Dutch01

This wouldn't happen in Ontario. Our Highway Traffic Act doesn't apply to private property (except in the case of collision reporting).

Hey, if the shoe fits...

More fact less thoughts from a class less, illiterate, fear mongering, horse crap spreading and rage filled MOXIE.

Your posts in that thread were all those things in my opinion.

 

Now you're bringing it here to wreck someone else's thread? Way to go.

Mandatory for me to carry a gun and 6 flares. Sad part is a guy in a 14'r needs none!

I'm pretty sure I can't get away with a gun in the boat down here lol

Something tells me there will still be many walleye caught AND taken home after the new rules go into place. Enforcement is an issue everywhere and without it, closing the fishery will have little effect.

Much like gun control, the closure only affects the law abiding.

Just read the story in Mclean's about the whale watching boat that capsized off Tofino.

Water was 12 C.

A female deck hand managed to get 1 flare off.

Fishermen 10 min away saw it and saved 21 people. Some covered in diesel. 5 died.

Sobering story.

Gotta get some flares if out on big water.

Maybe for me too on Pigeon.

Not a bad idea at all. Cheap insurance.

Wow! I finally found the time to sit and give this a proper read and I am blown away. Not only at the pictures, which are amazing, but at the perspective of being a guide. Great stories and great writing. Thanks for sharing.

 

I clicked on the reference (to the OFAH website page on Lake Scugog Walleye Closure) the original poster provided and inter alia read the following under the heading Let Us Bear in Mind:

 

"There was no assessment of the potential socioeconomic impacts to the local community that would result from a closure of the Walleye fishery. This should have been considered by the MNRF when making this decision."

 

Although an OFAH member since 2001, I personally do not support MNRF wild life management decisions being based in any part on socioeconomic impacts. There never has been nor should there be any guarantees to those who opt to set up businesses close to a resource lake/territory. While perhaps an unpopular opinion, I don't even consider such businesses as stakeholders. For me, the MNRF should involve legitimate stakeholders for a lake such as fishermen, First Nations when appropriate, cottage owners and fish biologists. I may not have articulated my thoughts well enough in my first post in this thread. Supposedly, Ontario spends 100% of hunting and fishing revenue on fish and wildlife management. The funds go into a fish and wildlife special purpose account, which invests more than $65 million a year in fish and wildlife management. I do not support any of these funds in the fish and wildlife special purpose account being spent to study socioeconomic impacts of wildlife management decisions.

I agree with this, well said.

It's wonderful to watch all these billions of dollars being pledged to helping other countries and other people! What about helping the 31 first nations communities right here in Canada that don't even have safe drinking water? That's right, 10% of our First Nations communities are under "boil water advisories" and have been for years but we can spend all this money to provide clean drinking water to some other country?

Cliff, the federal government gave $8.78 billion dollars to Aboriginal Affairs last year. The money is there, it's just not being managed well.

We had 11 people killed and I don't remember how many injured in that Gulf Oil Spill a few years back? I am still waiting to see a trial? People usually have had one by now?

Exactly.

I've said my piece. I'm comfortable with how we each come off looking in this post.

Interesting Dutch, here we had a decision by our Supreme Court ( Citizens United ) that ruled corporations are people too, and basically opened the flood gates to unlimited funding for political campaigns.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/defense-contractors-department-government-170/

 

This might help to better explain the US defense spending?

 

Our method leaves room for a lot of games to be played!

Corporations as people is an interesting concept to me. If I did some of the things corporations do I'd go to jail. For example, Goldman Sachs role in the subprime mortgage fraud was criminal, but you can't put a corporation in jail. So they pay a fine (a cost of doing business), and keep their profits. If that were me instead of Goldman Sachs, I'd be serving 20 years to life.

 

Our system may be tighter than yours but I think there's still all kinds of shenanigans in the background.

Really Dutch you expose yourself more and more. Dissect this.

