Renegade

No, the issue was that farmers didn't participate in commodities futures trading, and thus were at the mercy of those who did, such as speculators and storage companies. If the farmers have the ability to mitigate risk on their own, there is no need for the CWB. An interesting read, but pretty much relates to the 1800s. I can see an argument that in the 1800s a farmer didn't have the technology or have access to commodity markets and so a board to pool risk and reward was necessary. That is hardly true today. No, I'm agreeing that farmers as commodity producers need a way to mitigate the risk of commodity prices. I don't agree that the only solution is a WB. There are market solutions available which peform the same role without the restrictions on freedom the WB depends upon.

Ah, I didn't realize that what you wanted was a heartwarming reason to prop up otherwise unsuccessful farmers. You'd have to do that yourself at the ballot box. I somehow suspect they aren't going to lose your vote as they never had it to begin with. I'm not the messenger boy for the Tories. I agree with some things they do, I disagree with others.

So go ahead and give it a shot and explain why.

What "act of perversion" are you taking about? I never referered to an "act of perversion" and neither does the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. There is in fact no mention of a requirement for any type of sexual activity whatoever. Yes those "perverted Canadians" can marry whomever they choose even if they happen to choose someone of the opposite sex. brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers are all either categorized as either "man" or "woman", so yes they all have the right to marry. "dogs, cats, sheep etc." do not fall into that categorization and as such are not accorded that right according to the declaration.

So by your accepted definition then, a person with XX chromosomes "showing characteristics associated with males." would be considered a "man", correct? Similarly would a "man" not be a "man" if he was lacking some of the "characteristics associated with males." Say he didn't grow facial hair, or have a deep voice, does he cease to be a "man"? Here is the definition of man from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Definition of "man" Homosexual males clearly fall into that definition. I'm not surprised you feel this way. I assure you that most people don't feel this way. Except for the most bigoted, even people who are strongly against the concept of SSM will still concede that homosexuals are men and women. This is proof of nothing. Even in hetrosexual relationships there are some men who assume the "traditional hetrosexual role of a member of the opposite sex." So if a man stays home and cooks, does that make him a "woman"? It is unfortunately not clear to anyone but yourself.

I fail to see how providing subsidized food for canadian consumers is a benefit for our southern neighbours. If I told you that the Canadian Government should subsidize the price of groceries for US consumers, would you see that as a benefit for Canada? If you can't produce something without a subsidy, then yes, go bankrupt. Better for everybody.

Its called forward contracts and commodity hedging. Go read up. Here's a link to get you started: Commodity Hedging - Hedging Risk with a Commodity Futures Hedging Strategy The ones that get hammered are the ones that don't mitigate risk. Just as the small business owner who doesn't buy fire insurance gets hammered when his place burns down. What are you implying? That "farming types" don't have the ability to understand and manage risk?

You are sidetracking the discussion. I didn't dispute that farmers elsewhere are given subsidies. The wheat board is not a subsidy. Farmers keeps saying that over and over. I understand that. So let's not sidetrack the discussion unless your position is that subsidies to Canadian farmers are necessary. Is that your position? If you want to debate the CPP, I'm happy to do so; start another thread. It woudl get too confusing to do so in this thread. Again, why? There are a lot of other commodities who also incur price risk. There already risk reduction mechanisms available to commodity producers. Why can't those be used. Are you saying the CWB is a subsidy? As I understand it the CWB's purpose is price stablization, not subsidy. I would not consider an industry "successful" if it depends upon subsidies to survive. There probably isn't a grain industry elsewhere which is not heavily subsidized. It only takes one government to subsidize its farmers in order to give them a competitive advantage or the others have to follow suit. But it is madness to subsidize a money losing proposition. If the US subsidizes its grain and as a result Canadian farmers can't compete, fine. Let the Canadian farmers go out of business and we'll buy subsidized US grain at below cost prices courtesy of the US government.

Of course it would. If you created a system where the farmers could sell to the market when market prices were higher but sell through the CWB when they could get a better price, it is a virtual certainity that the CWB would go bankrupt. As it should. I disagree. You could very easily create a system where people could opt out of the CPP and still have it work, but that discussion would likely have to be for another thread. It is not a decision which should be left strictly to the farmers. Idealogy is simply another word for priciples. The single desk system violates a principle of allowing farmers the choice of where they should sell their goods and therefore should be dismantled. -------- Maybe you can give it a shot at answering this question, since no one else seems to want to take it on:

While amusing, your response doesn't at all address the question I asked. Here let me repeat it for you: Go ahead, try again.

I don't doubt you speak for farmers many of whom are seeking to preserve a protected monopoly. I work with consumers every day. In my opinion and those of many consumers, a free market is in line with a free society. Just following your logic buddy. Those farmers who are not free to sell where they choose are indeed opressed. It is too bad you don't see that. It is not just some farmers who are impacted. Commodity purchasers and ultimately end consumers pay the price of restricted selling practicies. So it is not a question which should be solely decided by farmers. There are thousands of different kinds of commodities, many of those flucuate in price far more than grain. The producers of those commodities find ways of mitigating the risks of price flucatations via the use of currency hedges and forward contracts. Maybe you can explain why farmers cannot use the same risk reduction techniques other commodity producers use, and why a protected system should be employed over a free market.

