Wild Bill

Are you arguing to bring back capital punishment, at least with politicians?

The idea that Ontarioans deliberately choose to alternate between Liberals and Tories is a nonsequitur. Just because it happened that way for many years doesn't mean it was a deliberate choice. After all, Bill Davis was the most pink of Tories! It would be easy to spin an argument that despite the difference in names there really were two Liberal parties in power at the same time. Despite the fact that the left despised him Mike Harris was the first and perhaps last Conservative to rule Ontario in many decades. Just because a thing looks like a product of something else doesn't mean it is. It can be mere coincidence. Logic is a mental exercise and you can logically prove ANYTHING as long as you restrict the facts just to those that support your argument. Like so: "No cat has eight tails. Every cat has one tail more than no cat. Therefore, all cats have nine tails."

I see. Even though everyone else would differ, it's not you so it has to be us! Didn't I vote for you once?

well, your position seems to be merely a blue sky wish! I'm still waiting to hear how a gun registry will help with illegal guns and the criminals who use them. I frankly am not only unafraid but just don't care about legal gun owners who treat them in a responsible manner! Fine, you support a system that gets all the responsible people to register their guns. Big deal! Now what?

BM, you seem to have a perpetual blind spot. Why can't many conservative voters be yokels that HAVE solid values? It always seems that to you voters, groups or just people are all one way or another. Or maybe more subtly, you expect a writer to either totally praise them or totally lampoon them. Human beings usually make odd mixes, you know.

What kind of ad hominem diversion is that? Are you fishing to find out if my middle name is 'Bubba', in which case you can dismiss my entire argument because I must be a 'gun nut'? FYI, I do not nor have I ever owned a firearm of any kind. Now, how about addressing my points? So far you've given us diddleysquat! I suspect its because you have nothing logical to give.

I wonder if the firearms involved were registered? Surely a gun registry would have prevented that poor little one's death.

"Smallpox blanket squares"? And they actually WORKED? I'm not sure even ANTHRAX is that effective! Do you have any medical or technical education at all or do you just pull things out of your butt?

Man, what planet have you been living on? Ork? This is OLD stuff! There was never a problem registering weapons. It's just that the gun registry did far more than that! Hunters had acquired FACs for generations, namely Firearms Certificates. They had to pass a safety course to get one. The Liberal gun registry also included firearms used by farmers to control wolves, bears, coyotes and the like. Farmers usually only grumbled over more paperwork but the new stiff fees rather pissed them off! Especially since they could see no benefit for themselves for the fees, only political points for Liberals in Quebec cities after Marc LePine. The Liberal gun registry also put a very low limit on the number of firearms one could own. It also charged the same fees for each gun. This wiped out gun collections! There was no compensation for the worth of antique firearms, either. Why would there be? The Liberal interest was never to be fair. It was simply a vote grab after that horrific school shooting. Meanwhile, the costs of the Liberal registry just grew and grew and grew, into BILLIONS of dollars! Worse yet, the actual data entry of the registry was months if not years behind! It was also quite screwed up and full of errors! Of course, it was very unlikely that any actual crook or nutbar ever registered his gun. That meant that although it was routine for any cop about to enter a place to check the gun registry to see if it said there was a weapon there the check was actually useless. It would only confirm if an honest owner had registered a weapon at that address. Since a crook or nutbar might have an unregistered weapon a cop had to treat the address as possibly having a weapon anyway. A stranger can walk into virtually any bar in southern Ontario and if he handles himself correctly can buy a pistol within a few hours. Who told me this? My own brother-in-law, a cop on the SWAT team! I consider him a credible source. So your question is one that has been asked of firearm owners many times before, to the point where they find it naive and aggravating! As for myself, I would have had at least a small amount of respect for the Liberal gun registry if it had of added even ONE DAY extra to the sentence for using an illegal firearm in the commission of a crime. It didn't! Don't believe me? Read the damn thing! Worse yet, initially the penalty for failing to register a firearm was much more onerous than what criminals typically receive for using such a gun to hold up a variety store! To me, that made it obvious as to the REAL purpose behind the Liberal gun registry! Legal gun owners are rarely a problem. When someone comes up with a registry structured to actually protect us from people who use guns in an unlawful manner then and ONLY then will I support it! Otherwise, I say to any politicians involved to shut up and stop bullshitting me that you are actually doing it to protect me and my family. Actions speak far louder than words.