 

The government of Ontario has pilfered hundreds of billions of dollars with reckless abandon. If times were good i would refer to them as good intentions. One haiir brained idea after another with little oversight, no accountability and when pressed for an explanation, nothing more than a shoulder shrug. A complete, $50 Million/Day interest DISASTER. I would get into the factual illegal activity but as a Lib , you'd probably find an excuse for it anyway or as the Queen of Mississagua proclaimed "Its water under the bridge".

 

 

Quebec has cried for years, has been given markets, money and everything else theyve asked for simply because they can. Let one of the greatest cities in Canada crumble and because of that a viraly corrupt province had to dump billions of litres of sewage into a river for christ sake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So when you whine about "My boy" not wanting to meet this hoard of trough swine just so he could throw good money after bad can you blame him for ignoring the whole lot? Especially Ontario and Quebec.Right or wrong he couldnt trust them .

 

 

Im a class less, fact less, unintelligent piece of horse manure. Pigeon hole you? I don't have to as i had you pegged from moment one. Easy

For the record, I didn't call you a pile of horse manure, I called your post a pile of horse manure. I just wanted to clarify that one point.

 

The only thing being exposed here is your inability to read. I don't have a party. I'm not sure why you're confused. You keep attacking the Ontario Liberals as though you're attacking me. They're not my party. I didn't vote for them so you miss the mark there.

 

Your second paragraph makes you look like a western separatist, so much hatred for fellow Canadians.

 

You don't get to have a monopoly on being Canadian. I and every other person in Ontario and Quebec are just as Canadian as you. If you don't like it, you can move to Alaska for all I care, because we're not going anywhere.

 

Let me give you a tip about hate, and I'm being sincere here. Holding onto anger at someone is like drinking poison and expecting them to die. You're only hurting yourself. Stop drinking the poison.

:rofl2: :rofl2:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/congress-corporate-sponsors

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/political-donations-in-canada

 

This doesn't include "Favors" corporations do to their favorite politicians,

How do you think a politician gets a cushy job in a private firm after completing their term in office ? Govt contacts = contracts = $$$$$$$$

 

Thanks, I was struggling a bit to find good examples!

 

That's not true. The controls were already there before either of them became Prime Minister. They just didn't get rid of them.

 

I went back to review the source of my confusion, I did err when I said Chretien/Martin put the regulatory controls in place. I confused this with their refusal to deregulate the banks despite being pressured to (according to Chretien).

 

Actually, corporations and lobby groups cannot make federal political donations (Corporations can make provincial poilitical donations).

 

Only individuals can make federal political donations. And there are limits on how much an individual can donate.

 

They can, just not directly and openly. They can promise board seats after retirement to politicians that vote their way on issues. Campaign machines need products and services which can perhaps be offered pro bono, or at deeply discounted rates. A newspaper could offer to provide favorable coverage in exchange for a favorable ruling later. There are many ways to skin a cat.

 

And for the benefit of moxie I will pick on some Liberal this time

 

Jane Rounthwaite is married to Kathleen Wynne, and in 2012 at least, she owned 50% of a company called The Osborne Group of Toronto. This company has done work for the ministries of children and youth services, community and social services, economic development and trade, finance, health and long-term care and revenue. The Office of the Integrity Commissioner was asked about it, and said they cannot comment due to confidentiality requirements. The relationship between this company and the Liberal party has at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. (source: http://www.torontosun.com/2013/02/10/wynnes-spouse-has-business-with-government)

 

Also appearing to be a conflict of interest is the cozy relationship between the Ontario Liberal Party and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association and Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. They collectively have poured more than $6.5 million into the last three election campaigns, including $800,000 directly to the party, and millions more to pay for attack ads via Working Families. (source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/teachers-union-payouts-an-investment-ontario-minister-says/article26983218/)

 

I've attacked Harper for attack ads here earlier, it's no more acceptable to me that Wynne does it. In fact, it's even worse because it was done by an arms length agency that I don't think should be legal. And to really push it over the top, the Ontario Liberals conveniently paid four unions $3.74-million since 2008 to help cover their "costs during collective bargaining".

 

This is blatant scam and it's the kind of thing I was alluding to when I referred to corporations and lobby groups. I am certain it happens at the Federal level too, it just happens out of sight.

