blueblood

Another thing, what will happen if the British sailor's are released? I know if I was one of them and if Iran was doing some funny business, I would be on CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera doing a slander campaign that Danny Williams would be proud of. I am starting to wonder if the sailors will even be released, Iran is certainly in a pickle.

If only more people in the cities did the little things like you guys are doing our country would be a better place, nicely done.

Straw man, we'll deal with it if it happens. Fortunately, it won't. I feel no more threatened by a foreigner that wants to make money in Canada than a Canadian that does. The off chance that bin Laden sees a favourable return from BCE is a chance I'm willing to take. It is not a straw man. I can see where you are confused with Al Qeada ownership. You are thinking like a capitalist. If Bin Laden wanted to earn a profit as a minority investor then I wouldn't care,(other than I would not like to see him supporting Al Qeada with money made from a Canadian Company). Unfortunately they would not be buying to invest. Al Qeada wants to bankrupt the West. Gaining control and shutting down or disrupting our communications would go a long way towards that goal. It doesn't even have to be Al Qeada. Or any terrorist organization to purchase our communications network for this to be a very bad idea. Say Chinese (or any other for that matter) nationalists bought the company and are forced by their govt to use our communications to spy on us. They use software to record key strokes of MP's, Cabinet Ministers, CEO's and other high ranking employees in any sector they wish to spy on. Don't say they couldn't, because as owners they would have the means to do so. I don't care if foreign investors want to buy up shares of BCE, but I sure as hell don't want them to be able to own 51% and decide the fate of the company. The point is if you open up our communications to be majority owned and controlled by foreign nationals and possibly through them foreign Govt.s you are creating a disaster. It ceases to become an issue of "if" the network will be disrupted and becomes and question of "when". Sooner or later it will fall into the hands of someone or some nation who supports those out to destroy our way of life. I hate to say this but this is why the economy of Ireland is kicking our ass, a high % of companies there are foreign owned/operated, result--> on average the average Irishman is making much more than us, 4th highest avg. income in the world, higher growth rate; all this with NO natural resources. If a foreign buyer with our communications network tried screwing around with it as you say they might do, the gov't of Canada would expropriate that company in a second, after all no property rights in Canada.

Really? I missed that ... can you refer me to the relevant material? It's been referred numerous times earlier in the thread, on CNN.com they had a map that showed the exact positions. cnn I showed my proof, now where is your proof that they were in IRANIAN waters? ONE. Your "proof" is nothing more than the claims of CNN. In other words, it's not proof at all. TWO. Please pay attention -- I have not said I believe the Iranian statements any more than the British statements. ONE I stepped up and provided legitimate proof, to elaborate further, there is a guy in the picture in the helicopter with a handheld GPS showing the coordinates. I didn't provide a fox news link, I'll take the word of CNN over a lot of other news agencies around the world. TWO Your turn to step up, provide us with a link proving CNN is wrong, until then your argument that the Brits were in Iranian waters and the CNN is wrong holds no water.

And I suppose the bankers are pulling the strings on this one too.

Such language is unnecessary.No woman would ever appear in public without a scarf over her head in Iran. To not do so would be the equivalent of appearing in public in Canada without a shirt or blouse. As to the issue of whether the boat was in Iraqi or Iranian waters, I'll believe the British before the Iranians. But the issue strikes me as irrelevant. No civilized country holds otherwise innocent sailors simply because they strayed across a virtual border. Incidentally, the French press has suggested that it was rogue units within the Iranian armed forces who took these British hostage and now the Iranian regime is not quite certain how to deal with the issue. I agree with David Frum: National PostWe should use this incident to impose severe sanctions against the mullahs. Canada still trades with Iran I believe. Big buyers of Canadian ag products.