If McGuinty told me the time, I would want a second opinion. Also, after he told me I would check my wallet. We've hashed this gun registry thing for several years now and it all boils down to - some folks feel more comfortable with it but can't give a good reason why. Others can't for the life of them see any way it has a positive benefit, because they see the world in terms of cause and effect - a lever is either of the right length or the wrong one - and so on, and so on, and so on. Those who support it will always support it, because they don't usually have auditor type personalities. To them, it's enough to have one. They take it for granted that it will be run in a sensible fashion. It really depends on whether you are a cause and effect person or a faith person. To one side, something is NOT better than nothing if it costs a lot and doesn't work. To the other, anything is better than nothing because if necessary it can be amended or improved.

Those mechanics are actually quite right! It's obvious that YOU do not know how such devices work! So you have formed an opinion on faith alone. Most of those devices were installed for political reasons, not technical ones. They give the APPEARANCE of doing something, earning brownie points from ordinary but ignorant citizens. As long as they THINK something is being done then they're happy! A techician, mechanic or engineer thinks quite differently. He understands that the NEED for something to be done and the METHODS to get them done are often at odds with each other. Those new CFL bulbs are a prime example. People were urged to buy them to achieve cost savings, among other reasons. In actual fact, any technician who understands the Laws of Electricity knows that the cost savings to the customer are in the range of "mice nuts". Lighting is the trivial part of anyone's electricity bill unless you're running a theatre or something. One clothes dryer uses about 1200 times the electricity consumed by one hundred watt old fashioned light bulb, in a typical month. It's motors like in refrigerators and washing machines, or electric stoves or dryers, that consume most of your bill. They didn't lie, however. It's the electricity company that gets the savings! On a province wide basis they add up to enough that the company doesn't have to build a few new generators. Meanwhile, they are trusting the PEOPLE to recycle those CFLs to keep mercury out of our environment. The old bulbs had virtually no pollution problems at all in comparison. Likely half of the anti-pollution devices in your car hurt the gas mileage. So you emit less pollutants per litre of gas but you burn more for driving the same distance! AS long as that is never mentioned the average driver will never know and it won't bother him. If you're so worried about pollution from your car go buy an electric or a european diesel. THAT's effective in the real world!

He damn well should be! There is a movement among government types to abuse the law to get what they want. I've seen it several times with my own municipality. They know that they are legally in the wrong but they also know that if it mainly affects "the little guy" then he can't afford to fight them! They have access to everyone's tax dollars. He has only his own. I'm affected by this tactic right now. I just bought a modest house in the "poorer" part of town. It had been a grow op but the operation had been busted early on and the landlord forced to do all the government approved remedial action stuff, for which I have all the signed reports. I thought I had done ok till one morning I was just finishing my bath when there was a loud, officious banging at my front door. It sounded important so I threw on some pants on my wet legs, hung a towel around my shoulders and went to the door. "You better not be a Jehovah Witness!" I said to a young fellow with a City of Hamilton pickup truck behind him. He growls at me "Are you the new renter?" "No." I replied. He looked puzzled and then said "What are you doing here then?" "I own the place." I replied. " Again he looked puzzled. "How did that happen?" "I BOUGHT IT!" I said. "Isn't that the usual way?" Turns out he was from the "grow op inspection department". Apparently, he was keeping an eye on the building since the bust. He was supposed to have inspected the premises after the cleanup work had been done. "What does that have to do with me?" I asked. "I have other levels of government reports of the cleanup. I paid myself for a home inspection. I inspected it myself. What do you bring to the party?" Then it comes out. Apparently, he wasn't supposed to let the previous owner skip out. There was supposed to have been a fee paid of $578. Since he had missed the previous owner then I WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY IT! "I don't think so!" was my response. The previous owner was the criminal. I did nothing wrong! Is it supposed to be standard practice with a lawyer's title search to check with the City and see if they are behind in their inspections? I'm glad the previous owner hadn't stolen a Mazzeroti, or murdered someone. Would you be holding the new owner responsible for that as well?" He demanded that I email the inspection reports I had and I agreed to reply to the address on his card. When I sent the file I informed him that although I understood that the City might indeed have the power to bully me into paying this fee I wasn't going to just hand it over. I would be consulting my lawyer. I also sent copies to my local councilor. Of course, I never did get a reply. This IS Hamilton, after all! My lawyer was flabbergasted and advised me to bring him any invoice or paperwork as soon as I received it. It's been only a short time and I haven't seen anything yet. However, my lawyer also admitted that it could indeed wind up costing me MORE than $578 to fight the fee! So I very well might have to pay it. I can't afford to be a fiscal martyr to preserve the integrity of the judicial system! So if a government lawyer tells you he wants your property, even if you don't want to sell or you don't like his price, be very afraid! Judicial matters are usually a contest of who can afford the best lawyers and the individual citizen can rarely compete.

