Wild Bill

I see that you are from Montreal. It's a simple fact but Mulroney is still extremely unpopular in English Canada yet is still liked and respected in much of Quebec. Quebecois don't seem to realize just how much Anglos do not like him. The antipathy is akin to the revulsion Quebecois felt over the Adscam/Sponsorship affair, only greater! We could debate over whether his reputation is deserved but it really doesn't matter. In TROC he is not liked, for the most part. Since the PC and the Alliance/Reform parties merged it's obvious that the tiny rump of the PC's has ended up in control. Reform history and principles are never, ever mentioned. 'Down the memory hole, Winston!' Along with it was an obvious attempt to restore Mulroney's reputation. The Schrieber affair torpedoed that effort but it still struggles to keep trying. Curious.

I'd vote for Deb Gray! Or a woman like her. In a heartbeat! Don't know if I could have confidence in someone like Marilyn Churley for Science & Technology. Or Hedy Fry for a cultural ministry.

Ask the two who were beat up before if they care to repeat the experience.

Gee, I'm surprised it's not being held in Caledonia! I'll bet it will be hard to get a CHCH-TV cameraman to cover the event.

And this would protect the Jane Creba's of Toronto how? I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok, just for the purpose of argument, let's say that you're absolutely right! Now, suppose a criminal doesn't want to register his gun. Or wants to buy one smuggled up from the States. How will your methods prevent this? How will we even know? What can we possibly do about it? I still think that you're talking wishes, not reality. We've had gun registration since maybe the 30's and only legal owners have ever bothered. Worse yet, in Toronto criminals have either stolen gun lists from government offices or infiltrated or bribed government employees to get such lists, which tell you the names and addresses of every legal, registered gun owner in the city. Then they would steal them! I'm just getting really tired of paying taxes for impractical and flawed systems. Tell it to Jane Creba.

First off, it would be prohibitively expensive. Second, it would never withstand a Charter of Rights challenge! Yet again, what good would it do? I've talking about how once a gun is bought by a private citizen we have no effective way to ensure he keeps a record of whoever he might sell or give it to. You're suggesting we subject him to a background check. What good would that do? Are you trying to find out if he's likely to be conscientious about his paperwork? Would it guarantee he would always be in the future? Again, while you're wishing and dreaming put me in for a pony.

Ah, but isn't it Jack who has maintained that all we have to do to get along with the Taliban is to talk with them? That the fact that Harper has not begun high level talks with Al Queda is a failing that makes him responsible for the war dragging on? If that is so, then Jack would be the perfect envoy. We should give him the opportunity to show us how he is right and Harper is wrong. Perhaps Jack could win a Nobel Peace Prize! If he is as right about his approach as he seems to feel then it should be an easy coup for him.

OK, so the factory keeps records of its sales to gun distributors who keep records of their sales to gun shops, who keep records of their sales to private individuals. Then those private individuals sell their gun(s). How do we force all of THEM to keep records? If we can't, then what's the practical use of all the other records along the chain? While we're making wishes, I'd like a pony...

I still remember the spin that was used at the time to sell the Liberal Gun Registry. Smuggled guns and other illegal guns were totally ignored by the supporters of the Bill. The critics kept bringing it up but no one wanted to hear it. Such criticisms were blown off with comments like "There are very few illegal guns anyway!" The implication was that "people randomly going off the deep end" were the real problem. The registry was only supposed to cost a few million dollars so why would anyone oppose it? In reality it turned out the whole thing was just a 'feel good' exercise'. A very EXPENSIVE 'feel good' exercise! Incidents of random 'nutbars' statistically are 'mice nuts' compared to criminal use of guns. I would have had more respect for the motivations behind the gun registry if the Act had added ONE DAY's worth of extra sentence to a criminal who illegally used a gun! We got NOTHING in this regard! I should think that makes the Liberals true motives at the time obvious.