Ah, empty bluster ... the sign of really subtle and clever diplomacy. not. The time for diplomacy with Iran is over. These fools have been the largest source of terrorism in the world. They should have been the target, not Iraq. I would give Iran exacally 12 hours (need time to position assets) to release all the sailors, if they are not released...... I would launch a sea and air attack aginst them the likes of which has never been seen. The time for dickless pussy footing is over. Iraq was never a threat, these twits were, and we are seeing it now. Thanks GWB....... I wouldn't launch an attack per se, I would have a very large portion of the British Navy anchored in Iranian ports. (this is where a WW2 battleship would especially come in handy, those big guns are intimidating) Let Iran fire the first shot...

Really? I missed that ... can you refer me to the relevant material? It's been referred numerous times earlier in the thread, on CNN.com they had a map that showed the exact positions. cnn I showed my proof, now where is your proof that they were in IRANIAN waters?

Exactly. (As long as they were within the terms of the mandate and not in someone else's territorial waters). Except it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were in Iraqi waters.

I agree that farmers should be allowed to make money just like everyone else. Guess I'm worried that the bio-fuel market is too many eggs in one basket. Worse, is that I am suspicious that it will actually do anything to reduce emissions and may end up burning farmers instead somehow. I still grow wheat for human consumption, I also grow CPS for the biofuel. It's more of a second basket for the eggs. It'll reduce emissions in time, farmers want biodiesel to go and would gladly put it in their machines, it doesn't affect performance too too much. The only thing we're going to get burned on is input costs, 50 bucks an acre every year to grow round up ready canola is bloody ridiculous, that's robbery. If they want to play the copyright card I can justify 5 bucks an acre for it and being able to keep your seed, but 50 bucks an acre --> why we're in financial trouble. We finally got around the whole own use issue with glyphosates which gets us cheap roundup knock offs. When the price/bushell goes up, so does inputs. Big problem.

If that is true, why are grain farmers so intent on buying even more land that used to be farmed by other farmers? Some farmers by their very purchases are making themselves big business. That depends on your definition of big. These farmers are growing at a decent rate. Remember in the auction sales catalogues there are also a lot of big boys going out of business. If you get too big and can't properly manage it, it will blow up in your face. Some big farmers can run an efficient outfit by running it like a small farm (minimizing costs) others blow their money on ridiculous things and end up going belly up to pay it all off. Farmers just want to make money like everybody else.

Does it? Why are there rules against big business buying farm land then? If it made sense to own all the cattle, why not grains? Cattle are a very liquid asset and don't require a lot of input. A pile of physical work, but as far as dollars go, very little goes into it compared to grain. They are also a much lower risk to have than grains. The smaller guys are already more efficient than the bigger guys. Any individual can buy land and have a company bankroll his farm to get around that.

Should farmers lands be protected from being bought by big business? If food for energy is big business, why shouldn't big business by the land? Big business won't buy the land because it's very expensive to start up and run a farm, plus the risk involved is too great. It works out to be cheaper for the businesses to just buy the grain and do none of the work/risks. 10 2000 acre farmers are much more efficient than 1 20 000 acre outfit. Those small guys are cutting costs like crazy that would be unacceptable for a big outfit to cut, therefore the little guys still do lots of it. If it were worthwhile for the big boys to get in the grain industry, they would have done it already.