Your last point seems to be the key one, Tim. At least as far as native spokesmen on this board have articulated, they DO want to just become landlords! They complain about a lack of education as if there are armed guards blocking them out of schools! They don't have an education because they CHOOSE not to go to school! They never talk about developing land themselves. Never erecting their own skyscrapers. Never constructing their own municipal water and sewer systems. Rather, they simply feel the white man OWES them the money for these things and they can sit back and get someone ELSE to design and build them! In other words, they are no longer makers but rather takers. As P T Barnum once said: "Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds!" I just can't respect that kind of attitude. I don't respect the previous owner of my house, because he was too lazy to read a book about how to do his own wiring and plumbing so he did it like an idiot! I've lost respect for Canada, for wanting to have a military force for free. I've lost respect for the Americans, since Obama took them out of the space industry while claiming that American will always be in the lead. How he figures that will work is beyond me. The only way America could stay in the lead with that approach is if every other country dropped out! So you can imagine how much respect I give to a people that want sovereignty for free! They could try armed warfare to politically be given sovereignty but if they expect to develop it for themselves by hiring off-reserve contractors like the Saudis do they will be very disappointed with the results. Lots of folks can drive a car. Far fewer can build a car. VERY few can invent a car! You cannot have a vibrant, growing society with only the first two.

Good question! What's more, where did all these blankets come from? We haven't heard about white men dying in droves on North American shores. So they must have had boatloads of blankets shipped over from Europe. Since apparently it was common knowledge that blankets from small pox victims carried the disease (after all, there were printing presses and literacy rates were SO high! If one or two Dutch doctors knew about it then the whole Old World must have as well!) then boatloads must have been available. Also, they must have known how to isolate the blankets so that none of the ships' crews got sick. They must also have been able to cross the ocean far faster than historical records tell us. They must have hired Captain Nemo or perhaps the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. For need of any other solution to this problem of effectively infecting so many North American Indians with smallpox we need only to turn to the Illuminati, who of course are all reputed to be "white bread". These type of arguments are living proof of why lawyers make such poor engineers or techs. When a machine won't work they think the solution lies in constructing a good argument as to why it should. They feel no need to actually open up the machine and would have no clue what to do even if they did!

Perhaps, but the right to property is the most basic of all. If you don't have that, any lawyer can easily argue you out of any others. You are left with a toothless Charter that SOUNDS good to an ignorant, trusting voter but will present no effective barrier to any government action, so that a government can always easily do whatever the hell it wants.

Not the majority. Just more Canadians than the number that agreed with YOU!

Actually, I have some sympathy for that kind of "Pax Americana" approach. I've often felt that Canada has squandered its birthrite with so many leftwing ideas that annexation by Uncle Sam might be a positive solution. I'm not sure if Uncle Sam would want the bills for all the welfare cases but he could also benefit from access to northern resources, including fresh water. The only fly in the ointment is Obama. If he is indicative of the direction American is heading then what would be the point of merging the countries? Canada would be taking only a few reverse steps but keeping the same heading she's on anyways!

Uh...what the hell are you talking about? I crossed the border a few times in my life for business training. Once in a while to take the wife cross-border shopping. That's about it. Never had any problem with guards from either country. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. Meanwhile, you've made yourself quite clear as to how Uncle Same should respect others. Dale Carnegie must be spinning in his grave.

I can understand why you hold a negative opinion about Lord Black. We are all entitled to our opinion, after all. The same with Marc Emery, for that matter. What I don't understand is that you apparently have no problem with applying American law on Canadian soil. Do you really not give a hoot for another country's sovreignty? If some other country did it to Uncle Sam, would that bother you? Is it simply a case of the "big kid" getting away with whatever he wants?

