Dutch01

Im still with ya, myself, id be pissed too.

 

But you know its a possibility and still did it.

 

Thats on you and him.

 

It is what it is.

 

When i was a rookie in the oilfield i stored 100's of safety trailers atta time.

 

I could easily pull out a specific trailer because I thought ahead and accordingly.

 

Thats why I mentioned laziness and poor business practice.

 

If he has 50 boats in his shed I could re arrange the whole place in a few hours no problem.

Did you just volunteer to go down there with Roe Bag??? That's awfully nice of you to offer, Rick

 

ya...jay z and Eminem...ouch

 

if you like oldschool rap we would get along, and i could put you on some "newschool rap" that you would actually like just ask manitou

I'll take some of that over here - most of the "new rap" I've heard is crap. They don't make it like they used to. Maybe you can turn me on to something good made after the 90's......

hahah, love classic rock... old school rap. Some house music (im 23),,,,, cant stand country,

I'm 44 and can't stand country - it doesn't sound any better as you get older!

So I have done the Severn the part of the Trent-Severn - but never the Trent part. I am thinking it might be a fun trip to do, and was looking for some tips for planning purposes.

 

I am not sure how long it takes to do that section. Boat in question is 18.5 Smokercraft, so won't be staying in it, so have to plan for stops along the way for the night.

 

Thought it would be fun to see some lakes I have not been in yet (and probably troll a little....maybe....), and go through some locks (in particular the lift locks) - again that I have never been in.

 

Normally have a cottage for the week in the Summer, but this year may do a trip like the above first. A thought anyway.

I've never done a trip like that, but I know there's a nice patio above the locks on upper buckhorn. After lunch you can lock through to lower buck. I've had some great days walleye and bass fishing in lower buck.

work...thats about it

 

people like different things, but why the hell anyone lives in southern ontario making crap money is beyond me.

 

Seriously, if you dont actually have a really good job theres no reason to be here at all.

 

I heard just last week that town houses are approaching half a mill in brampton...I would literally rather die than live in brampton...

Where I live in Markham, a $900k house will sell over list, in under 24h, and will be torn down to make way for a McMansion. There's no way I will ever own down here.

 

Having said that, my Son is in an amazing school. Once he's grown and on his own, I'll be heading north too.

Man that spot is quite the honey hole!

 

Great job, wish I was there!

Ok so for those who are cable free, are you steaming on an android box or downloading and using memory sticks etc.? Both are kinda not perfect IMO. I like to flip on the tv and there's my stuff.Not 20 min of booting up to spend another 15 min looking for my show. Also what do people do with multiple Tvs? Im the son of a TV repairman so I like my electronics and have 5 tvs in the house. A little embarrassing when there is only 4 people

I use a combination of Netflix and downloading. Once downloaded, I use TVersity to stream the video to my PS4. It's super simple.

 

I may look into one on those Android boxes though. Sounds convenient.

Geebus!

 

Gotta be designed on some gnarly computer programming.

Or on some gnarly LSD!

 

Awesome video, thanks for sharing DRIFTER.

Damn dutch you killed it!

 

Now to get suicidal lol

 

https://youtu.be/xbtaVEA3nw4

Love Suicidal, I was a punk long before I was a reggae loving st*ner!

 

http://youtu.be/nxcJW6bs5os

 

Hmmmm, not sure why my video won't preview....

 

 

 

I was a mean player back in my days. Do they still make these?

 

 

My turn to compliment your taste - I love The Who! I just downloaded a Blu-Ray rip of Quadraphenia the other day. It's a great movie the Who made about mods and rockers. If you haven't seen it check it out.

Dutch, yup, you got some good taste. Thanks for posting.

Anytime!

With Vianet I have a whopping 1.5mb download speed with unlimited data and Netflix runs just fine. $54/mth.

 

As soon as I stopped caring about Hockey, cable/satelite became useless to me.

 

Hilarious, i couldn't be more in the same canoe (except the script blocker).

The script blocker eliminates a lot of ads, but not all. It prevents all scripts from running until you extend permissions manually. Pain in the beginning because none of your sites work until you extend permissions, but it definitely provides an element of security to your browsing:

 

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/

When I think of "country rock" I think of Lucero:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ernest Ranglin - Black Disciples Live

 

Dread Mar-I featuring Luciano - Only Love

 

Bushman - How You Living

 

 

The thing to keep in mind is that the 18% is of total Canadian adults represents far more than 18% of Trudeau's supporters. If the 18% of adults who had smoked marijuana in the last year had voted for Trudeau, that would represent about 67% of his voters.

 

Approximately 68% of eligiable voters cast a ballot in the election. Of those, about 39.5% voted Liberal. So, about 27% of Canadian adults voted Liberal (39.5% of 68% = 26.9%) in the election. If 100% of pot smoking adults voted Liberal that would represent (18%/27%=67%) of his votes.

 

I agree that it is unlikely that they all voted Liberal; it is unlikely that they all voted period. But even if half of them voted Liberal, that would be a full third of the votes that he received. It is pretty save to say that at least one third of his supporter were marijauna users. However, there is really no way to calculate how many of them actually based their decision to vote Liberal based on his promise to legalize marijauna.

