The rich are getting richer...

[lookingforitallthetime]

Nice try, to lump me in with the Godless liberals.

You're worse than the Godless Liberals. At least they admit they are Liberals.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Nice try, to lump me in with the Godless liberals. But I forgive you, because you only said that out of frustration.

Will you at least admit that the Canadian Military is not there for defense of our country (and yes it is also my country)?

The only country that could possibly invade Canada is the US, and I think everybody would agree that any defence against that would be futile. I have inside information that Denmark has no intention of declaring war over Hans Island.

Trying to interfere in civil wars around the world may give canadians a good feeling, and peacekeeping sounds good, but it is essentially ineffective and futile, as has been demonstrated several times.

Keeping quebecers in Canada by killing them seems also a bad idea. Let them go, if they want to that badly.

Clearly, Canada needs a coast guard to do search and rescue operations, and to enforce our costal waters, including the arctic waters, which are not being adequately patrolled today.

If you keep adding to your posts, I won't be able to keep up.

With freedom comes responsibility. If you can't understand that, I feel sorry for you.

 

[danmand]

With freedom comes responsibility. If you can't understand that, I feel sorry for you.

Don't feel sorry for me. I am not sure how it possible to be worse than a liberal, though, but never mind.

I am only suggesting that you ask the question of Canada's military excursions: "does it work?"
It is really immaterial, if it is honourable or not, or necessary for responsible freedom; these are
secondary questions. The primary question is if it is working.

 

[onthebottom]

danmand,

It's a simple point that you make, too simple actually.

Let's try another one. Should any government subsidize agriculture over the long run?

OTB

 

[danmand]

danmand,

It's a simple point that you make, too simple actually.

Let's try another one. Should any government subsidize agriculture over the long run?

I do not believe so, but I would make an exception for very poor countries in the third world, that can ill afford to use hard currency to import food.

In this global economy, I think food should be produced where it is most economical and where the climate is suitable for the particular crop. I will give an example: Ontario regulates the gropwing of apples, even if the climate here is too hot and humid for apples. As a result, the orchards have to be sprayed every week with fungicides to give a saleable crop.

There are several regions in North america that is well suited for growing of apples, for example washington state, so why grow them here?

 

[onthebottom]

I do not believe so, but I would make an exception for very poor countries in the third world, that can ill afford to use hard currency to import food.

In this global economy, I think food should be produced where it is most economical and where the climate is suitable for the particular crop. I will give an example: Ontario regulates the gropwing of apples, even if the climate here is too hot and humid for apples. As a result, the orchards have to be sprayed every week with fungicides to give a saleable crop.

There are several regions in North america that is well suited for growing of apples, for example washington state, so why grow them here?

One thing you and I agree on.

OTB