Ethanol might not be a solution to global warming, but it's sure a solution to what's plaguing the rural economy. Farmers are going to be planting the max. amt. of acres to get the max. return so the emissions are always going to be at a level, the difference is where the grain goes, if it goes to a biodiesel/ethanol plant and goes back into the machinery, levels will go down. Biofuels provides much needed dollars into our economy and makes the country all the richer for it. How is that a bad thing? Are country boys not allowed to make money? As far as the mexicans go, that's poor government policy concerning their food supply, the fact that mexican farmers are vastly more inefficient than us. A country like that should be under supply management to incur a steady food supply. Why should the Americans be subsidizing the Mexican's cheap food? Also what rights do the mexican's have to cheap food? What right does anybody have to cheap food? If you want cheap food grow a garden, buy a fishing liscence, etc. Brazil has had a biofuel industry for more than 30 years, are they starving? I think their ecomony is growing in fact. With biofuels our exports will end up being worth more in the process (Iran will have to pay more to get it's wheat) This is also good in that with biofuels taking up the market glut. It gives the poorer countries a chance to establish their agriculture industry without countries with massive subsidies (U.S., E.U.) flooding their countries with taxpayer subsidized food putting their farmers out of business. Also good in that it takes X amt. of barrells of oil out of production which prolongs the oil supply, not a bad strategy and when the oil runs out, chances are we'd be going this route anyways. As far as cattle goes, this throws a wrench into the big boys that own about 3/4 of the national herd, they'll have to pay more for feed barley, upping the price of beef on the shelf. This gives the small guys a chance as they can "finish" the cattle themselves by using the grain they already grow making the industry that more efficient. Boy this biofuel thing looks better and better all the time.

As a tory supporter I'll say that tactic on Youtube doesn't help out the tories at all. Yah the Liberals might have stole the boxes, but the letter in question still has to be cleared up, it STILL exists.

Sure there is a lot wrong with it. It hurts private producers by undercutting their advertising prices. CBC doesn't have to charge as much because the government covers shortfalls. It takes from the private sector in order to give the government through this crown corporation more money. The CBC is a terrible burden on the media sector in Canada. Not as bad as the CRTC, but bad. TSN can't outbid CBC. CBC has the infinite pockets of the nation to draw from. TSN has a budget. CBC can make money no matter what price they pay for HNIC because the government will just fund a shortfall or they'll have to cut back on ridiculous programming, air more repeats, whatever. TSN has to justify the cost against the adverstising dollars they would make. If the value of the contract wasn't good enough for cable TSN, then you can be assured that the CBC is operating this contract at a far lower rate of return than any other industry player would. That means the market is being undercut by government competition. It's filthy. Look at it from the NHL perspective, they're making a lot of money from increased competition, I have no problem with the gov't competing, but I don't like it when they impose rules (CRTC). The gov't should be able to compete and if the CBC can make money from advertising good on it. I think everyone has the right to compete. Lots of other companies practice this form of undercutting, that's business. If people don't like it, then don't watch HNIC on CBC, the ratings will drop and the NHL won't renew the contract.

So would it be wrong if the Gov't of Canada decided to invest in an offshore oil rig and pop one up off the coast of NFLD? No laws, just acts like another corporation investing money.

I wasn't referencing Canada, I was referencing the United States. My main point of contention with ScottSA is his firm belief that those who don't support war somehow hate our society. If that attitude is prevalent persecution will surely follow, it's nothing more than hate monering. I don't think dissension about the war is a sign of hate of our society. I do have a problem with people who say things like "I don't support the war, but i support the troops" I believe thats Hippocratic. There are some people who post here that i truly do feel hate the USA from top to bottom. But I don't think thats everyone. So saying "I don't agree with this war, but since the troops are there let them do their job and hope they're all right" doesn't fly?

I wasn't referencing Canada, I was referencing the United States. My main point of contention with ScottSA is his firm belief that those who don't support war somehow hate our society. If that attitude is prevalent persecution will surely follow, it's nothing more than hate monering. There's also a line that one must realize that there's not supporting a war which is all fine and good, and flat out condemning our society and everything it stands for. There's also a line for saying that those who don't agree with the war are this, that, and the other thing, and acting on it. Both sides are equally guilty of hate mongering.

Link That's pretty damn risky, those had better be some good ads or else the tories are going to have some big problems on their hands.

