Dutch01

Well, can we at least judge Wynne on what she has done already?

Absolutely, I've repeatedly been very clear about the terrible job she's done. Did you miss it?

Further, Harper LOWERED taxes from what i remember. Wynne has raised them a few times.

He did lower taxes, but he didn't lower spending by a like amount. All he did was raise the bill for our kids and grandkids, the very thing being complained about above.

He did after the fact...first budget didn't have the excessive overspending...but, whatever

My point was you can't claim you were forced to do something, then later take credit for it being your idea.

 

Dutch...I'm not a big fan of Harper, but a massive chunk of that was stimulus spending following the '08 crash. You can't hang that on him.

 

Further - TD says that Trudeau is on course to burn through 150B in the next 5 yrs....http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/politics/liberal-spending-could-add-150-billion-to-national-debt-td-economists-say/article28964092/?cmpid=rss1

 

 

This is a fair criticism, however I was told that the Liberals forced Harper to overspend, which is not the case. Flaherty directly contradicted that assertion. They also ran five consecutive deficits in the subsequent five years.

 

Forecasts are guesses. Why don't we wait and judge Trudeau on what he does, not what someone else says he will do?

They keep stats on EVERYTHING

Can you point to them? If they're not publicly released, they are effectively non-existent.

 

They might do surveys, but since ballots are anonymous there's really no way to collect actual stats.

 

 

You forget the part where at the beginning of Harper,s term he proposed a balanced budget but didn't have a majority to pass it. The Lieberals said they would vote him out if he didn't spend money, so he did

This is not the narrative that former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was selling when he spoke to the Globe in 2014:

 

"The next day, at the citys Delta Bessborough hotel, Mr. Flaherty met with business leaders for several hours. All had a similar message: Their businesses were feeling the pain of a bad economy.

 

A light went on in my head at about 2 oclock in the afternoon: This is worse than I thought, Mr. Flaherty recalls. When the second day of meetings wrapped up, he placed a call to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

 

You know, we hoped we could run a deficit of fifteen or twenty billion dollars and manage the problem at that level. But I dont think so, Mr. Flaherty says he told the Prime Minister. Its deeper and darker and its at all levels of business.

 

Thats how Mr. Flaherty, a conservative whod risen to political prominence in Ontario as a member of the cost-cutting Mike Harris government, ended up delivering one of the largest deficits in modern Canadian history. The red ink for the fiscal year 2009-10 was nearly $56-billion. When adjusted for inflation, it was on par with the federal deficits of the early 1990s, when Canada was considered a financial basket case.

 

And Im glad we did, Mr. Flaherty says."

 

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/stimulus-gamble-how-ottawa-saved-the-economy-and-wasted-billions/article16760149/?service=mobile

 

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot blame the Liberals and NDP for "forcing their hand" while simultaneously taking credit for having done it at all.

 

No PM in the data I posted has ever come out on the plus side. Why would Harper be any different?

 

Throw in his constant erosion of liberty under the guise of greater security, and he is as bad as any PM we have had.

I would love to know what % of Wynnes votes came from the gay community, not because they thought she would be good at the job but because she came out saying she was a lesbien. (just for the record I don't have any problem with anyone's preferances as long as they don't try to impose them on me.)

This isn't much different than wondering how many votes she got from women, or white people. I don't think we'll ever know because they don't keeps stats on that I don't think.

Why is everybody shocked by this....how long have we had a Liberal government in power now...the past election all we had here was people bashing the only fiscally responsible party and now we have Liberals at the federal level....give Trudeau another 12 months and we`ll really be up the creek....who voted Liberal....lets have a show of hands...

 

Wynne is awful, there is no question. She is probably the worst politician I can remember in my lifetime. But the notion that the PC party is any better with money is not accurate.

 

Between 2006 and 2015 Steve added $127.02 BILLION dollars (in 2011 dollars) to the national debt, and yet I hear guys on here saying our grandkids will be paying for Wynne's debt. Clearly, they have both run up a bill that we can't afford, yet some people here bought the con propaganda.

 

 

This is from a post I made on a previous thread:

 

Net adjusted deficit/surplus (2011 dollars)

 

Stephen Harper (2006-2014): $127.45 billion net deficit over his term

 

Jean Chretien (1993-2004): $107.97 billion net deficit over term

 

Brian Mulroney (1984-1992): $464.8 billion net deficit over term

 

Pierre Trudeau (1980-1984): $185.23 billion net deficit over term

 

Joe Clark (1979-1980): $38.6 billion net deficit over term

 

Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979): $72.16 billion net deficit over term

 

(Source: Finance Canada, Statistics Canada, Bank of Canada, Parliament of Canada, IMF as reported at "http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571")

 

 

My question for you is this: If every PM, PC or Liberal, adds to the debt every year as proven above, how can you argue that it is the Liberals who will bankrupt this country?

