Wild Bill

That's it! Enough of feeding the troll. Time for the "ignore" button.

You may call it an overreaction but to me it just seemed fair comment on how far you will stretch a premise. I guess to some Occam's Razor doesn't apply to Tories. You lose credibility when you stretch too far, like someone who sees a $40,000 used car and puts in an initial offer of $500. It's so low the salesman sees no point in further negotiations. With your accusations of the Cadman "affair" you can come across as merely a blind partisan. Usually, you do much better, I will admit.

Well, I'm now pretty sure that you've never read the thing and you just talk through your hat. Kinda smarmy to tell me that I should do the googling to prove YOUR point!

You're not going to answer me, are you? I read the damn thing and I don't see what you claim is there. I ask you to cite or quote the relevant wording and you just accuse me of "stretch and twist". Until you give me good reason to do otherwise, I'm NOT going to believe your original premise about the Accord! So far you've given me no reason to even believe you've read the damn thing. It's postings like yours that prompted me to go look up the Accord in the first place. If I'm wrong, please show me.

A real firm target? Something realistic for every country that pollutes? Again, I must have missed that. Could you enlighten me? I'm sure you read and understood the Accord better than I did. You must be able to cite for me the passage that I missed.

I read the Kyoto Accord. It was a hard slog in spots and I freely admit I'm not a lawyer and found some of the language convoluted. Still, I didn't see ANY guarantee of real results! Just emission credit money transferring wealth and the major polluting nations being exempt from any action. Perhaps you could be good enough to tell me precisely what words I missed? You seem quite definite that the Accord has such guarantees and I would appreciate the education.

Oh, she probably is on the take too! Her children and grand children as well! Just as Cadman was! Likely, the majority of their town is crooked! After all, they elected Cadman and not a Liberal! Come to think of it, there were reports of some shifty-looking pets around that town. Just how far are you intending to spin this? We seem to be moving into "reptilian kitten eater" territory.

Yes, it is indeed a rightful step! As a Canadian I would rather see our oil sands energy sold to Uncle Sam than Red China. It makes much more sense for North Americans to stick together. What has Saudi Arabia ever done for us? Not meaning to derail your thread but your premise presupposes a deeper question. Perhaps we should start a separate thread debating WHY NOW? After all, we've had spikes in gas prices many times before and we've never gotten off our collective asses to move towards independence from foreign oil. FINALLY, we seem to be doing something! Maybe clumsily and inefficiently but hey, that's how all government works. Me, I can't help but think that someone in the White House has finally realized that giving hundreds of billions of dollars annually to an area of the world with an excess of wingnuts and fanatics might not be the best policy. How would Iran finance its own Bomb without oil money? How would Saddam have threatened Israel and his neighbours? It takes money to command the resources to close the Straits of Hormuz. What if the West didn't need their oil? One of those countries could close the Straits and no one would care. Sure would pull the legs out from under that nutbar running Iran. Some critics seem to be obsessed with the failure so far to develop an oil alternative that is cheap enough for the common man. Perhaps that's not the goal. We may already be at the point where we can survive the loss of foreign oil in an emergency situation, if not very close. Israel seems to be slowly being pushed into a first-strike against Iran's nuclear development facilities. We could argue the fine points but it doesn't matter. With the Bomb you can't count on being able to retaliate afterwards and besides, you've already got a LOT of dead innocents! After all, when someone keeps saying he's going to wipe you out you're a fool if you dismiss his words as just rhetoric. Whatever, if it happens we'll take a big hit in the volume of foreign oil available to us. Mr. Pickens' plan seems like simple prudence.

Why should she? What's in it for her? She's got her own life. She's simply being a witness. Has anyone libeled her? Harper's problems and Dion's problems are their own. She's merely stating what she saw happen. Perhaps the author should sue for defamation of character. Or his wife for loss of income. Or maybe his nephews for possible loss of inheritance money...

These kinds of arguments are really just games of musical chairs. Blaming people for using emergency departments is just dodging the blame for having insufficient resources and other problems in the system. Most people go to the emergency department because they need treatment or at least a triage decision that they themselves don't feel qualified to make. Not surprising, when we are constantly told that we should only trust in a qualified opinion and not decide for ourselves. Your GP is usually too busy or likely it's after hours anyway! Few people plug up emergency wards for their hypochondria 'cuz just going to "emerg" is always a big pain in the ass! I have never been able to get through an emergency room visit in my town for me or my family in under 8 hours. I dread the very idea of going. Yet I still go, only because I have no choice! What's more, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in the Hamilton/Niagara area use emergency departments for a very simple reason. They can't get a family GP! There simply aren't enough available. You use the emergency department or you just sit at home and use Dr. Phil on tv. Those are your only options. Argus' plan at least has the potential to address these problems. That's more than what's being done by the McGuinty government. More and more, Dalton's party is looking like a Toronto-ONLY party! Just ask the folks of Caledonia.