When it was illegal during prohibition, consumption initially went down and then steadily increased until, by the time of repeal, it was basically at the same level as before prohibition. So initially prohibition made alcohol less available to the general public, but organized crime stepped in to fill a black-market demand, and made it readily available to the point that the law had little effect other than to provide enormous revenue to gangsters. If you look at average consumption of marijuana before its prohibition, its use is dramatically more prevalent now than it ever was when it was legal. People simply do not base their decision to do drugs on whether or not it's illegal (except for, maybe, teenagers who are attracted to its outlaw status). In general, people have too strong a sense of personal autonomy to ever let the government dictate what they should or should not consume. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html That's a very good point. My opinion of why booze and pot should be illegal is what you are posting. People are always going to do illegal activities, it's human nature and you said it yourself that some teenagers are attracted to the outlaw status. Try and look at it this way, isn't it better that it's all focused on only pot? So it's illegal, is it really enforced? Your graph shows that booze usage after the prohibition went down somewhat, but soon after that people went for another fix, and then another and another. Right now it seems that pot is popular and has a lot of controversy surrounding it. My main point is thank heavens it's only pot (which is relatively harmless compared to what else is there), what if it turned into coke, crystal meth, etc. If coke or crystal meth became the next pot (as far as # of users go and trying to get it legal) we'd have a real big problem on our hands. This is why I figure the lesser of two evils and keep it where it is. Another problem we have now is the abuse of legal prescription drugs, it's starting to become a problem, so why make it legal, I don't see why it should be made legal nothing will change. But the government back in the day shouldn't have made it all illegal in the first place, maybe we'd still be stuck with opium tents and cheap whisky.

Bell is no where NEAR a monopoly. I forgive you though because obviously you are not keeping up with what is going on in ICT. What's the big players in the Canadian Media? CBC BellMedia Canwest Sounds like a near monopoly to me, an oligarchy more like it which is the kind of crap I have to put up with in the Ag sector. I hope that investor buys Bell and sells it off so it ends up scattering it the 4 winds. Where's Charles Anthony and his cronyism, the Canadian MSM is an example of that.

Not really, their is a history of "patriots" attacking and persecuting people because they didn't agree with a war, or to serve in a war. Mennonites and the Amish were often attacked because of their views on non-violence. When the "patriots" talk of fighting for liberty, they are more than willing to persecute those who don't agree with war. I've even seen on here people calling those who disagree with war as supporters of dictator's, and enemies of western society. In my own view that proves my point, as we see the type of ignorance some have towards differing points of view. It's history, and unfortunately you're wrong. That's why you can't come up with a better response. In History, the Mennonites and Doukhoubors (sp) were freely able to express their pacifist views, were exempt from conscription, and weren't locked up. And this is in World War 1 mind you without the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada we have in our culture to not persecute people concerning this and to make sure that people have the ability to express themselves in this way. Even if groups happened to be persecuted, the government apologizes and compensates. Persecution in Canada = Politcal Suicide

Actually, I think people in the right winger of western politicas are easily misled by their dear leaders and I almost cringed at the potential hypocrisy of what I wrote (we were all misled by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell media show prior to the war). So don't think you're above it all or better or smarter. If anything, a continued obedience to a mindset that has been proven time and again to be deficient is greater evidence of mental slavery than occasionally questioning the veracity of the powers that be. Extremes on both sides of the spectrum are easily mislead. Right wingers have GW Bush and Franklin Graham, Lefties have Michael Moore and Chavez. I don't agree with Bush's foreign policy as it reduces U.S. influence in solving problems and in fact creates some, but I think that what Iran is doing is proposterous and there is sufficient evidence to prove that this is the case. I don't know what side of the spectrum Iran is, but their followers are blind too, the guy holding up the sign saying the 15 Brits should be executed comes to mind. It helps to look at things simply, U.S. invaded iraq for a very poor reason and is wrong in that regard, Iran kidnapped British sailors for a very poor reason and are wrong.

If they were really in Iraqi water as Britain claims, don't you think the Brits would have fired on them when approached? The whole thing stinks like a provocation. Firing on them would be a good way to start a war, they figured to go along with it as it would most likely be the most peaceful way to solve it. The map on CNN.com should put all that malarkey to rest