 

The way I see it, Canadians, will ALWAYS, ALWAYS get screwed by our politicians, because they sell a narrative of "us versus them" to low information voters who buy in without checking facts.

 

Full disclosure: I voted PC provincially and Liberal federally in the last election, in the interest of transparency.

If you really want the sound from a cell phone to greatly improve just place the cell phone in a ceramic coffee mug and hear the HUGE difference.

I just tried this at the dinner table, it worked great!

music does not effect fishing.

 

well, maybe mentally it does...but not physically.

 

I run the SUPER shallows for trout and while I cut my outboard and troll on my electric, I always play music.....it doesn't matter.

 

When I rebuilt my tiller lund I had a custom mount built for my marine stereo and speakers....

Good to know that my reggae won't make the fish too chill to bite!

Do any of you guys with stereos in your boat think it negatively affects the fishing? Do you only use it while motoring from spot to spot or also while fishing?

Hey, I thought this was supposed to be the "fishing section" lol

I am by no means a dedicated liberal. I could explain why, but that's a boring read for this thread

 

Oleary isn't the first person to try and take the gov to task. He's just louder than everyone else. If you think he is putting out original ideas and is "right" then you watch too much TV and get too easily star struck

 

I have no issues with him trying to address fiscal mismanagement, and he would make a good government consultant, but in no way do I want him to have any serious political control in Canada

You took the words right out of my mouth. Well said.

Thanks Brian. I way prefer to be fishing of the two.

 

I like the dark clouds in the pano but it almost looks calm out there. It was so not calm!

The notion that "fishing only" boards are void of rancor is a fallacy anyways. I saw a post on another board, a guy and his Son with a pile of perch. The guy got attacked for being "over his limit" (like you can count perch in a pile anyways) and no one even knew how many people were in his fishing party or how many fish in his pile. I don't think that guy will post another picture anytime soon. It's the nature of the internet. Once everyone is too busy fishing again the ratio of fishing to non-fishing posts will turn around,

Well I finally rolled in late last night, got the truck unloaded and promptly crashed out. All I can say is WOW, what a trip! :thumbsup_anim:

 

Chad pretty much covered Saturday, except for him this was a "bit of a slow day" (lol!) while to me, it was a truly epic adventure!

 

I rented an ice bungalow last year and drove out, so it's not like I'm "new", but the most ice I've been on all year is 9" so I was definitely on the edge of my seat when we headed out. Crossing the pressure cracks was way better than I had thought. They probably don't help THAT much but driving over 2x10's adds a little confidence. I think they were "all for show" and if I hadn't been there Chad wouldn't have bothered with them!

 

Then when we got there all my concerns went away:

 

 

 

There was easily 22" of ice!

 

 

We quickly drilled a bunch of holes - I have an 8" gas auger, no way am I hand drilling 22" of ice! Josh (my bro-in-law) and I got to work on setting up the hut and in no time we were fishing.

 

 

(Don't worry Chad, I blurred the shoreline out, your spot is safe!)

 

 

 

The best fish were already posted but we caught lots of these guys, as has anyone who has ever fished Nip!

 

 

 

A note about Chad's fish - the pictures really do not do it justice! It was a true hog, and I'm not happy that I forgot my scale. I would have guessed 7 pounds easy, online charts show even higher for 28" fish. The best part is that it was the fishing equivalent of a "called shot". He told me he was going to <secret technique redacted> and catch a "walleyezilla", and he did! He really put on a clinic and it shows that often the locals know best. He did nothing that I have ever read in a magazine or seen on a tv show, and he out-fished us two to one. Great job man :worthy:

 

As the day wound down we were treated to yet another pretty sunset over the lake. I really love the skies up here:

 

 

 

Josh and I grabbed a motel and stayed to fish another day. We didn't have our expert guide with us, and the forecast was looking a bit ugly, so we just drove out on Callander. Loads of trucks out there and we were on at least 18" of ice where we drilled. The wind was brutal and was blowing the snow sideways. No setting up a pop up in that so we fished in the lee of the truck. If not for the survival suits, we would not have lasted out there. Really glad we had those. I was able to get three pickerel (all slot) but it was definitely a slow day. Still better than a day of not fishing though! When we got there I took one picture and my iPhone promptly froze. I left it in the truck and hunkered down in the wind, so only one pic from Sunday:

 

 

 

We left a little after dark for the run back to the city. I never like driving away from that place. For all the flack it takes, I have had so many incredible times on Nipissing. It will always be one of my favorite lakes.

 

If anyone ever gets an offer like that from Chad I suggest you take him up on it! Super great guy and it was very generous of him to take us along for the ride. Thanks again Chad.

 

Dutch

 

 

Its just more rules

 

I smoked my first joint on a family trip out west when I was 16.

 

Its all the crowd you hang with after that, and what you are made of in the first place.

^this!

I absolutely guarantee I won't be spending a penny on a tax on Maryjewanna.

That's okay, I'll pay your share for ya

My yard backs right on to a dog park here in T.O.