No one is expecting him to legalize anything! It's the fact that he's introducing legislation that will more aggressively target petty users that has so many of us upset! The sensible thing for a man in his position to do would be nothing! I still can't understand why he's even bothering. There's no upside for him that I can see and certainly a lot of downside. The only explanation that would make sense is that someone high up in the cabinet is driving it from some sort of personal agenda. That would be against the very root of the Reform spirit, where members were not supposed to push their own agenda or even the caucus' agenda but rather the views of their constituents. Where are the constituents demanding that we stiffen marijuana laws and increase prison terms for trivial offences? I would hate to see Harper's plan get derailed by a "Reefer Madness" diversion. The opposition would jump for joy and the Tories would only be weakened. For no good reason at all, at least that I can see.

Well MB, I've had some personal experience over the years with governments and computers. Frankly, they always struck me as the most primitive users on the planet, with the possible exception of the teaching profession. I've got stories personally witnessed on both provincial and federal scales that would curl your hair! Try googling "Hyperion" computer for a good laugh! After you've read the Wiki info I'll give you the inside scoop, that they don't want you to know. I was there! The only "close cooperation" the US could offer would be to SCRAP our systems and build new ones for us. Ever wonder why you can't communicate with tax departments by email? They'll tell you it's a security thing. That's actually partially true! They're so primitive that if they accepted email they'd be wide open for the most casual of hackers.

What a wonderful idea! I think we should do it no matter what happens! Remember Manny, the hero of Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? He was a technician schooled in what works and what doesn't work. He was continually getting frustrated by what he called "yammerheads", namely non-technical people who would not just suggest but demand the group spend resources doing silly ideas that were impractical, impossible, not cost-effective or all three! Especially when they would assume that MANNY would do the work and look after all the details for them! Why don't we colonize Mars? Those of us who are not necessarily always right but at least practical can leave. The yammerheads will likely stay home. They don't like pioneer situations because there's too much chance of embarrassing reality checks that would prove them wrong. Each group would then be free to run things at their home in their own way. If the yammerheads think that transferring wealth from the producing nations to the non-producing ones makes sense, let them do it and we'll see what happens. If all those "science and engineering types that make all the pollution" are ruining the earth, let them leave! Surely earth doesn't need them! Let them colonize Mars and there too we will see what works and what doesn't. The HitchHikers' Guide to the Galaxy had it right with the "B" Ark...

Well, I can guarantee they ain't Q107 or any other large city outlet! If they're in Northern Ontario then I doubt if they buy playlists or have DJs pull their own songs at all! I remember being up in Port Loring staying at a rented cottage. There was only one FM station that we could get on our table top portable radio that played rock. The other one played country, which wasn't our cup of tea. Any how, I swear that station had only 1 hour of music on an "endless loop". Being younger we stayed up and played cards and whatnot most of the night. At first when we kept hearing the same song "I wanna be a cowboy -do doot da doot- and you can be my cowgirl! -do doot da doot" at the same time each hour it was something to laugh at. After 6-8 hours we began to talk seriously about farmers' nitrate fertilizer, diesel fuel and a visit to the station's transmitting antenna! We could understand that we weren't in the big city but still, that local radio station didn't need more money to do far better than that! Somehow, I don't think a few stations from areas like Cow Patty in northern Manitoba will negate my argument. Certainly, they won't support yours. When half your listeners are livestock, who the hell cares?

You've got blinders on! You can't see what's involved from where you stand. First off, that 5% gets negotiated down all the time. When bargaining reaches the final level it's quite common for the agents involved to cut their commission rate a bit to get the deal to close. The seller gets the same, the buyer doesn't pay as much - only the agents get less. Also, your agent is trying to sell your house in competition with all the others that are MLS listed. Why should any buyer think YOUR house is special? It's your agent's job to make them think so. Meanwhile, while he's trying to sell your house to a prospective client, he may be showing them 15 other houses. That means 14 houses have been a waste of his time. He or she gets paid nothing for those! Agents are bound by rules and laws to disclose things to you if you want to buy a particular house. Perhaps it was a grow op! Perhaps the wiring is old and substandard. Maybe someone is going to build a tannery next door. I'm not an expert on just what must be disclosed but one thing I do know, a private seller doesn't have to tell you ANYTHING! For that reason alone I would NEVER buy without an agent! You might be selling your house and want to save an agent's commission but what the hell do I get out of it as a buyer? I would have no protection at all and nothing but your word as to any problems I might end up taking on. All you''re seeing is your house, one agent and one eventual buyer. There's a lot more involved and someone has to be paid for that or no one will do it!