Vagabond Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I should know better by now then to mix something so dirty as politics with something so pure as flyfishing,no good can come of it. I'm clickn the channel back to our regular scheduled programming of discussing "the quiet sport". Adonbi' out...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 WyomingGeorge, Alberta has been held ransom time after time by the Oil Business. Didn't start yesterday. Looking at the history of Turner Valely will explain clearly how Alberta has been shaped. Ever wonder why only the U.S. and Canada allows the Oil business carte blanche. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcubed Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 To note, the navigable waters act (NPA now) does not enact the fisheries act at all due to navigability... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyomingGeorge Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Hi Don: I know we are far apart politically, but I do not believe withholding investment dollars because one fears one will lose it all is holding anything or anyone to ransom. To believe that entails believing that investors in other countries owe us their money. Alberta has been a wonderful place to make an excellent living for millions of people over the decades, thanks largely to the energy industry. The spoils from that industry have enriched the provincial and federal treasuries to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Alberta's GDP is larger than B.C.'s, which has 1 million more people. If that's holding us to ransom, I'm a more than willing hostage. I honestly can't think of a place or a time in the history of civilization when a mere tradesperson could make $150,000 per year and own a house, property, vehicles and innumerable recreational items, and put his/her children through university. An industrial pipefitter in Alberta today lives materially better than my grandparents in Europe, who were of the just-below uppermost class. Bcube: OK, sorry if I mixed up the application of a couple of the laws, you are clearly an expert in this area. But you do know the trend I'm speaking of, surely. It began in the late 1980s with the dispute in Saskatchewan over the Rafferty and Alameda dams, and quickly spread from there. Remember, gents, nothing personal on any level here. Just a discussion, right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhawk12 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Redbeard and I are moving to New Zealand to start a Flyfishing Commune if we go left Federally. We don't have all the kinks ironed out...but bring your guns and rods and work ethic. Hopefully we can get a tax shelter going like the Hutterites do here!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinglibin Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I always vote and am not happy with any party for now. Lately I vote against rather than for. I don't own a gun but believe in th right to do so. If I lived in the country I would buy one in a second. Not that it would help my vote. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyomingGeorge Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 For whatever reason, I thought nearly everyone on the forum was kind of a bit left of centre. Of course, a gun-toting commune sounds rather syncretic, or eclectic, or perhaps just anarchic. Who shall be your crazed, charismatic, quasi-religious leader? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Who shall be your crazed, charismatic, quasi-religious leader? How bout Ted Nugent....or maybe Blaine Anthony?Either way,upon entering the commune,it goes without saying that visitors will be greeted by 3x lifesize statue of Charleton Heston,clutching an AR15 and Colt1911 in his "dead frozen fingers" Molon Labe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 Don't drink the Kool-Aid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgib01 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 BTW....Registration is the first step towards Confiscation. So, you must lie awake at night worrying that the government is going to come and take your truck away (along with your house, marriage and kids). After all, they're all registered with the government, no?! Hate to tell you this, but the gun registry is so far off my "give-a-damn" radar that it would take something awfully radical on either side of the spectrum to make it an election issue for me (and probably the same goes for the other 70+% of non gun owning Canadians). Maybe I'd be more passionate if I was a hunter. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyomingGeorge Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Actually, I can purchase 1,000 vehicles and drive them on my farmland until the end of time and register not one of them, ever. I only have to register a vehicle that will be driven on public roads. But a rusty old .22 hanging from a nail in the barn that would never leave my property and never even be fired again had to be registered with the federal government, egged on by a bunch of people whose open agenda (Allan Rock, quoted in public) was that in a country like Canada, only police and soldiers should have guns. Their agenda, clearly and openly, was confiscation. I don't own a gun, and I never have, but I understand the distinction and the concerns of firearms owners. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 I don't think you can look at it through the lens of "I don't own guns, so I don't care." It really is an issue of civil liberties and policy consistency. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgib01 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I don't think you can look at it through the lens of "I don't own guns, so I don't care." It really is an issue of civil liberties and policy consistency. Meh... I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Me too! Meh... I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyomingGeorge Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 To the guys who say "meh". So then when it's a matter of principle that YOU care about, like say surveillance of phone calls and internet usage, or police forces flying drones over backyards, then the guys on the right get to say "meh"? Did I get that right? If the entire population feels that way, then nothing is a matter of principle any longer. Everything is purely about individual policy preferences. And then we all wake up one day and every freedom we ever had is simply gone because enough people were in favour of chipping away at each individual item. Tyranny has been the default mode of government, in all times and all places. Freedom is the exception. If nobody cares, in fact if people laugh and snort at the idiot who even still uses the word, it goes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgib01 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 To the guys who say "meh". So then when it's a matter of principle that YOU care about, like say surveillance of phone calls and internet usage, or police forces flying drones over backyards, then the guys on the right get to say "meh"? Did I get that right? Nope, sure didn't. My frame of civil liberty is impacted very little by firearm registries or restrictions on the type of firearms one is allowed to legally possess here, hence it not being an election issue for me. Last time I checked, part of my "freedom" was being able to make conscious decisions about what factors are personally most important to weigh when deciding who to cast my ballot for (I think our Charter might say something along those lines in the "fundamentals" section). You go ahead and tell me all you want what you think is an important element of my freedom, and I can choose to agree or disagree... ain't Canada great! BTW, the Supreme Court has disagreed about firearm ownership being a right/freedom in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I sleep quite well knowing that my house,kids, marriage,and vehicles pose no threat to anybody in particular. What does cause me concern is the United Nations agenda that has been in effect for at least 4 decades now,that being an agenda of WORLD disarmament.....with the exception of a New World Order military and police of course. "No Freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is,as a last resort,to protect themselves from tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson As true today as it was 240yrs ago.....maybe more so.....?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 More gold nuggets from Jefferson: "Tyranny is when the people fear the government.Liberty is when the government fears the people." "a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have." Hmmmm...that one^^ seems to perfectly define the NDP/commie ideology.....Orange is The New Red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 More gold nuggets from Jefferson: "Tyranny is when the people fear the government.Liberty is when the government fears the people." "a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have." The balance lies in the middle. I personally do not believe that a government should live in fear of citizens. Making policy based on fear is a poor model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 The balance lies in the middle. I personally do not believe that a government should live in fear of citizens. Making policy based on fear is a poor model. Given....let's change that to "when government RESPECTS the people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgib01 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Given....let's change that to "when government RESPECTS the people. Messin' with Jefferson quotes... Dave, they are gonna take your NFA card away for that one! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.