He doesn't believe any taxes are good taxes - Macleans.ca

He doesn’t believe any taxes are good taxes


Except maybe for those taxes that pay for cool stuff like this. (Video courtesy of David Akin.)


He doesn’t believe any taxes are good taxes

  1. So apparently the jets had to double-back so that the shot would be perfect?

    But I thought, “When you're running a trillion-and-a-half dollar economy, you don't get a chance to have do-overs, over and over again.”

    Steve, what happened to you? I mean you have never, ever been cool but you certainly liked to call out others for stuff you seem to do yourself all the time.

    • Why should anyone care that jets did more than one flyover? Do you think the pilots cared? They practice manoeuvers like this one all the time. It's their job.

    • Why should anyone care that the jets did more than one flyover? Do you think the pilots cared? They practice manoeuvers like this one all the time. It's their job.

      • CR i think CAPS has $pending tax dollars on his mind.

        • Who knows? Perhaps CAPS is trying to argue that the jets consumed slightly more fuel than they would have otherwise.

          • i gues, he well may, but given Wherry's original post, I think they are objecting to the whole show….

          • I think you're being a little disingenuous, CR. I think you're saying that it's their job to perform the maneuvers and that as long as they were going to be up there anyway, there is not a particularly strong argument to made that they were wasting taxpayer dollars. And I think I'm with you up to that point. __From there, you don't seem all that bothered that what would otherwise be routine maneuvers contributed to a pretty spiffy photo-op for PMSH, whereas it tends to raise my eyebrows a bit. I'll be happy to go on record as saying my eyebrows arch no higher or lower for PMSH that they would for PMMI or PMJL (snik!) in a similar case, if you'll promise to defend any one of their rights to politicize the military as strenuously as you have defended the current titelholder's.

          • I promise. If PMMI or any other other PM visits our armed forces, I will strenuously defend their right to use it as a photo-op, and I won't whine about the "waste" of such a visit. As a general rule, I try not to indulge in that sort of mindless pettiness.

          • "Any other"? You can't bring yourself to say PMJL, not even very quietly, just for fun?

          • I know I can't…

      • Their job is to do party tricks for PM photo ops? Who knew?

  2. That was a cool video, both literally and figuratively. It's too bad that it was posted as a weak partisan jab.

    • There's nothing partisan about wasting taxpayer's dollars on a pointless photo op.

      • There's EVERYTHING partisan about it, when you're the one ordering up the wasteful photo op.

        • So if they had the exact same military exercise without the PM visiting and posing for pictures, would it still be "wasteful", according to your partisan logic?

          • No, taking them away from their exercises, in order to engage in a pointless photo op, is wasteful.

          • Wasting taxpayer's money for this kind of Bush-esque nonsense is idiotic regardless of which government is doing it. I'd trash the Liberals for doing exactly the same thing.

            And yes, I very much doubt Canada would have this kind of "military exercise" if the PM wasn't there. It's empty-headed posturing.

            That being said, we should be investing in northern infrastructure and housing, like the Conservatives promised years ago. The Inuit are still waiting…

          • Dee, as usual you are completely uninformed about everything.

          • That's quite a well-thought-out statement there CR. Perhaps you should change your handle to "Sweeping_Generalizations" or "Mindless_Verbiage".

          • Why can't you just admit you were wrong? You said: "And yes, I very much doubt Canada would have this kind of "military exercise" if the PM wasn't there. It's empty-headed posturing." Yet Operation Nanook is an annual military exercise now in its fifth year.

            (I'm sorry about the sweeping generalization, btw. It was unfair.)

          • As Dave already pointed out in this thread, I also can't think of any useful military exercise that involves halting a sub, frigate and having three CF-18s fly overhead. If that isn't a photo op, I don't know what is.

            It may be called a "military exercise" (thus my earlier quotation marks) by the PMO and the Armed Forces but it is really empty posturing. If the Americans or Russians wanted to establish a military presence in the Canadian Arctic, realistically there is very little Canada could do about it since we lack the resources to fully protect/patrol our vast north.

            What Harper and the Conservatives need to do, if they are serious about Canadian sovereignty in the North, is invest in infrastructure and housing for the northerners (which they have done very little of so far) and, yes, more military investments as well (which admittedly, they appear to be finally getting around to).

            Nevertheless, our claims to the North depends on real investments not on hare-brained photo ops.

          • I'm trying hard to think of a good military exercise or training purpose to halting a navy sub and a CCG ship in the middle of Frobisher Bay so that three CF-18s can fly overhead in formation.

            I'm trying. Honestly, I am.

            Little help?

            What is the non-photo-op reason for this?

          • Where's Crit_Reasoning when you need him?

          • My patience isn't infinite. It's like trying to reason with a brick wall sometimes.

          • Harper on Arctic sovereignty mission
            By Michel Comte (AFP) – Aug 17, 2009

            OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper embarked Monday on an Arctic tour that will culminate with a massive display of military muscle aimed at reinforcing Canada's sovereignty claims in the resource-rich region.

            Harper's first port of call on the five-day trip will be Iqaluit, formerly Frobisher Bay, at the southern tip of Baffin Island, where he will hold a cabinet meeting.

            The main event comes on Wednesday when he will observe Operation Nanook, an annual military exercise trumpeting Canada's sovereignty over a large swath of Arctic territory to the east of Baffin Island.

            Five countries bordering the Arctic — Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States — claim overlapping parts of the region, which is estimated to hold 90 billion untapped barrels of oil.

            Harper will board a frigate and then a submarine as it dives into the icy waters near Iqaluit, Brigadier-General David Millar, commander of Joint Task Force North, told public broadcaster CBC.

            In its fifth year, the Canadian military exercises — running from August 6 to August 28 — are the biggest they have ever been. "We're growing our capability, and ramping up," navy spokesman Lieutenant Jordan Holder told AFP.

            This year it includes 700 personnel, aircraft patrolling the Hudson and Davis Straits, as well as the frigate HMCS Toronto and submarine HMCS Corner Brook, which will take part in anti-submarine warfare exercises along Canada's northern frontier.

            "It's the first time that we have an anti-submarine component to the exercise," Holder said. "It's meant to demonstrate our ability to respond to reports of unauthorized activity both above and below the surface."

            One exercise in the war games will see commandos specially trained and equipped for Arctic deployment make an amphibious landing on a remote island, he said.

          • Yep, the Russians and Americans are shaking in their boots no doubt.

    • Damn. So much for reason.

  3. That would be a more or less average right-libertarian position. How damning!

  4. Aaron – if you aren't careful you'll have the law and order types refusing to hold up traffic for you – and the military / industrial complex types refusing to salute you!
    Then of course – you might find crit_reasoning flouncing off in a huff – and we'll have to tempt him back with embarassing pictures of Michael Ignatieff!

  5. I understand the military do these manouvres every year… this year the Prime Minister was there to see it. Is that correct?

    • You'd make a really crappy biographer, Bettie.

      • what does being a biographer have to do with answering my question? My question, and it is an honest one, still stands. Does anyone have an answer to that question?

    • Bettie, you are 100% correct. That makes you better informed than 90% of the people who post here.

  6. Actually, Aaron, the defence of the nation IS INDEED one of the few legitimate reasons the Constitution has awarded taxation powers to Ottawa. I would argue that no PM, including Harper, has afforded nearly enough effort to that government function — although at least Harper has done more than just about any other in recent memory.

    But yeah, the flypast was silly. And an unnecessary waste of $.