Democracy Lovers

[Fransisco]

Mustardman, you guys wanted a vote. You got a vote. You lost the vote.

People didn't have to vote for option 2, but they did. It was not a trick, your side did everything they could and spent a semi-load of money trying to get them to vote number 1. It didn't work.

I didn't want a vote I wanted the government and other farmers to respect my inalienable right to my property and your right to yours. I stand by my principles you should stand by yours.

There are far too many monopolists who have no principle or any sense of honour or decency what-so-ever. That is becoming clearer and clearer every day.

The CWB wrote the question for goodness sake, it is the same question as on its surveys. If the CWB thought it wasn't a legitimate question they shouldn't have been asking it year, after year, after year.

Even though you didn't deserve it you got the process you wanted and you lost. Quite your sore loser whining, suck it up, and be a man for once.

[chaffmeister]

It's interesting that it's only the Borg that didn't like option #2.

Can one assume that if you don't understand grain marketing, that you also don't understand simple questions unless they are black/white, yes/no questions? I think there's a study in there somewhere. Someone call Richard Gray.

The Borg didn't like option #2 because the CWB convinced them that it's impossible. It even convinced some its own staff. When discussing recently how the CWB might operate in a choice market, one CWB staffer said, "We'd become just another Toepfer." Just another Toepfer?! For those that are unfamilar, A.C. Toepfer is one of the largest, most successful global traders of a wide variety of bulk commodities - in the world. The CWB would do very well to become "just another Toepfer". But more to the point, Toepfer has shown you don't need to own assets. CWB - take note.

Well, the CWB is wrong about its ability to succeed. Or, its posturing.

Remember Adrian Measner? You know - used to be the CEO of the CWB. Now he's a private citizen trying to be noticed by criss-crossing the country speaking to any group that will have him, extolling the virtues of the CWB while vilifying the Conservative government. (I'm expecting his next move will be to announce his candidacy as a liberal in the next federal election.)

Anyway - Measner said a while back that the CWB could "survive" in a "choice" market in barley. (BTW - to survive, you also need to be effective.) And yet Chairman Ken Bitter says that the CWB can't operate in a dual market and won't even try.

I think I see now why the board of directors were so strongly opposed to Measner's dismissal. They're lost without him.

So who's right? My money's on Measner. The CWB could do many things in a choice market. But I'm thinking if the CWB opts out of the barley market altogether, its not all bad news for the 48.4% that wanted it to be there in a choice market. Just watch - there will be a number of "marketers" emerge that are willing and capable to do just what the CWB is expected to. And competition for your grain is a good thing. Oh yeah, and these marketers won't even have elevators!

Stay tuned.

[parsley]

chaff,

As you say,

"And yet Chairman Ken Bitter says that the CWB can't operate in a dual market and won't even try."

He's better reonsider, or it is grounds for dismissal by the MInister.

The CWB Act states very clearly that the CWB must buy grain the producer offers:

"32. (1) The Corporation shall undertake the marketing of wheat produced in the designated area in interprovincial and export trade and for that purpose shall

(a) buy all wheat produced in the designated area and offered by a producer for sale and delivery to the Corporation at an elevator, in a railway car or at any other place in accordance with this Act and the regulations and orders of the Corporation;"

The Board MUST buy the grain if it is offered. To do otherwise is a breach of the Act.

If Chairman Ritter gives orders to breach the Act the CWB operates under, that is grounds for dismissal.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

And as far as 'skewed' results go, they were skewed in favour of the monopolists.

The 50.6% of farmers in Manitoba who want the monopoly retained account for no more than 4.5% of the barley grown on the prairies, those in Saskatchewan for 19.1% and in Alberta for 7.4%.

So even with one and a half hands tied behind the choice sides back they wiped the floor with you guys.

[mustardman]

Francisco "suck it up and be a man for once"

Step outside you little libertarian-spellchecker.

I don"t give a rats ass if barley went open market or stayed the way it is .

But even YOU LIBERTARIAN Spellchecker Francisco ,know that when it comes to pebiscites different results happen when the question is worded differently.
You don't think it would have been
more democratic to ask 2 questions ??

