The Liberal Love-in

[Argus]

Come on, Kimmy! It is unworthy of you to suggest that I said any of that. I have said that opposition to the program contributed to the delays and the cost over-runs.

An argument you have backed up with no citations, no evidence, and no real logic, just supposition on your part combined with an evident distaste and disapproval of gun owners.

[Argus]

Give and take is something I extend to anyone, Kimmy, until they violate respect!

I can't fail to notice she is "giving" information and facts and you are "giving" mouthy opinion with nothing to back it up.

You are, it seems, finally coming to the point. Substantial sums were wasted by the delays and much of the delays was through political motivation. This is what no one is talking about in the rush to score points off the federal government.

Substantial sums? How much? by political delays? Which ones? How? Demonstrate which political actions caused how much money to be wasted.

Can't do it? Don't waste my time.

[Guest eureka]

Don't wast any time trying to be clever, Argus. Your bile alsways gets the better of you.

No citations are needed for what I proposed: none at all. The application of a little common sense, and intelligence to go with it, if you find some, is all that is needed to come to the same conclusions.

I proved my point and, since I never claimed any accounting for particular the figures, there is nothing further needed.

[caesar]

An argument you have backed up with no citations, no evidence, and no real logic, just supposition on your part combined with an evident distaste and disapproval of gun owners.

No LOGIC?????????? come on now

Gun registration does not prevent anyone with a legitimate reason from owning a gun .

[Argus]

Don't wast any time trying to be clever, Argus.

That does seem a pointless exercise with you.

No citations are needed for what I proposed: none at all. The application of a little common sense, and intelligence to go with it, if you find some, is all that is needed to come to the same conclusions.

Hmmm, something less than a convincing argument here. You claim no evidence is needed because ---- because it's your opinion, and quite obvious to you, so why on earth doesn 't everyone else come to the same conclusion?

Unfortunately, you have no facts or figures to back up your opinion. As for the application of a little common sense and a little intelligence. I suggest you try a little MORE common sense next time, and a lot more intelligence.

I proved my point

Well, to you, perhaps. From where I stand you lost this debate quite handily.

[Argus]

An argument you have backed up with no citations, no evidence, and no real logic, just supposition on your part combined with an evident distaste and disapproval of gun owners.

No LOGIC?????????? come on now

Gun registration does not prevent anyone with a legitimate reason from owning a gun .

While that might be so, that wasn't what was being discussed.

Better luck next time.

[Guest eureka]

Ahhgus!

I am not going to bother arguing with you. You really are not worth it. Your fanatical hatred of any opposing political views makes you incapable of debate.

If you cannot understand how forced delays add to cost, then you can understand nothing.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

You are quite right that 'forced delays' add costs to projects. I am not sure why people are arguing so vehemently against this. However, I believe that an estimated 2 million dollar project with a 50% cost over-run would have been a 1 million dollar loss. Where is the other $997,000,000?

[Guest eureka]

Because, TFB, it was never a $2 million project as Kimmy herself has given evidence for.

And who knows what the part of the cost overrun due to the delays and political opposition was. It may well have been in the hundreds of millions. Perhaps someday, when the political grandstanding dies down, some estimates of that will surface.

[Argus]

Ahhgus!

I am not going to bother arguing with you.

Surrender duly noted.

You really are not worth it. Your fanatical hatred of any opposing political views makes you incapable of debate.

What you mean is your inability to debate makes you incapable of winning an argument.

If you cannot understand how forced delays add to cost, then you can understand nothing.

If you cannot articulate any logical reason or supporting basis for your strongly held beliefs you are wasting everyone's time by posting here.

[Argus]

Dear eureka,

You are quite right that 'forced delays' add costs to projects. I am not sure why people are arguing so vehemently against this.

I don't believe anyone HAS argued against this. People have suggested other reasons for the cost overruns, and asked him to expand upon his belief, especially what kind of delays, how long they were, and why he believes they added substantial cost in the face of evidence, including government statements, detailing the numerous internal reasons for the cost overruns. He has been incapable of even attempting to do this.

[Guest eureka]

I always knew you for an ideologue incapable of reason because of that. I never took you for a fool so why insist on trying to prove it to me?

[Montgomery Burns]

What are you complaining about, Argus? Thanks to the Liberals' budget, Canadians are getting "tax relief" of $16 next year. That will surely give the economy a boost.

[Argus]

I always knew you for an ideologue incapable of reason because of that.I never took you for a fool so why insist on trying to prove it to me?

You are sulking and insisting on personalizing what is basically a discussion about facts.

I am attached to no particular ideology. I lean conservative on many issues, but have numerous liberal beliefs. I have a fondness for some elements of libertarian philosophy, but also, believe it or not, for some of the deepest socialist philsophies. It disappoints me that they have turned out to be unworkable, but if anyone could demonstrate otherwise I could easily support them. I have nothing philosophically against big government, for example, aside from the fact that it seems to do everything so grossly inefficiently - and expensively.