 

If one quarter of those 18% voted Liberal because of his promise, that would represent 6.6% of the voters which would drop his support from 39.5% to 32.9%. If the Conservatives picked up 50% of those votes then the Conservatives would have won in the popular vote 35.2% to 32.9% which would have resulted in a Conservative minority. This is all speculation, but I think that promise may have swayed the results.

 

He may have also picked up support from non-users who support legalization. There are some of those; myself included.

You have a point, I did no math. I reasoned that pot smokers are regular Canadians. Only a percentage of regular Canadians vote. I believe a like percentage of pot smokers vote. The question is, which way will they vote?

 

 

"If 100% of pot smoking adults voted Liberal"

 

I do not believe that this is what occurred. I know many people who partake and no two are alike. Different personalities, political agendas, etc. "Marijuana users" is not a homogenous group. That 18% of Canadians used marijuana last year does not mean they all vote, or even that they all want legalization. Some of that 18% will also be drug sellers who may prefer the status quo.

 

In my opinion, it garnered him some votes. I don't think it was what put him over the top. I think to believe so misses what really put him over the top. He made a conscious commitment to positivity and he sold his message well. Harper was perceived to be negative, and his attack ads supported that perception. Those attack ads also backfired. They used out of context sound bites to paint him in a bad light and said he's just not ready. But at the first debate, which I consider to be a turning point, Trudeau came off as polished and confident. He didn't resemble the guy the Conservatives tried to portray. And he sold a message of hope to a large constituency who wanted anyone but Harper, who were desperate for someone to rally behind.

 

The resounding message in the media, editorials and that I encountered on the street after Trudeau's win was one of renewed optimism. I think it was a masterful job of framing the narrative by Trudeau and his campaign. That is what I think put him over the top.

 

 

I would like to see the number of votes Trudeau got from college/university students over his marijuana promise....the number of legal voters on campuses that hear legalize marijuana, who otherwise may or may not be interested in voting, sure could skew the vote to him

 

It may have been a factor in his win, but I doubt it was a major one. A forum research poll in November 2015 concluded that 18% of Canadian adults have smoked marijuana in the last year (http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2426/most-want-it-licensed-and-sold-through-government-agencies/). In my opinion, it is unlikely that the entire 18% voted unanimously for Trudeau, so I believe it is fair to say that he received less than 18% of his votes from people based solely on his legalization promise.

-I cancelled cable 2 years ago. I have Netflix. I will never go back.
-I got satellite radio for the truck. Can't stand regular radio anymore, more commercials than music!
-I have no social media. Unless you count OFC.
-I use a script blocker when surfing the web.

I said something innocuous to a friend the other day, and she laughed and said I reminded her of some commercial. She's like "you know, the one with the...." I said "nope, haven't seen or heard a commercial in a long time".

It made me realize that lots of my "wants and needs" weren't real. They were things I was convinced I wanted or needed because I was bombarded with advertising to the point of it being psychological warfare!

Bottom line is if you're on the fence about cancelling cable, do it. Before long you won't even miss it.

 

There is a math error in your source data. $29 billion in 82/83 dollars does not translate into $28.88 billion in 2011 dollars. This adds ~$40 to Trudeau's final term (by averaging the conversion rates for the years before and after I estimate that the 2011 equivalent is $70.38 billion for 82/83).

 

I also think there are issues with the allocation of the deficits. Here is a quote from the site:

"Select a prime minister's name to highlight figures from his time in office. John Turner and Kim Campbell each served for less than one fiscal year; data for their tenures is included as part of their predecessors' terms."

 

Joe Clark was also Prime for less than a fiscal year and did not pass a budget. The deficit that has been assigned to him should be assigned to Trudeau.

 

I also think they have misallocated deficits for years in which a Prime Minister started in the middle of a fical year. They have assigned the deficits to the incoming Prime Minister; in my opinion it should be assigned to the outgoing Prime Minister because that's who would have passed the budget for the year. Based on this logic $77.88 billion of Mulroney's dept should be assigned to Trudeau; and $56.60 billion of Chretien's debt should be assigned to Mulroney. The revised figures would be:

 

Trudeau: $415.38 billion

Mulroney: $443.52 billion

Chretein: $51.38 billion

 

At first glance Mulroney looks pretty bad; but if interest on inherited debt was removed, I think he would look much better than Trudeau.

I'm no economist, but I'm willing to take your figures at face value because they support my point. The debt making machine marches on no matter whose face we put on it. I suspect Trudeau will end up being the same but I can't condemn the man until he's actually done something to condemn.

 

I think that a very key point here is that McGuinty/Wynne ran up more debt for just Ontario than Harper did for the entire country. And they did that with higher taxes and higher transfer payments from the federal government.

 

Harper ran up debt, but he did it with lower taxes and without cutting transfers to the province (Chretien cut federal health and social transfers by 34%).

I agree only to a point. That's like arguing do you want to burn the house down with 20 gallons of gas or 30 gallons. Either way the house is burned down!

 

I feel like I am being painted as a Liberal here, but all I have really said is that neither Liberal nor PC have done a good job, but I will judge people on what they do, not what they haven't done yet.

 

To summarize:

 

1) Harper = bad

2) Wynne = real bad

3) Trudeau = don't know yet