If you think about it, no such government plan can be revenue neutral at the individual level. People have wildly different circumstances and situations. Dion may trumpet the term "revenue neutral" while implying that no one should fear being financially hurt but this is obviously mere politics. How can you come up with a plan detailed enough to cover everyone? The answer is that you can't. Politics is the art of the greatest good for the greatest number, while garnering the greatest number of votes! From Dion's perspective, if he believes that more people will benefit from his plan than will be hurt then his conscience is clear. From a citizen's perspective, it all depends on which category you fall into. Canada's leaders from the North have already spoken out against Dion's plan as hurtful to them while they try to keep warm during their long winter. The Oil Patch expects to be hurt as well. Then again, those aren't exactly Liberal strongholds anyway so I guess it doesn't matter. Watch for the new GST (Green Shift Tax) to play well in Toronto, Quebec and Ottawa and almost nowhere else. Come to think of it, that might be enough!

Wrong! Dead Wrong! Do you enjoy putting words in the mouths of straw men? This technique is why many of us don't respect leftwing debaters. Steyn wrote that the RESULT of Moslem birth rates and the philosophies of SOME of the more fundamentalist Moslems will inevitably result in most of the world being run or directed by Moslems. His premise was as dispassionate as the idea that if you plant mostly wheat seeds your crop will be mostly wheat! When you don't read the book but make statements about what's in it you lose credibility. The next time you make a statement I'm gonna ask for a few grains of salt...

Quite right! Why on earth should a Canadian embassy apologize to a EUROPEAN FRENCHMAN for promoting a distinctly canadien francais dish? What's it got to do with France anyway? Or do the French claim a monopoly on anything cultural to any people in the world that also speak French? Only the French...<shrug>

Actually, if I were younger your idea would have more appeal. I'm not sure if right now I would live long enough to make a profit on $30k to go off grid. However, if I were 30 again it might make more sense. In 20 or 30 years to reach payback who knows if I'll be still alive? Even so, I need my van and have no other alternatives. Public transit would be totally inappropriate for me. For heat and electricity the grid is my alternative at "convenient easy monthly payments", despite the atrocious rate. I'm not aware of any cheap financing for a solar voltaic system for my house.

No, I'm just someone who understands that within the House MPs have privilege, which means they can say anything and not be sued. Outside the House they are ordinary citizens without being "special", the same as you and me. I really don't want to see MPs able to utter slander and libel with impunity, just 'cuz they're MPs. I don't care if it's a double or a quadruple standard! What's more, I wouldn't forgive a Tory or an NDP MP who broke the law and wound up being sued. ANY MP who commits libel or slander outside the House should be sued! Frankly, your arguments strike me as being purely partisan. You don't like Harper and the Tories, period. I really don't think a lot of MOST politicians! Still, some smell less than others but to hear you tell it your favourites are "a rose by any other name".

Must be some retainer! I've never heard of a company lawyer that would work for a flat salary. He could make so much more money charging for billable hours instead. Now, a retainer might keep him "on call", as it were. I would expect that such a retainer would be relatively modest with the understanding that it only covered a maximum number of hours. Anything over that would be charged at the lawyer's normal hourly rate. I could be wrong. Perhaps someone with true experience, like FTA, would chime in. It just seems to be that with your example we would have either a company paying an exorbitant salary for an on-staff lawyer(s) or even more odd, lawyers that would work for free! Even if Macleans has a staff legal department I'm sure that they only have a core staff for day-to-day affairs and hire out when something requires more resources. The alternative would be to have a lot of extra lawyers sitting around getting paid for doing nothing, just in case something big came up. But hey, I'm just guessing! Maybe big business has so much money they pay lawyers big bucks just for their corporate image. Like I said, perhaps someone with more experience can tell us the way it really is.

Well, you have your view. All I can say is thank heavens we have courts and judges! As for the "babble" reference, forgive me. I made an error based on your debating style.