You, like many on the Left, have a tendency to base strongly held beliefs on nothing but emotion, and then defend them using emotional arguments. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it among grownups. If you cannot articulate in clear and concise terms why you believe a thing to be true then you shouldn't get upset when your arguments are trashed.

People have presented to you clear evidence from the government's own reports that the bulk of the overspending was caused by internal inefficiencies in the computer system and the design of the reports and questionaires. You have completely ignored this in your determination at blaming it all on those evil gun owner types and the evil politicians who support them, supporting this obviously strongly held conviction with =nothing=.

Pardon me for being unconvinced.

[Argus]

What are you complaining about, Argus?  Thanks to the Liberals' budget, Canadians are getting "tax relief" of $16 next year.  That will surely give the economy a boost. 

There was an interesting article by former Tory finance minister John Crosbie in today's Sun. He pointed out what a tissue of lies the last federal budget was, and that, among other things:

Since 2000, program spending has climbed by 44%, the largest five year spending increase since Trudeau. And by 2010 the budget will have risen to $194.5 billion from its current $158 billion.

If, after the year 2000, the Liberals had limited their yearly budget increases to the rate of inflation and increase in population their current budget would be $30 billion less than it is. Imagine what kind of a tax cut you could give out with that.

[Guest eureka]

You are very prone to ascribing views and philosophical "leanings" to others - even without evidence for that. You are also very prone to ignoring everything others do say and putting your own interpretations on it.

You are not very good at anything else, apparently, particularly at staying with what others do say and what they are arguing.

The Gun Registry, from Kimmy's presentation, (Kimmy is at least honest in her argument) was to have cost $119 million and $117 million of that was to be recovered through fees. Fees were waived to encourage the laggards.

The costs were increased by the delays and the need to maintain systems and staff long beyond their due date. Who knows how much cost was involved in that. It was substantial, quite obviously. I could find other reasons amongst the figures but I won't bother since my purpose was not to defend the incompetency.

My purpose was to silence the gleefully destructive critics, like you, who are not interested in more than scoring cheap political points. It was also to bring to the attention of some who will not see, what damage a self important demagogue like Klein can do and does in his every action.But that is you in every angry post, isn't it.

As for me and my beliefs, I do not support any party. I hold only to principles of justice and the Common Good. I have not been a member of any political party since I was about Kimmy' age and was President of a Young Conservative Association.

My local NDP candidates would find you amusing since I have been highly critical of that party and certain of its policies.

[Argus]

You are very prone to ascribing views and philosophical "leanings" to others - even without evidence for that. You are also very prone to ignoring everything others do say and putting your own interpretations on it.

For suggesting you are on the Left? Perhaps you'd care to examine your rant about my being an ideologue?

You are not very good at anything else, apparently, particularly at staying with what others do say and what they are arguing.

You might consider whether my "failure" is related to your inability to communicate effectively or to articulate just what it is you're talking about.

The Gun Registry, from Kimmy's presentation, (Kimmy is at least honest in her argument)

An implication that I am not being honest in "my argument". My argument in this thread thus far consists largely of pointing out that you have done nothing to support YOUR argument. That would be easy to dismiss if you had any evidence to show I'm wrong. Apparently you don't.

The costs were increased by the delays and the need to maintain systems and staff long beyond their due date.

There were certainly delays, but the cause of those delays is in question. Your supposition that they were largely due to the opposition to this program lacks any supporting evidence or logical foundation.

Now HERE you can see something of the incompetence involved, where the AG complains about the lack of record keeping, the incompetence, the inability of her team to even find out where the money was being spent. You'll also find a quote from the government itsel blaming the cost overruns on many different problems.

"The justice department has cited delays in making regulations, provinces opting out of the program, delays in getting applications, excessive focus on regulation and enforcement of controls for the cost overruns."

In addition, the gun registry has, to date:

Issued five million registration certigicates without a name.

Issued 3.4 million certificates with blank entries - 750,000 without a firearms serial number.

There are so many problems with this registry, starting with the suggestion it will do anything to eliminate the misuse of firearms. The hand gun registry, in effect for decades, has done nothing to hinder the misuse of hand guns. The use of restricted weapons in murder rose from 27% in 1974 to 58% in 2000. Of those weapons recovered, 74% were unregistered (smuggled).

The registry has issued duplicate licences, licences with improper addresses, the wrong photos, the wrong names and the wrong weapons. Its design makes it virtually incapable of being updated as people move and/or sell guns. The questionairres are too complex, and they don't take many things into consideration - like the fact many weapons used to have the same serial number.

