Wild Bill

Geez, can't see the forest for all the straw men! You seem to define a "right winger" as someone who disagrees with you on certain issues. Then you feel free to predict how they will feel about any other issue that comes up. We could do the same thing about "left wingers" but it would get a bit thin after a while, since all the examples would tend to revolve around group hugs and watching the "Care Bears" as research for international diplomacy conferences...

Quite right! We're dealing with a religious movement rather than a scientific one. "Man is BAD! He must be PUNISHED!" That's what all the eco-drivel seems to come down to, once you cut through the crap. It's been said before that after communism died and all its failings were revealed in the ashes all the "useful idiots" as Lenin called them became eco-warriors!

Well, that's clear enough. You obviously concede the point that it IS a wealth transfer scheme! You just think that's a good idea. That makes things simpler. We can move on to whether or not such wealth transfer is actually good for the goal of reductions, or for our own economy, or for the economies of developing nations, for that matter. As to my latter point, one thing that seems to be forgotten is that newly developing nations actually have a huge advantage, in that they are starting with modern, more efficient technologies. If they choose to, they can develop a much cleaner, efficient and therefore more profitable infrastructure. A case in point is how with a cell phone system not only can you operate at a higher level of technology with information transfer than the old landline methods, you don't have to built a network of wires and poles across your country. The issue is not so much money as it is education. If your people aren't literate they are not likely to be able to embrace the new technologies. Simply giving them money is like putting the cart before the horse. Meanwhile, if they have such advantages, what competitive position will WE be left in after we transfer away our own wealth? Will our children be desperately trying to emigrate to the Sudan for a better life? Where is it written as a Law of the Universe that we will ALWAYS be a wealthy people ourselves? We worked hard as a country for our wealth and succeeded so well that other peoples wish to come HERE for the opportunity. Now we have a scheme where they could simply sit tight and let us ship money to them! A scheme where actually auditing what they DO with the money is considered rude!

Why can't they stop it? Canadian soldiers are under strict orders not to comment on the Afghanistan mission to the press! That was in the media last week. All they have to do is to tell rank and file cops that if they are caught giving their opinions it will cost them their jobs. You could still have a "secret" poll, of course. How can they know that an individual cop answered a random phone call? Still, the fear would be there. Also, they could disparage any such poll as biased, without fear of any contradiction from those actually polled. And I am NOT saying that the chiefs are afraid for their jobs! I'm saying that chiefs are political animals themselves. From a Machiavellian POV, it is in their interest to keep any tool they get, no matter how expensive or ineffective. The cost is borne by taxes, which are not their concern. As far as effectiveness, even a blunt axe is better than nothing. Much better for them to champion the registry. Later they can try to have it improved into something useful. Meanwhile, nice segue! You're very good at that! Again, now how about explaining how you can deny the logic of how the registry is useless when a cop has to call on a door...

Michael, usually I find your posts much more logical. It really seems your viewpoint is mostly emotional on this one. Passionate, but not logical. As always, you're entitled to your opinion. The real question however is how many other Ontarioans share it! I've posted before that I believe this to be an untested premise. I submit that it's always the rebels who win huge majorities. Trudeau, Mulroney and Harris' victories seem to me to show that the electorate is rarely that enthusiastic with the typical, "middle of the road", "centre", "beige suit and brown shoes" candidates. We desperately want SOMETHING other than the status quo! If we get it the choice seems to be taken from us. Mulroney quit, he was not voted down. We'll never know if he would have won the next election. Certainly, we can assume he would not have done as badly as Kim Campbell, the choice that the people never chose. She was chosen by her party to be their offering. The same with Harris. He retired. Ernie Eves was very much Harris Lite! I don't blame Ontario for voting in the Liberals. Ernie never wanted the job and didn't seem all that different from the Liberals anyway! Certainly, he worked hard to tell us that he would NOT be like Harris! I don't normally go in for conspiracy theories but it does seem strange that we are so rarely offered such candidates. We are given far more Joe Clarks than Mulroneys, many more John Turners than Trudeaus. It almost seems as if the game is actually run by some sort of Ned Flanders Illuminati!

Jdobbin, it's very unlikely that police chiefs and their superiors would ever allow such a poll. The chiefs are involved in the political aspects of the registry. Frontline cops face real world situations. I'm surprised you're fighting this argument. The fact that the registry is useless to let a cop know he's calling at a house that may contain a firearm is only common sense! There are really only two possibilities. Either the registry may be taken as gospel about the situation or it can't. If you're going to continue supporting it then you must be taking the position that a cop CAN accept the registry report as true!

Pretty much, at least I think I did! Or did I?

Never made the accusation! I'm just saying it's quite possible! Consider, you have a protest group willing to get loud and rowdy in the Visitors Gallery. What's the chances that the NDP folks who let them in ran a background check on everyone in the group? What steps were taken to ensure there were no "wingnuts" in the crowd? Did that NDP lady who signed the passes just give everyone of them a hug? When you move in those circles it's wise to have SOME sense of security! "Six Degrees of Separation" ring any bells? Mind you, all we would have lost would have been a few politicians. Some would say that's a good start...

