blueblood

Just when I thought you were done with throwing rocks from that glass house of yours here comes this gem, from one who has been chastized for blindly posting links, you call me on it. Would you like me to go to some web site, pluck something off it, post it triumphantly and then act like a midget waving his monster dick around? I leave that sort of behaviour to you. Try reading the links. We've all given you that luxury. For the 392nd and a half time, the poll was simply who is more convincing you or riverwind. 83% of people polled said your arguments suck, the comments in the thread clearly state that as well, and the comments in the thread showed that posters had no problem understanding the poll. I've clearly stated my position on Alberta, the oilsands, and the CWB and backed it up with links. If you lack in reading comprehension that's your problem not mine.

It does in a corporation! And if you seen how well they work, I'd say they are on to something.

That was a tinfoil hat newspaper article. There was no references to any of their claims. As for a depression, I doubt it. We were supposed to be in a depression last year...

What humiliation, 19 out of 23 people polled think you suck at arguing. But don't let the facts get in the way of that. My link Facts are a bitch aren't they. Good thing for me I'm not from Alberta, so I can give a third party observation. The Albertans have a point. But then again 83% of people polled think you spout nothingness, but that hasn't stopped you. Someone has to deal with nutbars. Just like the Ontarians pissed away their revenue streams. That must irk you that the Asians have you licked at the manufacturing game. And then there is the Ontarians larger deficit; multiple income streams, high taxes, yet still in the red, pathetic. You keep chucking rocks from that glass house of yours. Don't worry Ed will be gone soon enough. As for the NEP My link My link My link I like the part where they compared to how well Norway did vs. how bad Alberta did. It's not what Ontario farmers are doing, it's the hypocrisy of the Looney left and forcing Western Canadians to be a part of the CWB when Easterners get to market their grain how they want. Of course you didn't hear about the plebescite that shows a majority of farmers want marketing choice, but don't let that fact slip your mind. My link Yeah, the CWB is farmer controlled, only the left wing hacks get put on, while the money makers get the screws put to them. I'd suggest you stop right there, because you do not want to get into a CWB debate with a grain farmer, I have forgotten more about the ag industry than you will ever learn. Seems like the majority of posters got my little poll, and 4.75:1 think you suck at arguing. I don't need to be existent in any climate threads because Riverwind sums up my thoughts on the subject to a T and according to the majority of posters, articulates his thoughts better than you. You keep practicing those debating skill, survey says you need all the practice you can get.

And judging by your posting history a vast majority of posters think your debating skills are at the level where you couldn't convince a starving African to eat something. I have to feel for the more intelligent posters from Ontario, because if this is what's representative of a large part of Ontario's population, it's no wonder Quebec and Alberta have problems with "Canadian federalism". Speaking of wingnuts... you should get out to Alberta more. Speaking of whining... Here's your posts in a nutshell "Waah the Albertans are making too much money" "Waah the Albertans are making dirty oil and funding the other provinces with it" "Waah Albertans should bend over and give all their money away" "Waah my arguments on global warming suck" "Waah why don't the serfs from Alberta like having their money taken away" "Waah Canada should destroy its economy based on fudged climate data" But what do you care, your just some poor, jealous, leftist who has a hate on for people that do well for themselves. You remind me of those elitist types during the 1800's who implement policies that have completely screwed over the First Nation's people because they thought they were inferior. Thank God society has progressed to a point where people like you are not taken seriously. Alberta is a far more effecient money making province than Ontario, deal with it. All right lets have a NMP (a national manufacturers policy) where all the goods in Quebec and Ontario get sold to other parts of Canada at a discount. Lets see how you guys would like that concept. The fact that Quebec doesn't ship any of its hydro to other parts of Canada at a discount is madness. Lets see what an NMP effect would have on Ontario manufacturing jobs. Wrong, the Ontario farmers can sell their grain to whoever they want, and can export to the states without problems. There is no monopoly in Ontario, none. Not only that, they enjoy the benefits of reduced freight charges associated with less transport distances. The majority of Canadian grain goes west, the amount of handling costs associated with the great lakes makes it unfeasible for Alberta grain to go east. Don't waste time trying to argue with Westerners about the CWB, you only embarass yourself. ------------- And people wonder why Westerners are P.O'd at Eastern Canada. When their politicians resemble this buffoon, it's not hard to connect the dots. Thank you for that "convincing" post of yours, it probably ranks right up there with your other global warming gems.

