Wild Bill

Interesting. Perhaps you didn't realize it but you just stuck an undeserved label on the old Reform Party! Demonizing, maybe? I know 'cuz I was there! The members as a whole were hardly right wing, unless you call populist democrats to be right wing. They had more minority faces in their caucus than all the other parties combined, if you call that right wing. They believed in less government and more individual rights. Was that right wing? They believed in the original concept of Canada as a Confederation of equal provinces and that Ottawa had gone too far in trying to rule provinces like the American model towards their states. Was that right wing? They believed in no special privileges for any minority, considering that to be just another form of racism. Was that right wing? Or is right wing to mean anybody who is not Liberal?

Interesting. I've never seen such statistics. In fact, those I have seen say the opposite. Since it's your point, how about defending it with a link or two giving those statistics? I would truly be interested.

Doesn't appear to me that you are biased in the same way at all! One way is biased from understanding what can work and what can not. The other is biased according to a wish.

Why didn't any of the women come to his aid? After all, we are all equal, are we not? I think perhaps it has been so long since our society has had a lot of personal violence in our daily lives that people have forgotten just how dangerous a man with a knife can be. To go up against such an opponent, particularly a crazy one, unarmed is just suicidal stupidity for anyone but a Hollywood ninja. I had read that the attacker had made moves on other passengers but that they managed to escape in time. So likely it was not a specific attack on a specific victim. This guy likely would have proceeded to kill the entire busload of people if not stopped. How could such a horror ever have happened? After all, we had registered all the guns! I guess we need a knife registry.

This incident reminds me of a personal experience that I feel is appropriate to the discussion. Years ago I was in Texas for some sales training. One evening a bunch of us from all over the States and a few fellow Canadians were having drinks in a bar when one patron who obviously had a bit too much started becoming quite rowdy, cranky and aggressive. Not just to those at his own table but to others nearby. Suddenly he pulled a gun on a guy at the next table, who was simply minding his own business! I froze. A Canadian boy like me had never seen anything like this! Was this guy going to shoot that poor soul? Or others? Or ME? It must have been only a second or two later when I heard a series of clicks. I looked around and there were at least a half dozen other guns trained on the rowdy guy! One gentleman said "I suggest you put that away and settle down!" The offender looked around and instantly wilted, putting away his gun. He quietly left, without even finishing his drink. The rest of the patrons resumed their conversation as if nothing had happened. Me, I was shaking! However, later in my room when I lay down for the night I started to think about it a bit deeper. I suddenly realized that scary as the idea of someone pulling a gun in a bar had been, if it had happened back home the offender might very well have shot someone! No one else would've had a gun to stop him! There's a conundrum here that can't be easily answered. No one wants a society where gunslinging is common. Yet at the same time, we have totally given up our personal immediate safety. If we do run into someone with a gun we have no defense. All we can do is hope we live through the experience and later call the cops. If the guy is a whacko who just starts taking people out randomly he will kill quite a number before the police are aware of him and have time to react. One person with a gun could have saved that poor soul on that bus. One person with a gun could have stopped Mark Lepine before the body count of those poor women in Quebec grew so large. I don't know the answer. I don't want to carry a gun myself. Still, when I hear about such horrific incidents I can't help but think of my experience in Texas. One thing's for sure, it taught me that cops are only human. They're not magical beings who can always hover around me and keep me safe.