Please, the Natural Law Party already taught me the way to true peace, love and enlightenment. Also how to levitate! I'm supposed to waste 5 hours on YOUR recommendation? I have no idea who you are and so you have absolutely no credibility with me! How about I pick something for 5 hours of YOUR time? YOU do it first! I'll ask you some questions to be sure you actually did it and THEN if I'm satisfied I'll give 5 hours of MY time in exchange?

Have a few coffees before you post, Oleg! When I said that "wrong is wrong" that wasn't a defense but an observation! I thought I was being clear that it was a wrong action for any party to set up a protest in the visitors gallery. The rest of your post is obvious. Why on earth would I disagree with you? It's as if you said "Where have you been lately? Don't you know that kittens are cute?"

I would agree with you. Separatism will always have a core vote in Quebec. It is part of that instinct for tribalism in every human being. It appeals to emotion and while emotion may not be as smart as logic for making the correct choice it is every bit as powerful. In politics, much more! Yet still, it will always be far more important in Quebec than in Red Deer, or Cornerbrook. Most Anglos believe that Quebec receives more federal money than it contributes. You or I could argue if that's actually true but it doesn't matter. The political perception in TROC is what it is. Therefore, if Quebec left it would be sad emotionally but better financially. Again, I'm talking perception and not trying to prove any reality. If anything, the average Anglo looks upon the Separatistes as having a tinge of racism! "Pur laine", n'est-ce pas? When you have the majority language and culture it's easy to misunderstand the fears of a minority for its survival. I'm glad that you considered my views as significant. I had the good fortune for a while to answer as a remote salesman to an office in Pointe Claire, staffed by bilingual francophones. They were great people. I actually drank Mauditz beer and lived! This was at the time of the last referendum and although we rarely talked politics I was struck by the similarities between their culture and mine. We both loved Seinfeld and the Borg babe! Yet at the same time I always felt that they were blissfully ignorant and mistaken at how Quebecers were perceived in my part of Canada. The fact that when you drove the 401 in Toronto you saw bilingual traffic signs everywhere and NONE in Montreal never struck them as significant! Another misconception they held was that if Quebec were to separate it would be a painless divorce, that Anglo Canada would understand it was in both side's interest to be fair and logical about the terms. I didn't say so of course but I thought they were from Mars! Whoever heard of a painless divorce? If Quebec separated they would instantly lose any political clout in Parliament. After all, they could no longer offer a party any seats! The MP's that remained would be beholden to TROC for political power. TROC would be angry and hurt. Emotion would rule and logic would be out the window. Any MP running for office or trying to stay in office that was perceived as being "soft" on the divorce terms to Quebec would receive fewer votes than a Rhino candidate! Anyhow, enough drift. Suffice to say that there are two very different POV's. I was just making the point that sometimes Quebecers take the Anglo view for granted. A citizen in British Columbia or Nova Scotia is proud to be a Canadian and proud of his province. He never even thinks about speaking English being a factor! He does NOT think in the same terms as his Quebec cousin!

Well, that's where we differ, I guess. You seem to take the position that a PM can do whatever he wants, it's just a matter of having the will. That means you are always justified in blaming him, I guess. I don't share that view. Parliament works in a certain legal framework and I believe that some things are possible and some aren't. A Prime Minister does not have unlimited power, thank heavens! That's why I didn't blame Bob Rae for having to deal with a recession when he was premier of Ontario. I just blame him for the bone-headed things he did to try to cope with it! As for the backlash of actually scrapping the registry, I don't really believe that there would be a significant one. Hard core Liberals who would never vote Tory anyway might NOT vote Tory TWICE but who cares? The real question is which way would the "swing vote" go? My observation is that anywhere but Toronto and Montreal no one really believes the gun registry was a positive thing anyway. If they had of added even ONE day to the mandatory sentence for illegal use of a firearm there might have been more credibility! Most people are aware that criminals don't register guns and that they seem to have no problem obtaining them. If Harper is as smart as he appears I would expect that if he obtains a majority not only would he scrap the gun registry but he would also promise a respectable amount of the wasted money to go for more prisons and longer sentences. Maybe a few more policemen on the streets as well. THAT would seem a good trade to a lot of folks! He would be taking away something ineffective that he can blame on his opponents and giving something at least perceived as TRULY effective for which he can take ALL the credit! You probably disagree but it really doesn't matter what you and I think. It matters how most voters think. We "ordinary" joes can be as partisan and illogical as we want but if we were campaign managers we would fail our parties miserably! You need to be objective - to clearly see the real world. The game is to attract enough voters to get in power FIRST! Otherwise we can't do a damn thing! Here in Hamilton I hear NDP candidates every campaign making promises as to what they will do for us. It's all a joke, of course. To be fair, most of them set up a good staff at their offices to help any constituent with his EI claim or any such paperwork matter but as far as getting some real MONEY to the riding they are reduced to begging for crumbs from the ruling party. Money talks and BS walks.

Not sure you're being quite fair, Dave. My understanding is that a minority government CAN'T scrap the registry! That's why Harper chose to 'starve' it instead. You can't bitch at a man with no legs 'cuz he didn't dance!

