John Bacon

Dickey pitched in last post season without Thole in the lineup. Not really, the teams success this year means that he made good moves in the previous years. If anything, it means that the people who complained about hiring people from Cleveland should be eating crow.

I keep them in the original bags and stuff a bunch of the bags into an old soft sided lunch cooler.

I have heard about a few pike being caught in Rice Lake.

Navarro back with the Blue Jays... http://www.tsn.ca/jays-re-acquire-c-navarro-from-white-sox-1.556025

Aren't they Swiss?

Actually, the years when Buffalo gets hit with the most lake effect snow seem to co-incided with colder lake temperatures. Buffalo get hit really hard a couple of years ago when after we had that really cold winter sandwiched between a couple of cool summers. Before that, they were hit hard in 1978 which was also a time when we had cooler weather.

If we were to spread out more we would need a bunch of new towns with new schools, new sewage treatment plants, new schools, new hospitals, and new roads. That will cost more than adding some transit to an existing city.

I think you would need even more billions so that people could travel around a large part of the country.

Another PTO for the Leafs http://sports.yahoo.com/m/55801dd9-6257-3245-b7af-c2e66b23a669/ss_leafs-sign-right-shooting.html?nhp=1

I don't think people are saying that we shouldn't try. I think they're saying that going after a 25% or 30% user would be more beneficial than targetting a 1% user.

Are you referring to my post? I just tested the link and worked fine for me.

There is something in here about them not being protected in article 1. There may be other sections of the act that cover them though https://ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?lang=En&n=496E2702-1 Families not included in Article I of the Migratory Birds Convention The following list presents the families of birds not named in Article I of the Convention, but whose member species occur in Canada (including accidental, exotic, undetermined and extirpated status from Wild Species 2010). These families and their species are not protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 but may be protected under provincial or territorial legislation or other federal conventions. Accipitridae (osprey, kite, eagles, harrier, hawks) Alcedinidae (kingfisher) Anhingidae (anhinga) Aramidae (limpkin) Cathartidae (vultures) Corvidae (jays, crows and ravens) Falconidae (caracara, falcons) Fregatidae (frigatebirds) Odontophoridae (quail) Passeridae (weaver finches) Pelecanidae (pelicans) Phaethontidae (tropicbirds) Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants) Phasianidae (partridges, pheasants, grouse, ptarmigan, sage-grouse, prairie-chicken, turkey) Phoenicopteridae (flamingo) Prunellidae (accentor) Ptilogonatidae (silky-flycatcher) Strigidae (owls) Sturnidae (starlings, mynas) Tytonidae (barn owl)

I had checked into that a while back. From what I found; they are not included in the migratory protection act.

Those Just Encase units look good if you don't mind spending a bit of money... http://justencase.com/

Doesn't he have insurance? It should be covered.

Are there any hunting shows coming up? Perhaps they would be used for displays.

Looks like a fallfish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallfish

I agree that the Harper government has its share of issues. But on the topic of healthcare transfers, I think they have been pretty good. As for tieing healthcare transfers to GDP. I was thinking of the federal growth in GDP. From the mid thirties to present, there has been a general downward trend in annual GDP growth. I think it average about 2.5% annual growth under Harper. Most of the projects for the next couple of years that I have seen have been less than 2%. It would be nice to just keep giving the provinces a 6% more each year; but the money has to come from somewhere. If the GDP growth is less than the annual increases, the we will eventually run out of money. It is not a question of if; it is a question of when. I think that a responsible government needs to be open with the public about these realities.

Fishing rods? Some of them are too long to fit in many vehicles.