Well, you're assuming I agree with your premises. I'm afraid I don't. I disagree with David Suzuki. I'm one of those he feels should be thrown in jail. I don't believe that carbon is a problem or a threat. I also don't believe that I have any control over what energy sources the McGuinty government here in Ontario intends to use. I also don't believe in "peak oil" Back in the 70's when the first oil panic occurred there was a lot of techie articles and speculation about how to handle the crisis. At that time the common belief was that man's effect on the environment was about to trigger another ice age. Meanwhile the American government was implementing plans like 55 mph speed limits in an attempt to reduce consumption. There was serious talk about drastically increasing taxes on gasoline to encourage research into alternate energy sources and modes of transportation. I wish I could remember the author of one of the best that I read. His name escapes me after 30 years but his words have stayed. He took a more objective view by stating that historical evidence suggested that all such attempts, particularly those from governments, to stimulate innovation through artificially increasing costs were doomed to failure. It seems to be human nature to simply adjust by the minimum amount necessary until we hit the point where a resource is almost gone! At that time and ONLY at that time it becomes a crisis and our societies concentrate our resources and efforts en masse. He had confidence that Man was smart enough to always come up with a solution, but only when he absolutely had to. He posited that the difference between leaving things alone until they got "scary" instead of taxing the bejesus to impose an artificial pressure is that if oil was going to run out in 200 years we would have perhaps 180 painless years. Then the pain would force a solution. Using artificial taxation methods only means that we will have 200 years of pain before we finally do what we were going to do anyway. His thinking jived much better with what I had already learned about human nature. I truly believe that much of today's green thinking is simple "ego-boo", where people are more interested in a warm feeling of participating than in actually identifying if a problem is real and within our power to affect in a positive way. If I was pressed for a suggestion I might say that we should never have bailed on new nuclear power plants. Still, it's not too late. I would agree that we should have bailed on AEC built plants. They have a history that shows they can't be trusted to be on time and within budget. That's not really a good reason not to build nukes. Lots of other companies have a GOOD history! Why not buy from them?

Sorry, you covered pretty well the obvious ones. That was my point. If I knew of any more that were possible in my financial situation with an older home I would have already done them, just to cut down the bills. Unless I sell my house I don't see how I could do much to escape Dion's carbon tax. If his tax were to be implemented, I don't see how that would have a positive impact on the resale value of an older home. I'm not attacking the idea of trying to reduce one's carbon footprint. I'm just trying to illustrate that it's hardly a new idea from Dion. We've been hearing these conservation tips since the 70's. We've also been experiencing higher utility bills since the same time. So far I've heard a lot of his supporters tell me that there are a lot of things I could and should be doing. I guess things are new for these folks but it's old hat to me. Their suggestions are meant to be taken as reasons not to fear increased costs from a carbon tax. For me at least, they will have to do much, much better.

You know, this is a Canadian board. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be using some American cartoon image of the "Right" in your premise. I've never owned a pickup truck. I've never owned a gun. American "conservatism" is hardly such, being something quite different and unique to the culture of that country. To draw any comparisons with the right in other countries, particularly Canada, would be a fallacy to your argument.

Sorry if I touched a nerve! I knew that if I made such a provocative post there would immediately be a "lefty" response that indeed WAS polite and logical! The exception that proves the rule. The real difference between the sides appears to be simple manners, at least from my own observations. As support for my view I offer virtually ANY post from "babble.com" that is intended as a rebuttal to any non-"left" premise. I found my experience there to be so vile that I will never go there again. If I want abuse I'll pay for it, as the saying goes. I repeat my point that much of this is simple righteousness. Many lefties I've encountered do not appear to consider themselves rude or confrontational. It's more as if they see a "rightie" as some "shotgun rack in a pickup truck" American cartoon character who is obviously mean and nasty and thus must be opposed! By opposing him of course they are demonstrating that they themselves are "one of the good guys". I'm willing to grant that you yourself have not done this, at least in this thread. I also realize that my own experience can be dismissed as anecdotal. Experience is not worthless, however. I'm 55 years old and can truthfully say that in all those years I have met only ONE leftwing debater who has NEVER stooped to ad hominem rebuttals with me and who I have no problem calling a friend. The worst examples are those who are attending university or within 10 years or so of graduation. As a matter of interest, are there ANY conservatives left at Queen's or have they eaten them all? If you'd like a "fer instance" I could cite David Suzuki. There's a man who says that folks like me who disagree with him should be thrown in jail!

Rush Limbaugh is not totally my cup of tea but once in a while he does come out with something I can't help but agree. He once said "A Liberal defines free speech as the freedom to agree." I had just checked out of a political forum where I had been rudely and crudely insulted for not adhering to leftwing orthodoxy when I heard Rush say this on the radio. I immediately thought "How appropo!". Years later after I had a very unpleasant experience as a newbie on "babble.com" it sunk in as to just how right he was.