Dollars and cents are the true measures of success, anyone who says otherwise is jealous and has to tell themselves that to make themselves feel better. Ontario and Quebec have prime locations close to navigable waters, minerals, population, and a huge population down south. Why can't they have the same success Alberta has? Alberta has done well in spite of being part of Canada. How else can a province still lead the way yet fork over 20+ billion dollars? That Alberta wealth would have still existed, it would just be exploited flying the stars and stripes. Our neighbours down south seemed to do well without a constitutional monarchy and parliament. BC2004 is right, it's those dern merkins and their thirst for oil and other goods that made Canada. If we did things the Ontario way, we'd be as broke as they are. Maybe if Ontarians and Quebecers would quit kicking Western Canada in the head and stop pillaging us, that would go further in solving the national unity crisis. Ontarians and Quebecers want to tax the hell out of everything, look where it got them - broke and wanting to drag the west down with them.

Understanding is one thing, thinking something is BS is another. I'd say the Albertans in all their justified rage know quite a bit about Canada, the constitution and representative democracy. They'd have to if they are going to justify their claims that it is BS. Put yourself in their shoes, if you were contributing as much as they were and things are going good, would you be upset if someone thousands of miles away wanted to take all that away from you?

Stephane Dion believed that, and where is he now?

But any individual is always right, that's why we have the parties presenting various platroms to key in on various individuals. It doesn't matter if people "know" more about a subject. If they can't persuade people to follow their message, that's their problem. Dictators throughout history thought they were always right.

What if some of those social services are monopolies and/or wasteful and would better be served by the private sector.

Isn't what Manning advocating true democracy? Sounds better than that elitist senate and not being able to change the constitution

Wouldn't a better idea be growing the economy and thus growing the tax base which means lower taxes for everyone? Instead of paying more tax, you have more money to do what YOU want with it.

It'll taste like new machinery and winters in mexico for this cowboy!

Hows that sky high tax experiment working in Ontario these days? Funny how a province that charges higher taxes than Alberta is deeper in red than Alberta is. My link For someone living in a province with a 24.7 billion dollar deficit with a "diversified" economy has no business trashing a province with a deficit of a third of that. Given the projected energy demands of the world in the near future, there is going to always be a demand for oil. Last I checked the population for Alberta is growing My link How did Ontario's one trick pony of car manufacturing turn out?

Telling someone they can't express their opinions defeats the purpose of this board. He said that the GG is supposed to protect the constitution and not loathe it, which implies that he thinks Manning is unfit for the job. I merely stated he is as fit for the job if not more fit than just about all Canadians based on his track record.

As much as I want this to be true, I highly doubt it based on current grain prices which are at a discount compared to the Feb 2008. If this is true it's another feather in the hat for the Canadian economy. With Canada being one of the largest grain exporters in the world, a food crisis benefits us.

Tell me where did I say his opinion wasn't fit to express? I thought so.

So you guys in Ontario don't get offsale at the bar??? If that's not the case, that's yet another sales spot for beer and beer based beverages.

So because Preston Manning doesn't fit into your idea of a model GG he isn't fit for the job. So people on the right aren't allowed to be picked to be GG. How progressive of you. Manning has done far more for this country than you give him credit for, and those who appointed him on a 165 living limit Companion of the order of Canada agree with me. That in itself should be a more than good enough resume should it not?

The problem in Europe is they are not willing to transition. In Canada if you are a hog producer, if you want gov't money, you have to shut down your operation. The Saudis had to give up subsidies because it was getting too expensive for them, and the winner of that turned out to be Africa.

The problem is that prices in the 90's-2007/8 didn't reflect the real cost of production. Had the massive European subsidies been taken out, it would have made sense to grow grain in Africa due to the cost of shipping and handling from Europe. In 2007/8, the prices rose to a point because of high demand where growing crops in Africa made sense. That and the tin pot dictators rationing the low cost food imports and causing chaos in the countryside wasn't good for anybody either. The problem is, with the amt. of people starving which you and I agree would be the "total demand", that should be a signal to have ag production going on at full steam. However, since Africa has such poor management of what little it does produce, they can't afford to buy the imports from other countries even at rock bottom prices. Having grain prices reflecting reality instead of some European socialist's pipe dream would save the European's a lot of money, and have a smarter allocation of resources. Which would mean the Europeans would have to cut production, and the Africans would be able to produce due to the costs of shipping. The problem is, the EU will throw billions of dollars at its ag industry propping it up when market signals that it should decline. In short, what I'm suggesting is let the market decide where ag production should take place, and let the market decide the winners and losers. That would result in some winners in Africa, and some losers in Europe, because of transportation. Saudi Arabia tried playing the subsidy game with it's farmers, however the cost of producing grain in Saudi Arabia was not reflecting prices which resulted in a massive drop of water supplies and a massive waste of their tax dollars. They ended up investing money into African farmland.