Well, wrong is wrong, no matter which party is involved. All I can say in defense of the old Reformers is that the world changed after Sept 09, 2001. Before that throwing teddy bears wasn't that big a deal. Now we have to worry that the bears may contain IED's.

How do you justify your claim, Topaz? It's easy to see job losses today but you haven't said anything about what would have happened WITHOUT Free Trade! Or is it your position that if we had left things alone it didn't matter how the world was changing, we would have kept all our jobs and created lots of new ones? If you want us to believe you we need some more evidence. You give us nothing!

I should think the difference is obvious! MP's have been chosen by the people to inhabit the monkey house that is Parliament. They may at times act childish but at least they are sanctioned by having won votes from the people. The protesters who "crashed the party" have ZERO sanction from the people! No one elected them to attend Parliament! They may attend as visitors but visitors have no right to participate. Who the hell do they think they are? And who the hell does Layton think he is to let them in? The arrogance is WORSE than the childish antics of Question Period. You might go to the zoo and watch the monkeys but when you leap the fence and join them in flinging your feces at each other you quite rightfully will end up evicted. You didn't address the security question at all. I wonder if the NDP realize what could have happened. Just one wingnut in that crowd with a bomb and the NDP's name would have gone down in infamy!

So far in this thread I haven't seen anyone clearly take on the definition of "survival of the fittest". It seems to be to be a very vague and subjective term. It all depends on what particular context you measure the individual, for what particular need. Consider the case of Steven Hawking. His physical state is a tragedy yet his mind already has advanced the potential of the entire race! Without him we may never develop the ability to build a "B Ark". If your ship is sinking you need physically fit people to bail. If your cropland is flooding you need intellect to invent a pump! Sometimes it is physical limitations that force someone to develop their mind. In the final analysis, I would state that the mind is most important! Not just for raw intellect. There are "idiot savants" born who appear feeble minded yet are capable of astonishing feats with mathematics, or playing a musical instrument. Where do we draw the lines when we choose the "most fit" to survive? With a total mental vegetable it seems easy but for anything else it doesn't seem so. Again, there may be survival situations where being physically fit is not applicable. It might take a "milksop" genius to figure out a survival solution.

Here you go: http://news.google.ca/news?q=Parliament+pr...ved=0CA8QsQQwAA Now we know that it was the NDP who invited them in. We also know that at least some of the protesters attended the last NDP convention. Apparently the NDP lady whose name appears on their guest passes says she had no idea they were going to cause trouble. That's VERY hard to believe, considering many of them had participated in protests before. One good thing is that it has revealed a gaping, scary hole in security. All some suicide bomber would need to get right into a session of Parliament is a friend in the NDP...

I have to smile at the call for rules forcing governments to deal with deficits and their own pay/pensions. Old news! Topaz, Molly, you should have been Reformers! Where were you? Now everybody's grumbling that something should be done about the problems. You all had your chance! Just another example proving that the present Tory party is run by the old PC folks and NOT by Reform! You judge by deeds, not words.

I agree! I would say the same if ANY party were behind such action! Tar and feathering is too good for them!

Actually, I don't call them much of anything! Anyone making predictions that far out doesn't strike me as at all scientific. I really don't see much reason to pay any attention to them. What's more, your implication that I would be partisan in my opinion is wasted on me. If you've been reading my posts for any length of time you would have seen that I'm much more objective than that! I support the Tories only because I find the other choices worse! I'm always willing to throw mud at the Conservatives if I feel they deserve it.

The present system has been hiding costs for years! By releasing criminals early and making punishments light, instead of money for prisons we have money stolen from us directly! It's harder to track the cost of a break-in. Insurance totals only the replacement cost of the property involved. The time and aggravation is not paid for at all. It is born by the victim. Any deductibles on the insurance policies are paid by the victims. Often in areas where that type of crime is rampant insurance premiums become exorbitant. In other threads it's been mentioned that some shopkeepers can't get insured at any price. When they are robbed they bear the entire cost with no mitigation. Saving money on prisons seems to me to be false economy. It lets governments offload costs back onto citizens, in a manner easy to obfuscate. What's more, if sentences were stiffer it's possible that after an initial increase in prison enrolments the numbers may start to fall, as fewer potential criminals care to risk the price.

Yeah, but if you read their text at the end they actually predict a big Liberal majority in 2012! What the hell do they base that on? It must really hurt to pull a crystal ball out of your butt! Obviously, in politics such a projection for 3 years from now is ridiculous, unless you regularly read Trendlines. You will quickly see that they are very much Liberal boosters and simply want to say something that sounds very positive for Liberal fortunes. They are mixing statistical math with partisan cheerleading. You have to very much take them with a HUGE grain of salt!

More cops available for pro-active crime prevention costs the State money. Using fewer cops to write B&E and "after the fact" accident reports saves money. Cops patrolling for unsafe drivers costs money. Cops issuing radar tickets makes money. It's as simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party_of_Canada Since they never won a seat they were never in any of the Debates. Back then at debates they didn't give "pity positions" like they gave Elizabeth May of the Greens last time. You had to prove you were a real player FIRST!