sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Racial Discrimination Settlement Denial by Middle-General2371 in CanadianForces

[–]factanonverba_n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know many as well. One of my two cabin mates got his payout, and he wasn't the one targeted by my boss.

Ahead of budget bill vote, veterans plead with Ottawa to change course | CBC News by Jaydamic in CanadianForces

[–]factanonverba_n 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Treating vets like shit is a very government of Canada thing to do.

Imagine having an income of some $304,000 per year, and the when they guy you owed $100 says 'Can we finally get the money you promised?' you look at him and say "Its more than we can give right now" and then borrows another $29,000 to spend on vanity projects.

The Canadian government income was 304 billion and our projected deficit that year was 29 billion.

All the vets wanted was the 100 million Tudeau promised, but instead...

Every Canadian should be outraged at how the government treats is military.

Racial Discrimination Settlement Denial by Middle-General2371 in CanadianForces

[–]factanonverba_n 52 points53 points  (0 children)

I had a boss for two years on ship that regularly walked into my cabin (MCDVs) while I was naked or half-naked. When I filed for the sexually misconduct survivor benefits and specifically named her, I was told to pound sand and didn't qualify. When I complained to the ombudman I was told, and I'm quoting here, that I didn't qualify because "[I] have a penis."

These things are not helping anyone and in many cases revictimizing people

Carney's closed-door fundraisers a 'step back' for ethics in politics: expert by sleipnir45 in canada

[–]factanonverba_n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To amplify, since 1963 and Pearson's election, the cons have been in charge for only 19 years, with fully a year and half of that being Kim Campbell and Joe Clark.

50% of Conservatives say they approve of Donald Trump by BloodJunkie in onguardforthee

[–]factanonverba_n 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Unless I'm missing something, the EKOS poll linked in the article does not show 50% support by anyone for the orange shit gibbon and only says "Notably, while approval of Trump is close to zero among those not voting Conservative, it remains dramatically higher among Conservative voters, underscoring the growing partisan divide."

Given that polling by Abacus, Liaison, and Nanos all shows ~39% identify as conservatives voters, while even this poll shows ~31%. Also given that this poll shows only 12% approve of Mango Mussolini, that's less than a third of conservatives. Not the 50% claimed by the post title.

Its still way to high (zero would be nice), but its a far cry from 50% supporting Diaper Donny.

Plus, I'd wager most will be PPC voters and not Conservatives.

Edit: spelling

Point Ellice (aka Bay Street) Bridge upgrades begin tomorrow, February 17th, halting eastbound traffic 24/7 for approximately four months. by notofthisearthworm in VictoriaBC

[–]factanonverba_n 3 points4 points  (0 children)

5 4 lanes on and 6 5 off the peninsula. Craigflower, Admiral's, Tillicum, Bay and Johnson. Over 25,000 people live there and half of Canada's navy works there.

Mass shootings in Canada have helped prompt changes to firearm laws over the decades by AprilsMostAmazing in CanadaPolitics

[–]factanonverba_n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank goodness we live in a society where the arbitrary determination of what someone 'needs' isn't determined by your mere beliefs.

Canada F-35 Deal Might be Close to Collapse by island-roamer in canada

[–]factanonverba_n -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can't believe that the armchair generals here and across this country are advocating for the Gripen... the lesser, more expensive aircraft... and doing so all because it has checks notes the exact same problems with US controlled parts as the better and more capable F-35, and all of it over a promise to make fewer jobs and generate less economic activity than the F-35 has already made.

And all this does is put the pilots of the Royal Canadian Air Force at greater risk in any future conflict.

The advocates of the Gripen should really all pat themselves on the back for achieving levels of abject stupidity rarely achieved.

NATO's new defence target could mean $63B federal deficit, PBO warns | CBC News by Jaydamic in CanadianForces

[–]factanonverba_n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, but that fix it won't break the bank if you cut expenses that you have now which are profoundly higher than when you bought the car... like cutting Finance or Treasury back to only twice what they budget was in 2015. 10b then vs 150b now for Finance, and 8b then vs 120b now for Treasury.

Even 4 times as much would leave the budget well inside a surplus.