Then the answer would have been clear

concise and the issue would be over.

But no our vaulted little minister

from B.C has no other issues but stirring the pot.

If his majesty uses this same line of quetions for a wheat plebiscite
you can be damn sure a law suit will follow or maybe just a public hanging

[Fransisco]

Any time mus.

That's your problem, you can't reason your way out of a situation so right away you drop the gloves.

<b>Typical monopolist bully.</b>

It was clear, it was concise, you just didn't like the answer. Tough luck.

Real democracy would have meant respecting the individual and respecting his rights, a vote to take away those rights is the antithesis of democracy it is totalitarianism.

I personally found this whole exercise and the premise it was based on offensive. It is my barley period, not yours, not the collectives, mine period end of sentence.

I don't need a majority of people on my side to know that I am right, it's nice, but that is not the point.

You wanted majority rule,that is your standard, well fine then the majority agrees with me. Be a man and at least live by your standard if you won't let me live by mine.

But you obviously can't, and therefore you aren't.

[Fransisco]

By the way my grammatically challenged monopolist it is spelled,

<b>plebiscites</b> not <b>pebiscites</b>

<b>questions</b> not <b>quetions</b>

and <b>don"t</b> should look like <b>don't</b>.

[parsley]

Garry Breitkreuz 2007 Agriculture Forum will appear on CPAC March 31, April 1 and April 2 (all times Saskatchewan)

Part 1 with Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl will air on March 31 at 9:52 a.m., April 1 at 4:00 a.m., and April 2 11:30 a.m.

Part 2 with Lorne Hepworth (Croplife) and Gordon Bacon (Pulse Canada) will air at a future date and time.

Part 3 with Harry Siemens and John Cross (Agrivision) will air on March 31 at 11:06 a.m., April 1 at 5:20 a.m., and April 2 at 12:15 a.m.

Part 4 with Robert Sopuck (Delta Waterfowl Foundation) and Tamara Weir-Shields, (Environmental Farm Plan/ Farm Stewardship Program) will air on April 1 at 1:45 p.m.

[parsley]

mustardman,

Ralph Goodale is your man for "maybe just a public hanging".

He'll leap in, check his list of border-running rebel farmers, check it twice, and change the legislation, then phone his friends in the RCMP to have them raid the farmer's home, and clang him into a cell. Goodale's got experience, and only needs to requisiton the buying of rope.

Parsley

[mustardman]

FranCrisco

So it is true.

I looked a__hole up in the dictionary and I found your picture.

[mustardman]

Francisco

Get off your high horse.

It was you who started name calling me .
Maybe if "you could be a man for once"

you would apologize.

[Fransisco]

I'm sorry your grammatically challenged.

Maybe you should try a dictionary that's got actual words in it instead of pictures.

[Fransisco]

Hey look at that it worked! I'm going to need the next size up in tight-y white's!

[gregpet]

Mustardman

If you look at the results closely you will see that question #2 had the majority of the votes 48% versus 38% for the single desk. You are correct, they should not lump option #2 and #3 together, but some logical thinking leads me to believe that if option #2 has the majority of the votes that is the clear winner. The fact that it will also make the producers that chose option #3 happy is just a wonderful coincidence.

[rockpile]

Parsley,
Are you suggesting that I could possibly be confrontational? I gotta knock off the Red Bull for sure. You raise a good question, I can't say for sure what the mineral right laws are accross the country. All I know is that land owners are not adequately compensated for the value of what they possess. And, they are not adequately compensated for the intrusion into their ownership of surface rights when evaluated in the long term. Also, there are inconsistencies within Provinces. The bottom line is -you own the grits, they own the gravy. I, along with many others, are working to rectify this injustice. Bottom line, neither you nor Encana invented methane. But, it exists under your land. They have priviledge to mine it with no'ownership rights' of your domain, even though it is under your land. All they need is right of entry. The ownership issue has been cleverly disguised. Makes the wheat board debate miniscule.
Rockpile P.S. Parsley - you blew your cover.