Where are you getting this definition? So I would understand by your response that you do not consider a male homosexual a part of the group "man"? By extension, you also don't consider lesbians to be part of the group "women". Am I getting that right? Neither I nor you can read implications into statements, unless we have the ability to read the mind of the statement originators. Until then you and I must rely on exactly what is written and not try to read implications into it. The statement question does not state that the right of marriage for men or women is "to each other". Because no such restriction is made, any marriage is a protected right. The only limitation in the statement is that they be "of full age". Given that they were specific with the age limitation, would you not agree if there were other limitations they would also include those? BTW, you never answered my earlier question. Since the statement does not mention that men and women shoudl marry each other, how do you know that the international right to marriage extends to hetrosexuals? You've now begun to rant and read motivitations for which there is no evidentiary support. A referendum is meaningless when it comes to human rights. Even if 99% of the population said that they supported the concept that marriage is only a hetrosexual union, the 1% still should have the freedom to decide for themselves who they marry. If a subset of the population with bigoted views decides to not participate in the electorial process, in my view it would only serve to enhance the process.

You misunderstand CAs' question. He didn't ask what was legal according to the act. He asked whether the intent of the act followed the princples of a free society. It is clear that it does not. It is hard to imagine a justificaiton more lame than the one you have posted. It would be like trying to justify aparthied in South Africa by saying the blacks agreed to aparthied by "choosing" to live in South Africa. Using your logic, even the "vast majority" of farmers who want to sell through the single-desk WB have a choice. If the CWB is dismantled as a mandatory organization, those farmers can "choose" to move to Australia and sell through the AWB.

Such as?? I'm really not following your logic here. Let's see, the farmers are a minority in Canada. The election has taken place. So by your statement above the farmers should not be given a choice in the future of the Wheat Board. Is that what you are trying to say? Seems counter to your argument. Why? Of course. "Fundamental principles" should not be used as an excuse to steam roll over the rights of others. That is what this "fundamental principle" does. And the Tories would be right to dismantle a system where the majority bullies a minority even if the majority support such a system.

If you want to discuss whether the softwood deal falls in line with the Tory's philosophy, there is a thread for that, but a discussion of it only sidetracks the issue in this thread. I don't recall sayin that "removing the marketing boards will actually help canadian farmers compete with their southern neighbours". Maybe if you want to put words in my mouth you can quote where I've said that. I do not support giving subsidies to farmers neither in the US nor in Canada. So why couldn't the "vast majority" who are so happy with it, continue to sell through the Wheat Board, and let the "tiny minority" take their wheat and go their own merry way?

So you think the Tories should remove the single desk even if farmer want it? CA couldnt have said it better. If simply the majority of farmers want it, then yes they should remove the single desk system because it is unfair to the minority of farmers who want to sell elsewhere. If ALL the farmers want a single desk, then it is irrelevant if the remove the restriction on mandatory participation since all the farmers will voluntarily sell through the board.

The farmers should be able to keep the Wheat Board only if participation is 100% voluntary. No one has any objection to keeping the Wheat Board as a voluntary organizaiton

Wouldn't that be an indication that the Tories were non-committal on the issue? It is not possible to read Strahl's mind to know why he is now proposing a non-binding plebiscite. It is possible that he misguaged the reaction of some farmers and may consider the plebiscite as a way to appease them, rather than a fulfillment of an election promise. What is clear is that the Tories philosophically support freeier trade without restrictions. If ther farmers didn't understand that before they should now. What you have not shown is why giving farmers a choice of who to sell to is a bad thing. Yes, I know the Act provides these restrictions, but the Act heralds from a previous time and different philosophy. As they say, the times are a changing.

So what you are saying is that it was only promised verbally but never reported in any newspaper story? What I'm trying to understand is who promised, what they promised, and when they promised it. I'm not saying the promise didn't occur. I'm saying I don't know and I'd like to see the evidence. So far you haven't shown that. Sure, it is very possible that Strahl is confusing, evasive and ambiguous. Take it out on him and the CPC in the next election. None of the cite above at all pertains to what I had asked. What did the Tories promise prior to getting elected.

Right here. It was said over and over again in the election. A vote for the Tories would not mean a straight dissolution of The Wheat Board. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/prin...bhub=PrintStory "...Tory MP Merv Tweed, who represents Brandon-Souris, assured him during the election campaign that a vote for him would not be a vote for changing the wheat board because farmers would have to vote in a plebiscite." It was on CJOB radio, interviews on TV. You name it. So why no vote when MPs were promising it? dobbin, you missed the "He says" as a prelude to your quote. So the only evidence you have of the Tory promise is a second-hand hearsay account? From your same article it would seem others had interpreted Tory promises differently: From the same article: So it would seem that Strahl in fact promised to end the monopoly and signaled that intent to farmers. ------ I'm a believer that parties should be held accountable for election promises, so if the Tories made the promise they should keep it or call an election on the issue. So, far I haven't seen much evidence to suggest it was a promise they made. Even if we accept the hearsay, how do you know it came from Tory leadership instead of an assurance from a lone MP?

I'll be happy to. "Men and women of full age...". Or is it your position that homosexuals are not considered "Men and women of full age"?

The Tories promised to go to farmers after the election to decide this. Strahl is not going to the farmers. He is acting unilaterally. This is not what they promised in the election. I'd be interested to see what they promised. Do you have a cite?

You're are quite right. They should vote to have that law removed...and they did... they elected the CPC, who will indeed modify or remove that law.

Similarly, Strahl threatens the president and and board members from speaking on the issue with firing or removal. Unless he threatened to have him pulled screaming and kicking, it would not be considered violence. If he sent a letter threating armed guards to dispose of the president, then I concede it is violence.

Then I guess the bell rung when the CPC got elected. Deal with it. I'm not sure if what he is doing is legal or not. As far as I understand he can't fire the president directly. Only the directors can. If what he is doing is not legal, the directors can ignore it. If what he is doing is legal, then happy job-hunting for the president.