I've noticed this attribute for years! I think it stems from taking the easy path to win dominance for your own thiniking. By this I mean it's easier to claim to be in the majority and to shut up any opposition with ad hominem attacks. Stewart and his ilk are a good illustration of the difference between being right and being articulate. You can speak well and be very good with quick humour. If you are deft enough no one notices that your arguments are a little thin. I think it also has a streak of righteousness to it. Demonizing those who disagree with you demonstrates your dedication. Of course, the universe doesn't care about your dedication. It works its own way and the most we can do is learn to understand it. Still, righteous dedication can often impress the ignorant and get them to follow you. Perhaps we should have a spin-off to this thread. Are "leftwing" thinkers less practical, or dare I say, less intelligent? Intelligence is perhaps not the best term. Some lefties are geniuses at fooling themselves. I'm searching for a term that means less "one to one" or congruent to reality.

You realize, you can form your opinion with no personal risk. If you are wrong, almost everyone in Israel dies. If someone trumpeted to the whole neighbourhood that he was going to kill me and then I saw him buying a gun, I don't think I could afford to adopt your attitude. If I had friends and family to worry about as well I'm afraid that it is only simple prudence to take the threat very seriously and react accordingly. If I had rockets raining intermittently down on my head I would be even more motivated. I guess its easy to be a pacifist when it's not you or your own family at risk.

Please, I'm a techie. I make my living servicing electronics. I've worked in CSA certified labs that tested construction methods and materials. I did all those things you mentioned that I either could do or could afford years ago, just to try to get my utilities bills lower. Got any other ideas? To be fair, NO government plan can ever be beneficial to everybody. The question for Dion is just what percentage of the population will perceive a gain, loss, or "revenue neutral". I'm sorry, but the more I hear about Dion's NewGST the more I believe that he's just another academic who has never lived in the "real world". I wouldn't be surprised if he needs someone to read his email.

These protests and European objections have been going on since the 70's. Have you been really busy with something else? I thought that I was the one who didn't get out much. One thing's for sure. You're not a Newfoundlander.

Might I also suggest that this troll is from the "far left" of "progressive" thought? The arrogance and incredibly bad manners are a dead giveaway.

It doesn't sound like you answered his question. Let's rephrase it a bit more clearly. I live in a city in Ontario. How do I as an individual use a non-fossil fuel generation source? I can't afford to put a wind turbine on a tower in my city lot. I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to do so, considering the noise effect on my neighbours. I can't afford $40,000 for a solar system, even if I was young enough to see payback in my lifetime. I have Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals running my province and its sources of electricity. So far all he's done is stick a "smart meter" on my house, which I am being charged for as a long term extra payment on my bill. This means that when his staggered electricity rates kick in this winter I have to decide if after starting my washing machine before I go to bed if I should set my alarm to get up in the middle of the night to put the clothes in my dryer or if I should leave them in the machine and dry them the following night. Now, just exactly how do I do what you are suggesting? How would I do it fast enough to avoid being penalized by the NewGST from Dion? Specific solutions would be appreciated.

Usually you make a better effort to give substantiated arguments for your premises. Perhaps smoking is one of your "politically correct" areas. OK, you have a lot of respect for StatsCan. I would agree that they probably have good intentions. This doesn't mean that they are right but only that they are sincere. It also doesn't address misinterpretation. Again, I will concede that YOU like them! However, that is still not sufficient reason for me to accept your claim. The Jehovah Witnesses at my door on Sunday mornings like a lot of things too. If they have "various tools" as you say, perhaps you could name one? Perhaps if you could actually cite me a credible methodology as to how they garnered these smoking stats I would change my opinion. I warn you, when my grandfather died at nearly 90 years of age I saw how the fact that he was a smoker was listed as one of the causes of his death. It seemed to be given equal weight to the fact that he was an alcoholic and most important...OLD! There are a lot of reasons why I don't respect much of what the anti-smoking lobby has to say but even you must admit that this one is more than sufficient reason to be skeptical of claims in this area. Anyhow, this is becoming "thread creep" into another area. Just name me some "tools" that make sense and we can leave it at that.

And the present Tories are nothing like the Reformers! Isn't it ironic that the party which nearly drove the old Tories into oblivion meekly allowed the remaining rump to totally seize control in making the new party into a clone of the Progressive Conservatives? Makes you wonder why Manning ever bothered. I still can't believe that all that Reform/Alliance support has totally disappeared. Or that they support the new Tories as legitimate heirs. I think it far more likely that they only support the new Tories by default, for lack of any other choice. This is actually a modern marketing concept. You don't have to offer a market new choices. It can be more effective if you can limit the existing ones to leave yourself the most competitive choice without having the trouble and expense of improving or altering your product. If someone or some party is successful in tapping into Manning's legacy it might prove very interesting at the polls.