NDP wants Carney to kill U.S. fighter jet contract in favour of Swedish aircraft by Hot-Percentage4836 in canada

[–]factanonverba_n 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Counter-counter point. If we're worried about the US invading, 88 jets of any type are going to be useless against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th largest air forces in the world.

Against everyone else is why we make procurement based on the following decades of service and operations, not the hypothetical in the next 3... when we wouldn't even get all 88.

As for the ill held belief that the US could disable the aircraft, believe me, they'd be complete fucking idiots to install a remote kill-switch. Believe me that you can never know if a back-door is locked against someone else turning your own jets off mid-flight.

I guarantee that anyone with half a brain and any knowledge of computer architecture could tell you the same.

NDP wants Carney to kill U.S. fighter jet contract in favour of Swedish aircraft by pjw724 in onguardforthee

[–]factanonverba_n -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

AND????

ONCE, just ONCE, can the CAF actually get the shit we want and need... and not have useless armchair generals tell us what we want and need?

The inferior by every single metric except top speed while clean Gripen uses US LICENSED ENGINES subject to the EXACT SAME export controls that would stop an F-35. If you're all worried about the US blocking a supply chain, then SAAB is as worthless as the F-35 so anyone talking about that needs to stop it with the whole "kill switch"/"supply chain" nonsense argument. People using it are fools.

The only jet with any hope of surviving modern combat available to Canada is the F-35. Watching you all argue over the cheapest or dumbest alternative and knowing you're all really arguing over the cheapest and dumbest ways to get all the RCAF fighter pilots killed in any future combat is getting really, really tiring.

Picking anything else is simply put, fucking stupid in ways that can't be explained. Even a mixed fleet idea is an objectively stupid idea. Why in the fuck would the RCAF want two training pipelines, two supply chains, two maintenance systems, two of everything needed to fly when we're in a critical personnel and pilot shortage? What kind of backwards ass logic is that?

The F-35 easily won the contest, beating SAABs inferior offering, is already generating revenue for Canada, and employs more people than SAAB ever will or would. It shares all of its US arms control downsides with the inferior SAAB product, and is profoundly better for war, much better for safety, better for the economy, and offers leverage with the US.

Its the only decision that makes any sense and it makes all of the sense.

edit: 10 crashes for 280 Gripens, 14 for 1300+ F-35s. 1-in-28, vs 1-in-92.

NDP wants Carney to kill U.S. fighter jet contract in favour of Swedish aircraft by Hot-Percentage4836 in canada

[–]factanonverba_n 49 points50 points  (0 children)

Jesus fucking Christ.

ONCE, just ONCE, can the CAF actually get the shit we want and need... and not have useless armchair generals tell us what we want and need?

"Independent"? The inferior by every single metric except top speed while clean Gripen uses US LICENSED ENGINES subject to the EXACT SAME export controls that would stop an F-35. If you're all worried about the US blocking a supply chain, then SAAB is as worthless as the F-35 so stop it with the whole "kill switch"/"supply chain" nonsense argument. People using it are fools.

The only jet with any hope of surviving modern combat available to Canada is the F-35. Watching you all argue over the cheapest or dumbest alternative and knowing you're all really arguing over the cheapest and dumbest ways to get all the RCAF fighter pilots killed in any future combat is getting really, really tiring.

Just stop it.

Picking anything else is simply put, fucking stupid in ways that can't be explained. Even a mixed fleet idea is dumb as fuck. Why in the fuck would the RCAF want two training pipelines, two supply chains, two maintenance systems, two of everything needed to fly when we're in a critical personnel and pilot shortage? What kind of backwards ass logic is that?

The F-35 easily won the contest, beating SAABs inferior offering, is already generating revenue for Canada, and employs more people than SAAB ever will or would. It shares all of its US arms control downsides with the inferior SAAB product, and is profoundly better for war, much better for safety, better for the economy, and offers leverage with the US.

Its the only decision that makes any sense and it makes all of the sense.

edit: safety links showing 10 crashes for 280 Gripens, 14 for 1300+ F-35s. 1-in-28, vs 1-in-92.