Do you realize that IN PRACTICE there is no extra penalty for using a gun in committing a crime? Even if the charges are not plea bargained away they are served concurrently so in effect just don't matter. Perhaps it would be not only cheaper but more effective to address the problem from this standpoint than a couple of billion dollars for an error-ridden registry of legal gun owners.

Or perhaps, he could have cut spending? Or looked for inefficiencies? Oops, sorry! That last one was silly. Everyone knows there ARE NO inefficiences in governments!

Why? Who would need them? We already HAVE a Liberal party!

Well, it would be only fair to cite some of your GOOD points! You are unfailingly polite and 'civilized' in your posts. There are many on this board who cannot make that claim. A number of posters are frankly snide, patronizing and sarcastic. That's just not you, I'd like to say! I don't care about another's politics as much as I care about them passing the 'good neighbour' test. You know, some folks make great neighbours. They are friendly, respectful and a pleasure to have next door. Others are constantly writing 'Letters to the Editor' demanding that everyone in the neighbourhood conform to THEIR ideals or how everyone ELSE is not believing or behaving correctly! I'd have no problem with you as my neighbour, PT! There are others on this board that would make me sell my house at a loss just to get away...

She doesn't really grate so much. She seems llike a nice enough person. It's just that she's very, very, very, very, very, VERY predictable in her arguments! No offense meant, PT. We are all entitled to our opinions. It's just that sometimes I swear I could quote your posts before I read them! Harper bad, Ignatieff good (and cute!), today's Tories have an evil agenda just for the fun of being evil... It's like arguing with a Witness at your door on a weekend morning. You might enjoy chewing over the subject matter but then it becomes obvious that there's no point. Faith cannot be shaken by debate, evidence or reason. To someone who is more objective, this comes as a disappointment and a frustration. This happens a lot on many discussion boards. It's just a part of human nature. If it bothers you, it's best to just move on. There's no point in trying to be a rock against the waves. You just get worn down over the years. Much better to be a surfboard!

Put yourself in the Bloc's shoes, PT! The Bloc knows they will never be the government. All they care about is what they can get for Quebec and eventually to have Quebec separate. Their biggest rival at the polls in 2004 wasn't the Alliance or the tiny shred of PC's left. It was the Liberals! So a deal with Harper meant they could concentrate their guns on their more serious enemy, the Liberals.

Molly, no one knows better than we in the 'Rest of Ontario' that not only the centre of Canada but the centre of the UNIVERSE is in Toronto! Just ask them! Actually, Torontonians take this as such a given that your question might confuse them!

Ah but RW, you are a rational fellow. Most citizens are not! Politics is the art of perception, not reality. People aren't going to change their ways. There is a technical term for those who enter politics and expect people to be rational about what choices they support. The term is 'loser'.

Perhaps you are not arguing the same point as others here. I would agree that a harmonized sales tax would be an improvement for business. I also had agreed that the GST was a better system over the long haul than the old 13% manufacturers tax. That's not really the question here. The political perception by the public of McGuinty's move is what is important. The GST is still reviled across most of the electorate, since it's very honesty in being clearly posted and not hidden like its predecessor was a constant reminder to the consumer every time he bought anything. Now the HST will do the same thing. The average voter is not an accountant, just as he's not likely to be a political junky. I think that Dalton has made a huge mistake that will come back to haunt him next election, especially when people realize that they are not getting a $1000 rebate UNLESS they make $160,000 a year! The inference when this info was released was that anyone making LESS than that figure would get $1000. When most people making $40-$60K find out they will be getting less than $300 as their share of the bribe there will be little sense that the 'spoonful of honey' was large enough to make the increased tax burden easy to swallow, especially when the heating season starts. This is going to prove very interesting. Hopefully the provincial Tories won't continue to screw up even the easy chances.

Reminds me of another law to do with marijuana...

No! Really, that is simply stating that we have no idea how much Man has contributed to the problem yet we can assume that it is all his fault! Hardly scientific!