Apparently, in their homeland Sikhs make a practical adjustment, adding a small bit of ornamentation to a regular flight helmet. In Canada such accommodation is neither wanted or necessary for that community. Our governments will simply ignore such examples and cave in. That being said, I personally don't mind small exceptions. A mountie in a turban doesn't bother me. A Sikh motorcycle rider without a helmet does. Or a construction worker or any other situation where the operative factor is safety. I believe that those who refuse safety laws should also not be protected by safety legislation or be able to sue employers if their refusal to comply resulted in injury to themselves.

Quite right! I had forgotten! I tend to be too literal at times. Some of the other posters have injured my sense of humour. Where's Chauchee when you need him?

Not meaning to pick apart your model instead of your point but perhaps you might be able to explain something for me. With newspapers citing that at least 1 in 3 cigarettes smoked are illegal, how on earth are stats gathered about tobacco consumption going down? I had assumed that sales of tobacco would the the easiest and most logical factor to track but how could this be done with contraband? Do all those smugglers and reserve tobacco manufacturers dutifully provide StatsCan with their data? Perhaps they used telephone surveys. Of course, given the guilt felt by many smokers many probably lied and said they no longer smoked, while sneaking out to the garage so that their husband or wife wouldn't catch them. My own observations make me suspect that the percentage still smoking hit a plateau over 10 years ago and hasn't changed much since. These observations are anecdotal, of course. They are based on social contacts and driving past smoking areas and high schools. Still, do flawed stats from those with an agenda trump those cited from anecdotal data? Perhaps you could have used a better example to make your point. It's like saying crime is down by swamping out the violence numbers by including stats on embezzlement cases.

I wonder what would happen to your argument if Mark Steyn is right and the North American population is due to hit a sharp drop...

Every FN tribe is a distinct and different entity. I am well aware that many are very self-reliant and successful. I understood this particular thread to be solely and only about Six Nations protests and what's happening at Caledonia, which appear to be quite different than what you and jbg are describing.

Just thought I'd bump this thread so we can think about what has happened! It's now almost August and we're still waiting for video and evidence that apparently would prove those thugs that beat up the old man in the house were actually only defending themselves from some "geezer ninja" who had provoked them. Also, there supposedly were at least 10 developers who cheerfully had paid the native HDI building department for the right to build on "native" property, or at least property in dispute. Has anybody seen ANY names of such developers? Has anybody seen ANY development happening? Has Caledonia successfully rebuilt the trust between the town and Six Nations that used to exist before the protests? Has Caledonia's economy recovered? Are the people happy and prosperous? There were a number of posts from SN supporters that predicted such things. I just thought we should check once in a while to see if their predictions had come true. All I've seen is the problem escalating into Brantford.

Smokers who smoke by themselves aren't harming others. If a restaurant chose to be non-smoking then how could anyone inside be harmed by someone smoking in a restaurant down the street? As for tobacco being a harmful substance I would agree. So what? As I said, I've got a few Libertarian bones. Let people make their own choices. They are either free citizens or they're not. One can't pretend otherwise. I not only disapprove of but actually fear a nanny state. Yeah, I guess I'm cynical about politics. I think that's better than being idealistic and a pollyanna. like many who blindly follow a party, Tories included. A pessimist is rarely disappointed, I guess. I try not to take it to an extreme. Just enough to keep a clear head and a strong BS filter. I find many politically correct viewpoints tend to fall apart if you think about them scientifically. Usually there is a strong hidden agenda. It has been said that our system is the best of an imperfect bunch. I would strongly agree. There are many examples of governments that are far worse for an individual's freedom and rights. It's just that I find many people are too willing to think that our system has NO flaws! Instead of recognizing and dealing with problems they hide behind platitudes like "Aren't you lucky you're not an American?" I don't maintain that ALL politicians are a sorry lot! I just prefer to examine them closely before I make my opinion, rather than automatically give them the benefit of the doubt according to what party they belong to.