The cost is estimated now, by Radio Canada and the CBC, to be around $2 billion. The government, for obvious reasons, continues to play accounting games to try and hide the costs, and refuses to divulge information.

My purpose was to silence the gleefully destructive critics, like you, who are not interested in more than scoring cheap political points.

You are doing exactly what you did last time, and what you somewhat hypocritically accuse me of, which is ascribing motives to my opposition to this program. I have clearly stated why I oppose the gun registry, on this and other threads. You have chosen not to challenge anything I have said, but instead to imply some dark, evil motivation. All the while doing NOTHING to support your own apparently obssessive belief that the "evil gun people" were behind it all.

It was also to bring to the attention of some who will not see, what damage a self important demagogue like Klein can do and does in his every action.But that is you in every angry post, isn't it.

Klein and I are deamagogues apparently because we disagree with your emotional, poorly thought-out political obsessions.

As for me and my beliefs, I do not support any party. I hold only to principles of justice and the Common Good.

How noble. Now if only you weren't so intellectually lazy and ideologically blinded you'd have some actual notion of what was common sense and in the public good.

What could $2 billion do to stop violent misuse of weapons if applied to other areas, like policing our border with the US, and launching sting teams to put the sellers of restricted weapons in prison. Like putting criminals away for long periods of time when they are caught with a restricted weapon.

That last would probably have the most affect, but it is only us "cruel' conservatives who seem to want to do that.

[Guest eureka]

Shuffle your foot around your mouth a lilltle more, Argus. Nothing you say has any bearing on what I have said.

The facts remain, as I pointed out. It is a simple arithmetic calculation even if precise figures are not known and will never be known.

[Argus]

Shuffle your foot around your mouth a lilltle more, Argus. Nothing you say has any bearing on what I have said.

Yes, I'm well aware that facts have no bearing on your beliefs.

The facts remain, as I pointed out.

Uhm, point of order; You haven't actually pointed out any facts.

It is a simple arithmetic calculation even if precise figures are not known and will never be known.

I don't know how far you got in school, but you can't do arithmetic, simple or otherwise, without knowing the figures to input.

[Guest eureka]

Oh! But you can!

[I Miss Trudeau]

There are so many problems with this registry, starting with the suggestion it will do anything to eliminate the misuse of firearms.

Got an any facts or an argument to support this claim? Hell, got any idea how you could possibly construct an argument to support this claim?

You're doing the exact same thing that you accuse Eureka of.

[Argus]

There are so many problems with this registry, starting with the suggestion it will do anything to eliminate the misuse of firearms.

Got an any facts or an argument to support this claim?

Uhhhhh, yes, they were right underneath what you cut above. Perhaps your brain was too full at that point to absorb additional data.

Hell, got any idea how you could possibly construct an argument to support this claim?

What claim would that be?

[Guest eureka]

Let him Accuse! Argus can be downright funny at times - and eloquent with it as he swerves around everything that gets in the way of his wishes.

Even subtracting 2 from 119 and coming up with 2 is no challenge for him when he has a full head of steam.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Uhhhhh, yes, they were right underneath what you cut above. Perhaps your brain was too full at that point to absorb additional data.

You mean this little gem?

The use of restricted weapons in murder rose from 27% in 1974 to 58% in 2000. Of those weapons recovered, 74% were unregistered (smuggled).

How, pray tell, does this support your claim? It equally supports the contrary, because the rate isn't 94%, after all!

What claim would that be?

This one:

There are so many problems with this registry, starting with the suggestion it will do anything to eliminate the misuse of firearms.

[Argus]

Uhhhhh, yes, they were right underneath what you cut above. Perhaps your brain was too full at that point to absorb additional data.

You mean this little gem?

The use of restricted weapons in murder rose from 27% in 1974 to 58% in 2000. Of those weapons recovered, 74% were unregistered (smuggled).

How, pray tell, does this support your claim? It equally supports the contrary, because the rate isn't 94%, after all!

You still haven't stated just what you believe the "claim" is. However, the facts are that hand guns are so-called restricted weapons. The hand gun registry has been in effect for decades. Despite this, the use of firearms in the commision of crimes is growing, not shrinking. Three quarters of hand guns are smuggled across from the United States. Virtually anyone with the slightest connection to crime can get a gun as easily as buying drugs - easier, probably. Given that, one can easily see how useless the hand gun registry is in dealing with gun crime.

A bureacratic "regster" is not what fights gun crime. Strict gun laws which are stringently enforced are what fights gun crime. The federal government has shown no real interest in combating gun crime. And there is no way, really, to do it, without imposing mandatory sentences on those who are found carrying, using, or in posession of restricted weapons, because our bleeding heart, politically apointed, extremely liberal judges will absolutely not impose severe sentences on anyone for anything if they are given a choice.