Wild Bill

Competition? That was the line handed us for forming Petro-Can in the first place! It was implied that they would force the other guys to keep their prices down in order to compete with them. Of course, this turned out to be a total crock! Petro-Can stations were always the first to put their prices up and the last to lower them! They simply became just another player that "hosed" us all. It has been said many times that the true bottleneck for competition with pricing has always been the lack of refinery capacity. It really doesn't matter how many service stations there are if they all get their fuel from the same few refineries. After all these years we've never seen Petro-Can or anybody else build even ONE new refinery! What does that tell us?

Thanks to both you gentlemen! Bob's a smart man.

I'm still wondering if we will ever find out just what Trudeau's government paid BP, Gulf and those other companies to form Petro-Can! That secret has been locked up tighter than a frog's butt, and that's water tight! A succession of Attorney Generals have tried and failed. All we know is that those companies couldn't take the money fast enough.

How do you know he's leaving his gun unattended? Isn't that an assumption on your part? My take on the story is that he wanted to keep a loaded gun handy while he was working around the farm, but not actually in his hands. What earthly good would it do to have the gun far away from him? That would be about as useless as having the ammunition far away when it was needed! As for coyotes being timid, perhaps the coyotes you've known are different than the ones around here. I've seen them close up for years, not just in the rural areas of Stoney Creek and Hamilton but actually in the brownfields of the industrial areas, standing atop stacks of shipping skids while big transport trucks and towmotors jockey around beside them. Timid? Give me a break! They are extremely intelligent and adaptable creatures, veritable Houdini's at getting access to anything they can eat. Taped loud noises? Hell, PT, those things around here didn't even scare birds off the fruit! You have GOTTA be a city girl! Ministry of Natural Resources? Give me another break! They have a policy that if they capture a live animal it must be released within a kilometer of that spot. Coyotes will roam over a 10 km radius and think nothing of it! The Ministry is not solving the problem. They're just giving them a ride home! 67% of Canadians want a gun registry? That's pretty simplistic. Even though you gave no cite as evidence of that number, even if we accept it for the sake of argument that would be a misleading poll question. How can someone hold an intelligent opinion on that question without knowing what KIND of registry? How about if the question said "Are you in favour of a gun registry that will cost a billion dollars, take guns out of the hands of responsible owners and leave them in the hands of gang members in Vancouver and Toronto? In addition, farmers will be treated exactly the same as citizens living at Jane and Finch." Why don't you ask how many Canadians have stopped beating their wives? Sounds to me like you just find guns scary so you will accpet anything that APPEARS to address the problem without actually having to think about what CAN work or is ACTUALLY working! Me, I'm a utilitarian. I would like guns out of the hands of criminals and wingnuts too! I just can't be happy with BS instead of reality. That's why I have little respect for drug laws and the same for the gun registry. Passing a law and spending a lot of money is NOT the same as actually doing something! My family is no safer. The only thing accomplished is that we all get taxed a little poorer. Count me out of your 67%. I'd be better off with the I Ching.

I saw this recently and sadly I missed the author's name. Perhaps someone can tell me who said it: "The CBC is led by 45 year olds telling 35 year olds how to appeal to 25 year olds."

We've always had a gun registry, PT. Just not one as screwy as the Liberal one! Anyhow, I don't follow your logic at all about the coyotes. Sure after he's gone he won't get any more livestock. Until the next time he gets hungry, of course. You must be a city girl. The entire point of that Drumbo farmer was that if he shoots the coyote he will get NO repeat offences! If he did things your way he will in effect merely be catering to the coyote's appetite in order to comply with a gun law written by city folks in downtown Toronto. I guess you must care more about the coyote than the farmer making a living to feed his kids. Perhaps I'm making an incorrect assumption. Lots of people have contradictions between what they care about and what flawed logic they support. Do you have any suggestions on what that farmer should do that would WORK? Perhaps he should ask the coyote to stick around while he calls for a policeman to deal with it.

I thought we had stopped allowing free speech and thinkers years ago, after hearing what happens to anyone supporting Israel at Queens University. If you want to exercise free speech, why not go over to 'rubble.ca' and make a post that says you believe that Steven Harper is a nice guy? Surely there's no better example of free speech than that board! Aren't some of us being a bit hypocritical here?

