Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, December 16 2008 Volume 12 : Number 807 In this issue: U.S.: ACT NOW TO REJECT CON CON- News with Views *NFR* RE: "Don't Talk to the Cops" Re: economic stimulus 'An Inconvenient Truth' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:49:24 -0500 From: "mred" Subject: U.S.: ACT NOW TO REJECT CON CON- News with Views *NFR* http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin480.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:51:28 -0500 From: TONY KATZ Subject: RE: "Don't Talk to the Cops" the simplest thing to remember is you have the right to remain silent, use it! >; Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:26:24 +0000 >; From:= roger@rope.net >; To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca >; Sub= ject: Re: "Don't Talk to the Cops" >; >; There are actually a series of videos, though somewhat repetitive >; (i.e. smaller clips of the original two). It is a classroom setting for >; new lawyers, with one speaker (law instructor) stating the subject, and a >; cop who basically says "What he said," and gives examples of whathe does. >; >; I've been a peace officer with the military and R.C.M.P. (many >; years ago), and I can tell you that they are no more honest than the rest >; of the population. Plus, there is the issue that some seek out such >; positions of power to make it easier for them to be bad guys. So, while >; the cop in the video insists that he only tries to put the bad guys away, >; that doesn't mean that all cops do. >; >; My take is that there are some minor differences in U.S. and >; Canadian legal systems, but there might be something to simply handing the >; cops a card that reads "Do to the risks of being charged and convicted for >; misunderstood or misinterpreted statements, I will only speak to the >; police as a witness who has been given immunity from prosecution regarding >; any aspect of this case. This must be confirmed by my lawyer." >; >; I'm sure there could be improvements, and I'm sure it would be a >; good idea to pass it by a lawyer... >; >; -- >; Roger Walker >; ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:41:21 -0500 From: "mred" Subject: Re: economic stimulus Now heres an educated persons slant on the whole situation and I couldn't agree more. ed/on - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Jasper" To: "Canadian Firearms Digest" Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:46 PM Subject: Re: economic stimulus > Just a quick stab at Mike's question: > >> Would someone please explain to me how taking tax dollars from >> people, skimming a sizable portion of the top for "expenses", then >> giving what remains to failing companies to artificially support >> their untenable business plans is going to stimulate the economy. > > Only a few thoughts: > > Darn good point. But there are cases, like Chrysler in the U.S., where > the investment paid off and Chrysler survived. But alas, like many other > auto co's, it didn't change its product lines fast enough to beat this > last wave of spiking energy costs. That's why today the Americans and > Canada are saying, "Show us your business plan." (Remember it was George > W. a couple of weeks back who was thwarted with his desire to hand over > $700 Billion to financial institutions, no strings attached). > > The view is that if the U.S. doesn't invest Trillions in troubled > companies we'll have a world-wide recession deeper and lengthier than > the Great Depression. Is it Iceland that's officially declared bankruptcy? > >> If ever we needed less controls and less taxation, it is now. > > I'd bet that if every corporate exec, small business person, > tradesperson, etc. was 'ethical' we wouldn't need regulations (controls) > to prevent Listeria from contaminating packaged meats, to keep > inordinate amounts of lead paint off babies soothers, stop folks from > running $50 Bil ponzi schemes, mfg. brake linings that disintegrate the > first time you need to stop, butchering and selling meat from downer and > YES, even 'dead' cattle or packaging sub-prime mortgages behind credible > looking paper investments which are in turn purchased by hungry banks > looking to maximize profits. > > Bottom line, too many folks are looking for an 'edge' through which they > continuously lower costs while increasing profits - to the point where > they 'cut corners' in a manner which only benefits the profiteer and > negatively impacts society. > > There's already quite a bit written about how the deregulation of, > especially, the U.S. financial sector contributed to the current > world-wide collapse. > > So folks clamber for protection from such behaviours. More regulations > result. It's already happened in the U.S. financial sector. > > As far as the 'less taxation' issue. Despite the claims of many I've yet > to find (as a recent article I posted to the CFD) > >> People can't be bribed into spending >> >> From Monday's Globe and Mail; December 15, 2008 >> >>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081214.weconsum > ption15/BNStory/Front > > cases which 'prove' to have a positive effect on the economy. From all > my reading, the 'tickle down' benefits of cutting taxes to large > corporations has not turned many of the dividends claimed. > > In fact it's this 'race for the bottom' that leads to moving production > facilities to tax free zones and capital to off shore tax havens - > meanwhile you and I pay accelerating taxes to make up the shortfall. > > The case was made in the article about how cutting taxes to individuals > likewise was largely not spent on new purchases. > > I can write about how some years back in Ontario we cut taxes (tho I > don't recall that we needed to stimulate the economy) and within a few > years lacked the money to pay for many gov't services that tax payers > really wanted. The response was to cut some services and download others > with their costs on to the municipalities. The other wedge in this > scheme was the forced amalgamation of many municipalities to benefit > from 'economies of scale.' Now many of the municipalities are in > financial straights. Within a few years the same gov't needed to borrow > money to pay for services under its mandate - because it no longer had > the financial resources to do so. > > Martin and Chretien downloaded on the provinces and the provinces > downloaded on the municipalities. > > Somewhere, the theory of contributing what one is capable enough and > driven enough to contribute - and taking out of society what one > reasonably needs to sustain oneself has got lost in the mania to acquire > assets and wealth to unbelievable proportions. > > The mania for regulatory controls is perhaps a 'collective' method by > society (through elected gov'ts) to enforce a 'conscience' upon those > who would not willingly behave responsibly and ethically. > > Interestingly, in these times, private investors, holders of RRSPs and > pensions, etc. are also reminding the gov't. prepared to bail out the > financial institutions with our tax dollars, that we the tax generators > have also suffered and it was not yourself and I who bought up sub-prime > mortgages at a discount to pad our balance sheet. > > Just some thoughts. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:03:17 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: 'An Inconvenient Truth' [I'm reminded of the movie; I think it's called being 'true' to your word, Mr. Harper, even when it pinches. It's a fundamental tenant of the CPC; what the 'other side' might do is irrelevant. Sort of like 'repealing' Ch. 39. Darned fool shoots himself in the foot in the H of C and gets called by the Opposition and now he's making new rules on the fly]. Senate appointments 'the only option,' says PM By KATHLEEN HARRIS; 16th December 2008 > http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008/12/16/7763521-sun.html Prime Minister Stephen Harper has defended his plan to stack the Senate with loyal Tories, insisting it's a necessary evil to ensure an un-elected coalition doesn't do the picking. In an interview with CTV's Atlantic affiliate yesterday, Harper said he's seen no willingness to budge on Senate reform. Requests provinces hold elections and a reform bill have yielded no results. "It's the only option. There is no prospect for electing these senators in the near term. There's none," he said. "So the option is do we appoint them -- the government that people elected -- or do we allow an un-elected coalition to appoint them?" Harper called it a "sad day" because he never wanted to make Senate appointments. But he said it's the right thing to do under the circumstances -- and now he's getting "deluged" with calls from wannabe members to the red chamber. Currently, there are 59 Liberals and 20 Conservatives in the Senate. NDP Leader Jack Layton fired off a letter demanding the PM wait until Parliament resumes in January to fill the 18 vacancies. "You have often stated ... you would not appoint any new senators until that body becomes truly representative," he wrote. "Why then, Prime Minister, would you choose to make 18 costly and undemocratic patronage appointments in this time of unprecedented economic crisis?" ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V12 #807 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:drg.jordan@sasktel.net List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)