 

EDIT: I just found a great example (and it happens to be Liberal again)

 

Joe Volpe was a Liberal candidate who was found to have received $108,000 in contributions from 20 individuals that were all in some way connected to the top corporate executives of Apotex Pharmaceuticals. Each of the 20 individuals - which included 11-year-old twin boys and a 14-year-old boy - gave exactly $5,400, the maximum allowed at the time. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#The_corrupting_influence_of_fundraising)

 

That's not true. The controls were already there before either of them became Prime Minister. They just didn't get rid of them.

 

Thanks for the clarification! My point still stands though

I lived in Port Perry from 2003-2009. My Son was born in 2003, and when he was a baby he would go to bed at 7:30pm, and Wifey would try to sleep when he did. So I used to take my boat out several nights a week for a few hours. I used to catch literally dozens of small walleye every night.

 

So my point is that it wasn't that long ago that the fishery seemed to be in good shape from my limited perspective. I'm surprised it has fallen so far, so fast. I sure hope this helps this lake to recover. I don't live there or fish there anymore, but I still would like to see the fishery bounce back.

I really, really want to dissect the streaming pile of horse manure that is the post above yours, but out of respect for the board and because you asked I will let it go.

 

Wow!!Thats very inclusive and compassionate of you Dutch. You are more a Lib than you try so hard not to admit. Dung knows Dung. "Enjoy your Boy"

 

(Sorry SirCranksaLot, I tried.....)

 

Moxie, it is neither compassionate nor inclusive to tolerate ignorance or animosity. Your post contained both.

 

-It was the Chretien/Martin government that put the strong banking controls in place that protected us during the recession of 2008. "Our boy" if you will, since I voted for him, tried to remove those regulations and give free reign to corporations. Luckily for Canada he failed. This is fact, not conjecture. If you had any desire to move past your partisanship you could verify this for yourself. I won't hold my breath.

-You wrote "Again, I guess "My Boy" didn't want to throw money away that almost never trickles down to those that need it. Ya. I'm ok with that." and this again belies your ignorance. Stephen Harper gave away hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare precisely because he believed in trickle down economics, but you're okay with that apparently.

-You asked "Would it have been wrong to attend the conference with a handful of note takers and report to the premiers once he returned?". The answer is YES. Canada only works when Federal governments and Provincial governments work together. When they don't, you end with Meech Lake all over again. The Federal government has to work with Premiers of all parties or else risk fracturing our national unity. It is easily verifiable that Stephen Harper virtually ignored Premiers requests for meetings. Trudeau has reached out to the Premiers and they have expressed gratitude for same. This means Trudeau accomplished more towards unity during his morning cup of coffee than Harper did during his entire tenure.

-"Stephen didn't want anything to do with Ontario and Quebecs' Premiers but couldn't well invite the rest without allowing the two whiniest to be there." This statement makes clear that you are just fine with a PM who rules via petty vindictiveness, and the the tone of this statement and your entire post makes it clear that you are just fine with being petty and vindictive yourself.

-As for "One last thing. Lieberal voters are still Chuckleheads." and "Ya, this kids a real thinker alright. Forget the cup of coffee but if he lets his urine settle in a glass he can actually drink it. Now thats self sustaining." - Wow, you need to grow up.

-I have clearly stated that I have voted for both Liberals and Conservatives so your attempt to pigeon hole me as a liberal falls flat.

-You define the term low information voter. You have little to no grasp on the facts.

 

Dung knows Dung huh? Stay classy moxie.

 

Don't mistake having compassion for people for weakness. I am no shrinking violet, and when you act like a buffoon, you should expect to be called one.

 

Dutch----what do you say if we let this Harper vs Trudeau thing go. As far as I can see the only thing left of Harper now is the bad smell.

I really, really want to dissect the streaming pile of horse manure that is the post above yours, but out of respect for the board and because you asked I will let it go.

I will say I have never voted Red or Blue so I can sit back and bust on both parties!!!

 

Having said that, say what you will about Trudeau or Harper, the fact is it's not one person deciding the fate of the nation.

They are just figure heads for the party they belong to. Just a face/persona to represent the party.