Yeah, Finley would be great entertainment! Her opponents would keep Caledonia front and center! There are two issues involved here. One is who might win the Tory leadership. The other is who might actually win a provincial election. They are NOT the same thing! There are many possible candidates who could win the leadership but go nowhere after that. To my mind that makes them irrelevant. Much of their support would actually come from people who would never vote Tory anyway! They WANT a PC leader who can't win! I happen to believe that only a Harris-philosophy leader has a hope of winning the premier's office. Why vote for any of the others when we already have a liberal in power? I have never believed that Harris was as unpopular as his opponents keep saying. The Red Tories never wanted him to be the party leader. When he retired the same old Liberal media hacks kept insisting that the public never wanted him and after experiencing two terms had learned to hate him! The only people who hated Harris that I saw were the same ones that had always hated him and had always supported other parties, like teachers and civil servants. It's not as if they stood for a possible source of Tory voters anyway. Whenever these people talk about Harris today the heat of the personal, ad hominem vitriol is often just short of rabid lunacy! Yet none of them ever admits that their great 'bogeyman' had won two MASSIVE electoral victories! Ives was a lame-ass candidate and since then we have had only Red Tory leaders. Dalton has walked to easy wins, almost uncontested. I submit that the Tories CAN'T win with a Red Tory candidate! As I said, they've already got a liberal in power so why vote for another John Tory clone? As for the claims that the electorate doesn't want another Harris type premier, this premise has never been tested. However, we DO know that Ontarioans won't vote for a Red Tory! For these reasons, I'm betting on Tim Hudak as the best possibility to get the Tories back into power here in Ontario. That's not to say someone else might not win the leadership. I'm just saying that if they do they won't win Queen's Park. Which wouldn't at all surprise me! I've been watching the provincial Tories since Bill Davis was young and from what I've seen of Ontario's Red Tories, they would rather be in opposition than let a Blue Tory be their leader, especially if like Harris he won the premiership!

Once again, science has been trumped by trendiness! Or, as someone once put it: "It doesn't have to work, as long as we can say we've got one!"

I realize that, Molly. It's just that McGuinty is the only one who can stop it! If it was Harris in charge nobody would be saying "...it was on the table long before Harris!" I'm just saying that you can't ignore politicians and you can't be partisan about them if you want to get anything changed. McGuinty has been very public lately about telling people not to bother protesting about wind farms in their backyard or pretty well anything to do with the environment, which includes dumps. His boy Smitherman has told any protesters that his government will not abide any NIMBYism. With that attitude, if those are your crucial issues then simple logic says that any other choice is at least unknown and thus possibly a positive one. McGuinty has proven that he is a BAD one! Yet many still support him, apparently failing to see the contradictions out of some knee-jerk anti-conservatism. I find it quite ironic.

Who was that American general in Viet Nam who said "We had to destroy the village in order to save it!"?

Paid? Are you serious? I wish! I have good news and bad news for you. First, you're not paranoid. However, there is someone after you!

Well, after Bob Rae's one and only NDP kick at the can in Ontario it would seem that it would be more likely that monkeys would fly out of your butt than the NDP would win again, to quote Wayne Campbell, aka Mike Myers. Horwath is a hometown girl for those of us in the Hammer, but she still has quite a row to hoe to bring the NDP even a few more seats. I listened to some of her speeches during their leadership convention and what struck me was how she just parroted the same old, same old, 'Workers are always right and companies are to blame for everything" stuff we've heard from the Ontario NDP since at least 1966. If they ever took some example from a modern socialist party like that of Tony Blair in Britain they might get some where but so far we've heard nothing to suggest its going to happen. So we have little choice but to look to the other two parties and decide who reeks the least...

This is one of the very things that Reform trumpeted against with the other parties! Again I ask, why did Manning bother?