That "sunlight" the Europeans are "giving" the Africans is not free. That is paid for by the European taxpayers, which is cramping on their standard of living. European ag producers are Quebec dairy farmers on steroids. Think supply management, and then flooding the market, that's not good for anybody. The open market is there is night, and the Europeans are giving candles and lightbulbs away cheaper than it costs to produce and more people are left in the dark because of it. In Canada we are an exporting country, if the prices go down on the goods we produce, that's a bad thing. It's like when Quebecers cry about high oil prices, when in fact high oil prices are a benefit to all Canadians. Same goes with food prices. My issue is a market imbalance caused by European leftist nonsense. It has made everyone poorer because their producers can't function in an open market. Alberta is a far more successful society than Quebec, which province has the bigger gov't and higher taxes, it begins in Q and ends in C. Europeans are giving cheap food to Africans on the guise of kindness to help the African people, and paid for by European tax payers. If the Europeans really want to help the African people get out of poverty, they should stop with their subsidy madness and let the market decide. I'm arguing against the European governments madness with producing something at less the cost of production on their taxpayer's backs and driving people out of business, it makes everyone poorer. What I'm arguing against is leftist nonsense putting people in the poorhouse. Other examples of this are the USSR people having a garbage standard of living, Venezuelans giving their oil away to their own people, and the Canadian Dairy industry screwing over consumers with inflated prices on milk.

demand grows when people who can afford wheat buy wheat. And yes, during a recession there is less demand for wheat among other things due to less income. That's one of life's cruel realities. The speculators are also creating demand as well, even though they trade it like people go through socks. Yes, the subsidies have undercut their prices and ran them out of business. And yes coupled with a bad government undercuts everything.

What I'm getting into is going through the motions. Your right in your posts, but that's not what I'm getting at. IMO both the christian girl and Suzuki et. al are going through the motions of telling us to change our lives while they do the opposite. It's not whether reproduction rights affect other people (which doesn't) vs. environment (which does), it's that these people are telling us to do something and don't have the intestinal fortitude to back it up.

Asia has more capital and a more stable environment to grow wheat than Africa. Tin pot dictators and death squads are not a good environment to grow crops. That and Asia has money to grow in spite of subidies and Africa does not. Asia also plays games with the trade of grains. Also the fact that Asia is further along in its economic development than Africa. Zimbabwe used to be a grain exporting country and the breadbasket of Africa, that changed when Mr. Tinpot arrived and when the Europeans capped that off with grain produced lower than the price of production. It's a one-two punch. Food is a big national security issue. It's why Europe subsidizes ag production because of the scare they got in WW2 with having to have it shipped from North America and rationed off. That and having to rely on imports is not a good thing. It's like that States and it's foreign oil problem. Other crops are irrelevant because the base needs to be established with food crops to start and then progress to others, because of the starvation issue. Speculators also invest in grains by betting on which way the market goes and takes a profit from that. Also when commodity prices increase that means there is increasing demand as there is more wealth generated to buy commodities, and more competition to acquire the commodities. More money = more demand. A producer unless he's European is not going to give his grain away to someone because they can't afford it no matter how bad they want it. We get resources there when the price is right. We haven't been getting enough resources from Africa to get them to move up from a 3rd world set of countries (Except South Africa). That and their governments are horrible. A select few get cheap food from Europe (which affects worldwide grain prices with their proposterous subsidies) and their farmers get pushed out of business. Plus the fact that Africa is a gong show to begin with. If Europe wouldn't flood Africa with cheap food, it would force their governments to look at stabilizing their countries in order for ag production to take place. That has only happened recently because the price of food has gone up and the Africans can finally be able to financially justify growing a crop.