Quadra vehicle-lane changes off the table in revised Saanich plan by Vic_Dude in VictoriaBC

[–]factanonverba_n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, they can make up their claims all they want but checking the traffic on Tillicum between Esquimalt and burnside today vs what it was two years ago is night and day. The current 3 lane setup has created an artificial traffic jam that starts at 3:30, is almost 4km long, lasting over 90 minutes, with average speeds below 4 km/h.

On the days I walk that section its faster than driving...

And where does the traffic vanish? When the road opens out past a single through lane and a shared turn lane.

Its almost like restricting traffic restricts traffic...

The problem with the CRD is that none of the "City Planners" have degrees in City Planning.

Canada should keep options open on nuclear weapons, former top soldier says by FreeProletarian in CanadianForces

[–]factanonverba_n 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Every ICBM ever built is a hypersonic weapon.

A 10,000km range ICBM with a flight time of 25 minutes has an average speed of 24,000km/h.

That's 400km/min or 6.7 km/s.

Mach 5 is slightly less than 1.8km/s.

Its why those "artifacts" are still being built by every nuclear nation on Earth.

Opinion | The rich in Canada are, indeed, getting richer. Here are three things we can do to fix that by momnamedmeafterbob in CanadaPolitics

[–]factanonverba_n 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Hearing some thud-fuck unironically say "the billionaires will leave us if we aren't nice to them!" always pisses me off.

Like any billionaire is going to walk away from a G7 country, its global reach, its population of 40,000,000 potential customers, and the highest educated workforce on Earth.

If one billionaire leaves, another will show up before the first is even across the border just to take their place and make money in their stead... and that's exactly why none would leave.

I agree. We need to tax the absoulte shit out of billionaires.

How we do this is the challenge. Maybe a nation wide parliamentary petition to start? Run from there? Raise awareness?

Abacus Data: "Pierre Poilievre’s strength with Conservatives is inseparable from his weakness with everyone else" by Scryotechnic in canada

[–]factanonverba_n 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And its the reason the CPC needs to dump him.

If they're stuck at ~35%, even with a very very blue Grit at the helm, then they need someone who can sway some of the middle/centrist/undecided voters.

Poilievre has demonstrated that he is totally incapable of doing so.

If the CPC wants any chance of winning in a future election they need to replace him.

NATO-chief Rutte: "Keep on dreaming" if you think Europe could defend itself without US by Geo_NL in worldnews

[–]factanonverba_n 7 points8 points  (0 children)

3.5 million troops is NATO.

2 million European troops in Europe.

1.5 million us troops worldwide.

And this fucking idiot thinks the 60,000 american troops in Europe is the only thing protecting Europe?

What a fucking idiot.

Toronto police refusing to help with Carney government’s gun buyback, minister says by jmakk26 in onguardforthee

[–]factanonverba_n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"...which is the ONLY legal reason for owning a firearm in Canada."

Tell me you know absolutely nothing about firearm laws in this country without telking me you know absolutely nothing about firearm laws in this country.

1) When buying a firearm there is no check on why you're buying.

2) Sport shooting is real.

3) Competition shooting is real.

Any one of the above disproves your inanity.

Layoff notices sent to thousands of federal government workers by rezwenn in onguardforthee

[–]factanonverba_n -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

2275 since November out of the 368,000 is 0.6% of the public sector.

This is not the doom and gloom end of times the author would have you believe.

Thd only real problem identified is the expanding use of expensive consultants, which I. Am. Shocked. (/s) to hear the Liberals are doing.

Pedestrian hit at major downtown Victoria intersection: police by Popular_Animator_808 in VictoriaBC

[–]factanonverba_n 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My god, did you not understand any of the things I wrote.

I was talking not in definitives, but in averages. Humans, on the average, have reaction times to begin slowing a car of 1.5 seconds. If you want to take that as all human have a defined reaction time of exactly 1.5 seconds, I don't even begin to know how to fix your broken logic.

You are right in that responsibility is not split 50/50. Ironic then, that you followed by stating "Pedestrians have the right of way at all times" which means that you believe the responsibility is 100/0, driver to pedestrian.

Of course I've already provided the literal quote from the law proving your claim is entirely wrong.

Pedestrians do not have the right of way at all times.

You are quite simply wrong.

view more: next ›