The bulk of the decisions are made by a group of senior party members with backing of the general party members.

The figure head just regurgitates what his/her puppet masters tell him/her to.

I would agree with you there DRIFTER, and add that I think the real behind the scenes puppet masters are the corporations and lobby groups that donate to the parties.

Along with attending a summit in Paris with a delegation of 100 trough swines the Lieberals have announced to allocate another 2.6 Billion to developing countries. To other countries in order to develop energy infrastructure? For what? So they can put more people to work offshore, manufacturing more products we wont be making? This Kids' been in office just over a month and has already earmarked 4 Billion dollars to Non Canadians. Makes me feel so compassionate, inclusive, patriotic you have no idea. And I'm bashed for making it a left/right argument. After experiencing the poor excuse we called governance in Ontario for the last decade how could I not?

 

I'd like to thank once again the chuckleheaded Lieberal voter.

Were you equally incensed when Harper padded the G8 bill by a couple hundred million so they could build gazebos and spend other bribe money in conservative won ridings? Did you come up with a cutsie name for them like you did with the Liberals? (I recommend contard). If not, you may be a hypocrite.

 

Harper was around long enough to know him from his track record. For me at least, Trudeau should get more than a cup of coffee in office before we judge.

 

Also, many posters here love to trot out how we need to "stand by our commitments to our friends" when it comes to sending Canadians into a war zone.

 

As a part of the OECD we made promises regarding international aid to our international partners, and Harper reneged on them. How come that's okay? Cause it was "your boy"?

 

I'm not sure why the con love for sending Canadians boys to war, but we have no money to increase the peace in the world? For shame.

 

EDIT: you should know that the 100 "swine" you refer to are the Premier's of the provinces, who happen to come from all parties.

 

The same Premiers had been asking to meet with Harper for years, and he had no time for them. Some of them have since remarked how nice it is to have a PM who listens, and is inclusive and respectful to the Premiers. But I guess that doesn't matter because to you they are just swine.

 

EDIT: before I get slammed for being as anti Harper as you are anti Trudeau, let me state for the record I voted for Harper every election except this one. He had me and he lost me. I'm also very much against the poor job Wynne is doing. I am certainly not a liberal shill.

Thats my point...unrealistic election promises.

We all voted for the least of 3 evils and he won with 39% of the prople picking him.

To be fair, this is the same percentage who gave Harper a majority, so Trudeau's is no less valid. And they all make unrealistic promises. Nothing you've said so far could not also be applied to Harper.

 

I understand that he is really new at this sort of thing, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give him a big hug for realizing he was wrong

Nobody is asking you to give him a hug. Just a chance. He's barely a month on the job, it's a little early to try define him as a failure.

 

He was also wrong about the price..it jumped from 100 million to 600 million..but he is trying really hard...and got to visit the queen

This one bugs me but again, it's the normal operation in politics. Every party provincially or federally promises to do a lot for a little, and then does a little for a lot. I'm okay with taking Trudeau to task on this as long as you're not giving a free pass to the guys you like.

 

The ability to make small course corrections based on the best advice available is, IMO, a good sign of democratic leadership---unlike the semi-dictatorial leadership we've had lately that ignored expert opinion of scientists, for e.g., and didn't need to be confused by any facts that a census might provide! Who needs facts when you got dogma and your own pig-headed opinion to guide you?

Thumbs up!

Do the math ishfield

 

In turkey airspace for 17 second at an altitude of 6000ft

 

Apperently shot within 1km of turkey, landed 4km into syria

 

Were they flying at stalling speeds?

 

Something doesnt add up

 

And how do you get 10 warnings in 17 seconds if that was the case?

As far as I can tell, the entire media machine seems to be challenged by reading comprehension.

 

The pilots did not warn every 1.7 seconds for 17 seconds at the exact same time the Russians flew at stall speed. The transcript of just one warning takes almost 17 seconds to read.

 

Earlier reports indicate warnings took place over several minutes, starting on approach, prior to the planes entering Turkey.

 

One guy did the math wrong and now the entire internet is on a 17 second conspiracy theory. Its actually a good example of groupthink overriding common sense.