You may be partially correct. Many, many Libertarians supported Reform! I know, as I am one and know many more. The Reform message of populism was very compatible with Libertarian ideals. Please note that I use the term Libertarian in its classic political sense and don't confuse it with someone who's main platform is solely the legalization of marijuana. That is a mere slang definition of Libertarian. It might fit as regards some aspects but there's a LOT more to it! Anyhow, it's true that Harper quickly began to abandon the populist aspects of the old Reform/Alliance party. You can argue about whether this was right or wrong but it's fair to say you can't argue with the result of this making Libertarians less comfortable with today's Tories. Fortunately for Harper, Libertarians have no other choice as the alternatives are even more elitist. However, that only festers resentment for limiting choices and sets the stage for another new party to have a shot at coming on stage. Harper's tactics are only valid if his premises are true. It would appear that he believes that in order to achieve and maintain power he must attract the 'middle'. It would also appear that he has accepted the Liberal and other opposition parties' definition of 'middle'. He also would appear to believe that he is in no danger of losing his base as it has no other clear alternative. I guess time will tell if he's right or wrong. Still, I would like to point out that historically it was never the wallflower in the beige suit and brown shoes who won massive majorities in the last 50 years of our history.

And it's the politicians who say yea or nay to the DUMP! That's how this sort of thing keeps happening! To many protesters can only think like a poor chess player, no more than one move ahead at a time! So they make a lot of futile noise and then complain. If they get really riled up they might get violent! Crude thinking breeds crude tactics breeds crude results. We get what we deserve, I guess.

I don't understand your reference! My point was that policy committees that are non-binding are mere makework exercises to fool the mules into thinking the leadership cares about their feelings. You reply with a quip about reprinting policy books. Maybe I'm just missing it. I don't get out much anymore. Give me a break, please. What the heck are you talking about?

And Waldo promptly confirmed my original point, which was that the CPC 'grassroots committees' are non-binding on the party. "Smoke and mirrors to make the mules feel appreciated". It was this lack of populism power and the facade of 'busywork' committees that made me bail on the Tories for Reform in the first place! Again, I ask: "Why did Manning ever bother?"

Can you provide a single cite for it ever having been any different? To my knowledge, the old Reform Party was the sole and only party to ever build policy from the grassroots up. All the other parties might have policy workshops for their membership but they were and are always careful to make it non-binding, which of course renders it mere smoke and mirrors to make the mules feel appreciated.

We don't know. John Tory lost and now is gone. However, please note that I did say there hadn't been much choice. My point still stands. This dump is going in under McGuinty's reign, so he and his party are responsible. Or do you give him a pass because he's a Liberal?

Hey, it worked well for Chretien for a looonnng time! Can't argue with copying a success story!

Well, I'm sure George Smitherman will just accuse all of Simcoe County as NIMBY's and tell you all to get stuffed! I realize that there hasn't been much of an alternative the past few elections but still, any Ontarioan who is oblivious to the McGuinty standard approach to government deserves what he or she gets!

Jdobbin, have you forgotten the 'Rat Pack'? Have Sheila Copps and John Nunziata gone 'down the memory hole'? I agree that it seems to be rude on the part of the Torys and perhaps uncalled for but to suggest that '... only really been used like this since Harper took office...' is kind of a stretch.

Actually, a company doesn't have to have directly received money to be considered a success example. If it can be said that the stimulus made credit more easily available, or perhaps saved not that specific company but rather some of its major customers that also is a credit to the stimulus plan.

Ok, here's a start! First off, if I'm right of centre perhaps it's bacause everyone else moved the line! Anyhow, I noticed that if you click on 'Progress Achieved to Date' you get info on the progress of IMPLEMENTING the stimulus package! I don't think that's most important. It would be more positive if we could see a list of companies that were dying that turned things around and began to not only survive but to thrive! The purpose of this stimulus plan is to save our businesses, jobs and the economy, is it not? Who cares about the progress of the government in implementing their plan? All Canadians know that anything done by the government moves slowly and inefficiently. That is a given no matter who is in power. We accept that. What's far more important is to know if it's working! We can judge that by success stories. We know that there have been and will be massive job losses. If throwing money at the problem is doing any good then we should see accounts of companies that came out of receivership and perhaps began to recall workers. Even better, how about a list of NEW companies that opened up, perhaps because of money or credit being attributed to the government's stimulus action? More simply, how about hearing about successes? We know there are failures. That's the unfortunate thing about depressions. We also know you can't save every job and every company. What CAN be done is to help the business climate so that companies trying to adapt can survive and that companies trying to offer new products or services can get started, hopefully without getting blown out of the water by the Chinese! I'd like to know if the plan is helping. I really don't care to get reports that tell of the Government being all 'busy'. Movement for the sake of movement isn't productive. Just because we see a picture of Duceppe with a net over his head doesn't mean we've saved the cheese industry.