems that exist. Power comes at a cost in a democracy. Accountability.
Do people call other people names to their faces and expect answers to questions from them? Nope.
 
Last edited:
"our foreign policy being hijacked by people with narrow view of our country, no understanding of role our country has played, that the world needs us to play that role." Bob Rae speaking about what needs to be changed currently.
Bob Rae says it all here, this is what I mean when I speak of those abandoning the Canadian way and hence less than.
 
In real life I refuse to suffer fools and this here environment is no different. If I don't answer a question it's because I don't think it's worthy of a answer. It's my choice, it's my call and badgering doesn't work by the individuals I tend to rarely read.

Then you admit you are in this more for the pontificating and less for the discussion--I'm glad we're clear on this.

As for the comment about me leaving, I am rather surprised the gang has not put forth the effort to ban me as that seems to be the M.O. of this type of situation online.

For someone who can be patronizing toward others and dismisses their views you seem to throw out the victim card quite freely. People are attacking your opinions, not you. It's a pity you can't reciprocate.

Some people can dish it out but man oh man they do get offended very easily don't they. I have had a good laugh when I re read these threads.

Odd, from my experience it's the ones who threaten to take their marbles and go home who are offended easily.

Tis a sign of the political times in which we now live.

??? Another one of your non-sequiturs?

I don't have to prove anything here. You all have clearly made up your minds. I have been called out several times for not opining the official positions here.

No, you've been called out for not offering anything at all. Big difference. Seeing as opinions in these threads are coming from all sides and political stripes I fail to see how there's any "official" position.

All the twisting of words will not change how I feel about the corruption of police and the ineffective stance of our military thus far in Afghanistan. The first "baby" step would be to stop the denial about the problems that exist. Power comes at a cost in a democracy. Accountability.
Do people call other people names to their faces and expect answers to questions from them? Nope.

What's there to twist? You challenge but don't explain, you criticize but don't offer solutions. No one denies problems exist but all you want to do is go after your favourite three bogeymen: the military, the Conservatives and the RCMP. It gets a bit tiresome after awhile.
 
What you call bogeymen I call three major authorities that need to be scrutinized in the realm of politics considering our military involvement in Afghanistan, the many major failures of our Police with respect to this so called "war on terrorism" and our civil liberties and yes I disapprove of what this narrow minded minority is doing in particular with our foreign policy portfolio. This is how I get the message out.

This particular thread and another about the US/Canadian border is just another example of how paranoid people can be, when one considers that the American authority is still spreading the silly notion that 911 terrorist entered America via Canada, I have crossed the Peace bridge into America my entire life without a passport. A passport solves nothing with respect to border safety, good relationships between nations do solve security issues. Do you honestly think a border our size can be monitored 24/7 by human beings to ensure safety? Remember, those 911 terrorists did not enter America via a Canadian crossing and even if they had it's rather rich to suggest sophisticated terrorists would not have their paper work in order!
 
Fox News Set for Best Ratings Year Ever
Viewership solid as rivals take post-election hits
By James Hibberd

June 24, 2009, 08:24 PM ET

Fox News is on track to have its most-watched year ever, showing significant ratings growth despite having just come off a highflying election year.

With the second quarter coming to a close, Fox News averaged about the same number of viewers as the top three other cable news networks combined. And while rivals including CNN (-22%) and MSNBC (-18%) took hits following last quarter's inauguration-fueled boost, Fox News (-3%) remained nearly steady.

Compared with last year, the Fox News (averaging 2.1 million viewers, 509,000 adults 25-54 quarter-to-date) is up 35% over last year in primetime viewers and 48% in the demo. CNN (805,000 viewers, 210,000 in demo) fell 16% in viewers and 29% in the demo. MSNBC (787,000 viewers, 259,000 in demo) climbed 15% in viewers and about on par, -3%, in the demo. And CNN Headline News (553,000, 201,000) showed very strong growth, up 39% and 37%, respectively, and is on track for its best second quarter.

The new standings are strong enough to rank Fox News third behind USA and TNT among all ad-supported cable networks for the quarter among primetime total viewers. In its core demo, Fox News had eight of the top 10 cable news shows. It had similarly sunny increases for total day, while CNN and MSNBC were roughly on par with last year.

Earning double-digit growth after an election year is quite a feat for a news network. With Fox News best known for such right-leaning personalities as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, one might assume having a Democrat in the White House somehow helps boost viewership.

A dominant political party indeed can fuel the popularity of opposing voices -- Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report" and liberal online news hubs Huffington Post and Daily Kos came to prominence during George W. Bush's tenure, just as talk radio conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and news sites like Drudge Report rose during the Clinton years.

But it's important to note that when Fox News took the ratings lead during the Bush era, some pundits declared that the network was winning only because a Republican was in charge. Those at the network get weary of outsiders assuming their success must be due to some fortunate external factor rather than their own day-to-day work.

"I don't look at who occupies the White House, I just look at it as news," said Bill Shine, senior vp programming at Fox News. "How well are you going to report on that news? And certainly, over the course of the last 10 years, we've done a better job at that than anybody else."

Still, Shine acknowledged that a Barack Obama presidency probably helps because viewers will "see some sides of an issue that they won't see elsewhere."

Back in January, Fox News made a trio of programming changes that also affected its numbers: launching Glenn Beck at 5 p.m., replacing Brit Hume with Bret Baier as "Special Report" anchor and having Hannity's new Colmes-free show. All of the programs are up compared with last year.

Over at chief rival CNN, in one measurement -- total viewers for full day -- the network actually is posting its best numbers since 2003. But CNN has had trouble in primetime, particularly with Campbell Brown's show, which has hit some ratings lows since she returned from maternity leave.

When asked about the competition, Shine said, "The numbers speak for themselves. ... If anything, we're paying attention to the non-news networks because now we want to catch them."
 
I think it's just a reaction to the Republican's loss of control. That and the fact that Fox is really the only right-leaning news channel in the US. It's really a case of vote-splitting among the rest of the media if you will. I also wonder if some of the ratings have to do with Fox's local news coverage which can be pretty decent in many places.
 
Fair and Balanced.


s-SANFORD-large.jpg


s-FOLEY-large.jpg
 

Back
Top