There are a number of factors working against the Liberals. They tend to campaign as the protector of social spending, telling us not to vote for the big bad Conservatives because they will destroy health care, etc. So, when they actually start making cuts they expose their hypocrisy. The Liberals aren't supposed to make cuts; so when they do, people cut upset. There is also the issue of waste. Billions were wasted on eHealth, Ornge, Pan Am games, gas plants, etc.; now they have to make cuts to basis operating costs. To top that off, this board has a more conservative leaning than the general population. In other sources I see more people blaming cuts on Harper. To me, a cut means a year over year decrease in spending. By that definition, the Conservatives have not cut funding; nor were they planning to. Health transfers increased by 6% a year. They were scheduled to reduce that to a minimum of 3% a year. But they would still be increasing, just increasing at a slower rate. Even 3% annual increases are far, far more generous than the funding from the previous Liberal government. The Liberals on the other hand have actual cut funding year over year. I don't have the link handy; but recently there was a ~$90 million increase in year over year federal transfer payments to Ontario and a ~$50 million increase in total healthcare spending in Ontario. That means that Wynne actually reduced the provinces share of funding by ~$40 million. Harper didn't reduce nor plan to reduce year over year funding for healthcare. So, to answer your question about the double standard. It was the Liberals, not the Conservatives who actually made year over year cuts to funding. The only thing Harper did was plan to reduce the rate of increases in funding. I actually see the double standard as the opposite of the way you do. The federal Liberals absolutely gutted health and social transfers in the 90s; cutting them from $18.9 billion in 1993 to $12.5 billion in 1997. But Harper is the bad guy for only increasing transfer payments by 3% per year. Wynne actually made year over year decreases in spending; but Harper is the bad guy for only giving them a 3% increase in funding. You claim that Wynne has work with the hand that was dealt to her; but she got a pretty sweet had compared to the ones dealt to Rae and Harris. She got 6% annual increases in transfers that may drop to only 3%; but Rae and Harris had to deal with a 34% decrease in transfers. And the Liberals have delisted services that were previously covered when the PCs were in power. Health and social transfers increased by a measly 1% between 1993 and 2003. Not 1% each year; 1% for the entire decade! ($18.9 billion in 1993 to $19.1 billion in 2003). But Harper is the bad guy for reducing the annual increase from 6% to 3%. Yes, there is a double standard. There is hardly a peep when Liberals slash spending while people complain about perceived cuts that never even really happened under the Conservatives. As for your other question about whether I would support Trudeau reverting back to 6% annual increases, that would depend on his long term plans. The only funding formula that is indefinitely sustainable is one where funding increases are tied to the growth in GDP. Funding can increase by more than GDP growth on a temporary basis. But doing so means that healthcare funding will continually become a larger and larger portion of the annual GDP and annual budgets. Eventually there will be a point where someone will have to put their foot down and say that if cannot get any bigger (as a % of budget). I can support a short term increase of 6% a year if there is an understanding that this is temporary measure to bring funding up to a higher level. But to have my support for such a move, he would have to communicate the long term plan of how to fund this and what percent of the budget it will be capped at. Canada has not seen any sustained growth in GSD at 6% annually since the 30s. The general trend has been a reductiuon in percentage annual GDP. So we are unlikely to see sustained 6% growth in the future. Like it or not, 6% annual increases cannot continue forever. A responsible government needs to make that clear. Even 3% annual growth (or higher depending on GDP) in funds will not be indefinitely sustainable. They are just sustainable for longer than 6% annual increases.

Maybe not a new low; but low that has been reached before... http://conservativetribune.com/hill-trashes-trump/ http://conservativetribune.com/the-media-loves-joe-bidens-jokes/ http://fightingfortrump.com/hillary-once-suggested-obamas-assassination/

Are you looking for new or used? From what I understand, there are some good deals on used boats over 17'. A lot of people are lookking for boats that will fit in their garage, so the boats over 17' are tough to sell.

My trailer actually does have a light for the plate. It is on the bottom of the frame; I didn't even know it was there until a few minutes ago. Some of the other trailers probably have them to.

There are alternatives. Gary Johnson seems like a reasonable candidate; he is technically a third party candidate rather than an independent. He is polling much better than most third party candidates, which is probably a reflection of Trump and Hillary. The Green party is also running a candidate. There may be others. If there was ever was a year to vote for an independant or third party candidate, this is it.

I think a fish & ski boat would better meet all of your requirements than a pure pleasure boat. If it is a larger boat, I would go with a walk through wind shield. I run my mast out of the front pedestal. A pure pleasure boat may not have places to mount a front pedestal or bow mount.