Always smell dope back there. Not young people but upper-middle class housewives and retirees gathering

together in groups chatting about their fancy dogs and getting buzzed on weed. It stinks and is somewhat offensive to my 13 yr. old.

Sometimes see her teachers back there with dogs puffing.

 

Tinctures and digestible cannabis oils (not smoked) have saved lives of some people i know with cancer.

Even effective for my post surgery back pain and ravages of my severe multiple sclerosis.

Hopefully Shoppers Drug Mart and government can get it right. Smoking weed isn't beneficial but tinctures, oils

if medically supervised are better than all these Oxy-opiates.

Smoking may not be beneficial for your purposes, but it's not one size fits all.

 

I've seen video of a guy with severe cerebral palsy. He cannot take care of himself or even speak. 3 minutes after a rip on a pipe and he can speak clearly and move around on his own.

 

 

Edit: I do agree people should bee considerate about where and when they smoke. Some people just don't know how to be on the down low.

I've have a Legend 16' side console with a 40hp Merc 2 stroke. It runs 30mph tops with two guys and gear, but it takes a minute to get there.

 

In my opinion, I believe you need more power. I would not be happy if my boat had a 15 or 25.

 

You're not me, so it's your call. I'm just speaking from experience owning a similar boat.

I'll take you're word for it Dutch. It just defies logic as to how marijuana smoke wouldn't be as bad or worse than cigarette smoke. Any smoke isn't good for you ..... it's common sense. I can see the use of THC in properly regulated clinical amounts to control a medical condition if the med hellps. Smoking a joint isn't in any way a controlled amount. It depends on a gazzilion variables. How do you know how much THC to take to control the symptoms?

 

Lets face it we're legalizing marijuana for the same reasons we legalized gambling, alcohol, prostitution etc. The masses want it legalized and criminal enforcement hasn't worked. So lets tax the crap out of it and move on! LOL

Any smoke has carcinogenic properties, so I understand where you are coming from.

 

In studies done with rats, when their endocannabinoid system was blocked they developed massive tumors. The study authors inferred that the interaction of cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system protects against the formation of tumors.

 

While there is a dearth of research on the subject due to class 1 scheduling in the US, there is certainly evidence that marijuana may play a role in treating cancer (beyond the already noted value of increasing appetite/relieving nausea on chemotherapy patients).

 

If any other substance was discovered to have these properties it would be hailed as a huge breakthrough. However, because governments are invested in prohibition and incarceration, and marijuana cannot be patented, there has been a long history of resistance to even exploring its medical value.

Check out the credibility of the organization before you cite them. Anyone can belong to the ATS as long as you pay you're membership fee. You're not reading a study by the AMA or Scientific American here. If you pay enough money to a research group you can come up with any conclusion you want. The ATS has been accused of being influenced by interest groups.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KUfvQpxRfo0C&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=Credibility+of+the+American+Thoracic+Society&source=bl&ots=bIsgrlqz5G&sig=GVtNwQEwy9TZRYaA-KyqvXEn9Hk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisydCDrZPLAhUGqR4KHazZATkQ6AEIRzAI#v=onepage&q=Credibility%20of%20the%20American%20Thoracic%20Society&f=false

 

The tobacco industry funded studies like that for years too.

I assure you Donald Tashkin is not sponsored by big tobacco. He has a lifetime body of work you can read for yourself instead of dismissing out of hand.

Yup! Joints don't even have a filter to reduce the particulates. You're more likely to get lung cancer smoking joints than cigarettes according to the studies I've read.

 

You've bought into the idea that smoking dope is good for you??? Seriously? Like taking vitamins or supplements. THC helps to control medical problems apparently but it's not something you take to improve your health. That's like saying ibuprofen or tylenol should be taken daily to improve your health.

DUI did not increase, just the enforcement. Someone who does not smoke pot is not going to suddenly decide to get stoned and drive because weed is legal. Anyone who will do that is already doing it now.

 

Secondly, you are wrong about tobacco being equally as damaging as pot. Dr. Donald Tashkin, professor of medicine at UCLA oversaw the largest and longest longitudinal study of its kind. That study concluded that rates of lung cancer did not increase, even with moderate use over long periods of time. You can read more about Tashkin's work here if you're into facts:

 

http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/annalsats.201212-127fr#.Vs8l80XEjCQ

 

Excerpt (I had to use OCR text recognition, please forgive any typos):

 

Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function

when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.

 

Can you provide a link to any of the studies you have read? I would like to review them further.

 

Thanks.

 

Dutch

Well you didn't vote PC so whats the difference :wallbash:

I actually DID vote PC in the last two provincial elections. No way was I going to reward criminal behavior with a vote.

Ummm...didn't we just spend billions closing coal plants a replacing them with gas to lower the carbon?

 

And I could take a pretty good guess at some of her supporters in here that won't admit it outright

Don't lump me in there, I didn't vote for her! (Or her predecessor)