I've always been more offended by the fact that the lighting portion of a household's power consumption is mice nuts compared to the power drawn by electric stoves and the motors in refrigerators, freezers, furnaces and of course, dishwashers and clothes dryers. The savings of CF's to an individual's power bill are trivial. It only becomes a significant saving to OPG to avoid coming up with new generation supplies and thus, I suppose, less taxes on our heads to pay for that. Anyhow, I've had CF's burn out too. The last one was a Sylvania. I don't recall the one before that. It was never the fixture that burned out. A fixture is a relatively crude device and is not bothered by the heat of an incandescent bulb. The problem was with the trapped heat burning out the electronics in the ballast/base of the CF. Being a techie, these 'touchy-feely' 'solutions' that are not really based on science but more on politics can often bother me greatly. So much so that for last night with 'Earth Hour' I turned on every light in my house in protest! Volts and Watts don't give a damn about cheerleading. Something either works or it doesn't. Mother Nature couldn't care less about how people feel about her laws.

McHale is just a citizen who was appalled at what he saw as a one-sided approach to the problems in Caledonia. He perceived that McGuinty was merely appeasing the natives to keep down the threat of violence while effectively tossing the townsfolk to the 'wolves' as it were. He saw incidents where the OPP would turn a blind eye to native protester actions while coming down hard on non-natives. Naturally, that brands him a racist to the native protesters and many others who support them. The fact that McHale won an incredible number of votes for an independent who showed up out of the blue clearly shows that there is a great deal of support for him within the townsfolk. Many would say that he is the ONLY one who has supported them! This issue keeps getting confused by nitpicking native land claims while ignoring their protest tactics. Quite possibly, before the protest began the majority of townspeople had sympathy for the natives. Unfortunately, the natives choose tactics that affected the townspeople rather than the politicians, in effect using them as cannon fodder. Basically, they punched the townsfolk in the face and then said "Don't get mad at me! The government made us do it!" Not a way to win friends and influence people. I don't know McHale personally and so have no idea if he's a racist. Hard to tell, when the definition of a racist seems to be anyone who disagrees with the native protest tactics. One thing is obvious. The number of votes he received shows that a very large number of townspeople agree with him! If the natives had of chosen to direct their tactics directly against the OPP, Queens Park or driven their ATV's through McGuinty's back yard instead of those in Caledonia McHale would have remained a nobody. Sorry to drift the thread, but it would indeed have been interesting to see what would have happened to his support under a different voting system.

Well, I WOULD hold youth murderers responsible! so I'm not being inconsistent. That being said, I would agree that youth should be a consideration. A 4 year old likely would be incapable of understanding consequences. A 12 year old? Probably. 8 or 10? Maybe. That could be up to the judge. The blanket pass given to virtually ALL juvenile offenders today? No. Yes, I know there are provisions in the Act to allow juvenile murderers to be tried as adults. So what? How often are they actually used? If someone torments a pit bull to make it murderously vicious they can be charged. How is this different from severe bullying of a child?

Once again you've totally missed my point! Funny how you keep doing that. In no way have I suggested that there is no personal responsibility. A murderer has to pay the price, period. It might surprise you that I have always supported the death penalty. Maybe it wasn't his fault he was made crazy. It doesn't matter. He's broken and will always be a threat to others. I'm talking about holding bullies responsible for the consequences of THEIR actions! As for 'weak minded' I guarantee that when you were 8 or 9 years old a sufficiently ambitious bully would have had no problem screwing up you or anyone else! Severe bullying is quite common in some circles today. Unless you happen to be some kind of superman I can't imagine you being immune. Besides, lots of kids are born less strong minded than others. Do they deserve to be driven what by definition is insane by such bullying? By avoiding any talk of responsibility on the part of the bullies you seem to be suggesting that they are either engaged in harmless childhood fun or that their victims were somehow too weak to handle it so therefore deserved it. I can only see two possibilities as to how someone could hold such a view. Either they were lucky enough to never have experienced severe bullying as a child, thus lacking the perspective to appreciate the reality of it, or perhaps they themselves were bullies and are in denial due to guilt. Either way, it doesn't matter. If dogs keep getting kicked they WILL continue to bite back! That's reality.