You've put your finger on the heart of the argument. It's important to remember that not all bands/natives are the same but there ARE some natives and some bands that live a lifestyle that is not self-sustaining. They survive on government money and believe that due to history they are entitled to it. The amazing thing is that if the white man ever pulled out and left them they would likely starve. This is also what causes the lack of respect and resentment of taxes from the non-native community. Sadly, they are often making the mistake of thinking that every native and every band is like this. It's a generalization and like all generalizations it's not true, including this one! We did it to them by setting up a reserve system of welfare in the first place. Then we allowed social engineers full of socialist claptrap to use native communities as their personal political laboratory. Is it any surprise that we see so many things that cannot survive without "free" money pumped in? Imagine a couple of centuries of a system run by David Miller, the mayor of Toronto. I don't have a magic solution but when you're in a hole the first step is to stop digging. Paying huge settlements would be proven by future history to be a waste. What happens when the money is eventually gone? Yes, some bands will be sensible with it but they are not the problem. We'll still have to deal with those that are left. It all starts with individual choices. We don't really have much choice about the cards that life deals us but we have total choice with how we play them. In too many cases the Indian Act and its bureaucracy is just one big "enabler".

I see. Harper is in the wrong because the Liberals libeled and broke the law. The Liberals must be allowed to libel and break the law outside the House with impunity, because they are Liberals and the Tories are not. That seems to be your entire argument. Perhaps you could point out where I misunderstood your words. Are you one of the top posters from "babble.ca", by any chance?

Exactly! Tell it to the French!

Quite right, it's impossible to predict what comes out of the blue with certainty. However, the more we are educated the better we can be at the difference between a thoughtful prediction and a wild-assed guess! My point is that many of those asking to manipulate our tax spending, environmental laws and whatnot have little or no education in the technical details of what they are seeking to control. Saying we may have a pleasant surprise out of left field is one thing as an observation but quite another as a basis for government policy! I submit that most environmentalists and politicians are just too ignorant of how science and technology works to take it for granted that under pressure it will produce ANY desired product or result! A poli-sci major is unlikely to understand Newton's Third Law but he can be a genius at plying political pressure. And again, it's one thing to come up with a new way to reduce the energy bill for a home but it's still likely to be far more cost-effective for a new build than a retrofit. Counting on artificially raising energy prices with taxes in order to FORCE a new technological breakthrough is more like taking your month's wages and buying lottery tickets than a sensible strategy to "save the planet"!

If you prefer listening to social engineers that of course is your right. However, if we ever happen to be out on a hike together and we come across a bridge that was designed and inspected by SOCIAL engineers, would you mind going first?

"Some people say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one!"

"Technological innovation"? Just what does that mean? I'm a "techie" type of guy and find your use of that term to be kinda vague. If you're talking about accelerating the numbers of hybrids and high efficiency diesel cars on the road, I would agree. The trouble is, that's not where we see all the pain. What about heating our homes? Brand new homes are being made very energy efficient. We may see solar techniques applied or other "new fangled" technologies. However, the majority of us live in older homes. What can we do? After you've stuffed or foamed in as much insulation as you can and replaced all the windows that's about it for retrofits. How many of us can afford to dump the old house and just buy a new one? What about the old widow on a fixed income? The problem of retrofitting is what slows down the collective ability to cope with rising energy costs. Right now if you google up some suppliers of wind and solar equipment to get your house "off grid" you'll find you're talking around $30,000. That's a lot of money to pony up! Even at today's energy prices it might take decades to reach break-even. We in the city may not even have wind as an option! Those vanes do make a lot of noise. Imagine if everyone in the city had one. That leaves only solar cells. I've been reading articles since the late 60's about new manufacturing techniques that were going to give us cheap solar cells in just a couple of years. It's been nearly 50 and I haven't seen them yet! Again, as a techie I've often noticed how many people think that science and technology is like some kind of magic. It can do anything you want if you just throw enough money at the research. Sometimes it works but more often the very idea proves wonky! Mother Universe has laws about the way she works and she doesn't always care about your wishes and how much money you spend. Something either works or it doesn't. It may be that solar cells can NEVER become cheap! There may be some other solutions that we haven't yet conceived but they aren't likely for a long time. We have a pretty good grasp right now on what science and technology can offer, at least for the next few decades. I have this strong suspicion that some social engineers with little or no technical background are manipulating things, with a blind belief that the pain will force attention towards alternatives that while they themselves have no comprehension about, they are sure that the tech boys will be able to deliver. If this were to prove true they may well find that the resentment over the pain they've cost the general populace may put them at risk of lynch mobs!

Well said! What's more, he's not nearly as snide, patronizing and "ad hominem" insulting as some in this thread! You either respect your neighbour's right to free speech or you don't. If you don't then you can't call yourself any kind of a democrat. You're just another egocentric elitist. Bad manners are something else again. They are the true indicator of someone being "civilized".