Jump to content

Upcoming Canadian Election


zumpano21

Recommended Posts

I love political threads since they lead too nothing. We all have our beliefs and ideologies. I doubt that even one poster will influence another in any way shape or form. So, it's down to mud slinging :rolleyes:

After all, right or wrong; "Where there is no understanding, there is no explanation possible. Where there is understanding, there is no explanation neccessary."

héhé you're right. But I don't get why people still place the economic issue above the environment. Yes you will save 1000$ a year with a 1% tax cut, but damn, take that 1% from everybody and put it in a freaking green plan ! Let's at least TRY to save the world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

héhé you're right. But I don't get why people still place the economic issue above the environment. Yes you will save 1000$ a year with a 1% tax cut, but damn, take that 1% from everybody and put it in a freaking green plan ! Let's at least TRY to save the world...

I agree. There's a lot of mud slinging about the green plan, but I think most people don't understand it yet. I include myself in that, which is something I'll try to rectify before casting my vote!

However, in principle, I agree with the concept that there has to be economic incentives for environmentally sound choices (which also take the form of disincentives for poor environmental choices). There will be no progress without it. So, I appreciate that Dion has put a policy out, to be reviewed and debated. As you indicate, Harper has only criticized, but has no particular policy of his own (presumably, it's status quo).

We must make sure, however, that the effect of Dion's plan (or any other plan) does not result in Canada being disadvantaged in terms of competing with the rest of the world, and this is my biggest concern. Canada, as a mid-sized economy, shouldn't necessarily 'show the world the way' by shooting itself in the foot economically while others prosper. That's why my first inclination is that Dion's plan, while perhaps a praiseworthy initiative, might be tackling an issue better dealt with at the international level, where all the major economies and major polluters can agree to a somewhat fair framework. I realize this might be a pipe dream, but real environmental progress will not happen without a world plan with accompanying economic enforcement methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. There's a lot of mud slinging about the green plan, but I think most people don't understand it yet. I include myself in that, which is something I'll try to rectify before casting my vote!

However, in principle, I agree with the concept that there has to be economic incentives for environmentally sound choices (which also take the form of disincentives for poor environmental choices). There will be no progress without it. So, I appreciate that Dion has put a policy out, to be reviewed and debated. As you indicate, Harper has only criticized, but has no particular policy of his own (presumably, it's status quo).

We must make sure, however, that the effect of Dion's plan (or any other plan) does not result in Canada being disadvantaged in terms of competing with the rest of the world, and this is my biggest concern. Canada, as a mid-sized economy, shouldn't necessarily 'show the world the way' by shooting itself in the foot economically while others prosper. That's why my first inclination is that Dion's plan, while perhaps a praiseworthy initiative, might be tackling an issue better dealt with at the international level, where all the major economies and major polluters can agree to a somewhat fair framework. I realize this might be a pipe dream, but real environmental progress will not happen without a world plan with accompanying economic enforcement methods.

I totally agree that Canada needs a "green plan" but it must be a smart green plan. Like you said, we can't just institute a bunch of noble policies at the expense of our economy.

If there was not a price to pay for energy reform it would be already done. I like the idea of Dion's carbon tax but I don't think we are ready yet. We need more technology and a better study of the economic impact.

With the price of energy, everyone in every industry (except oil!) has a huge incentive to do business in a green way. If truckers had the ability to use alternative fuels or cut their diesel consumption they would.

The Conservatives really haven't laid out an environmental platform yet for this election. If you think that is because they don't have one then you are fooling yourself. It is one of the top issues if not the top issue in this election and they will not ignore it.

Edited by Prime Minister Koivu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree that Canada needs a "green plan" but it must be a smart green plan. Like you said, we can't just institute a bunch of noble policies at the expense of our economy.

If there was not a price to pay for energy reform it would be already done. I like the idea of Dion's carbon tax but I don't think we are ready yet. We need more technology and a better study of the economic impact.

With the price of energy, everyone in every industry (except oil!) has a huge incentive to do business in a green way. If truckers had the ability to use alternative fuels or cut their diesel consumption they would.

The Conservatives really haven't laid out an environmental platform yet for this election. If you think that is because they don't have one then you are fooling yourself. It is one of the top issues if not the top issue in this election and they will not ignore it.

after so many years as the government, we are allowed to at least doubt.

Edited by JoeLassister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get pissed when I hear people pushing ineffective "green" policies that accomplish nothing. THAT should piss you off even more then someone doing nothing.

I ask you what's better: do nothing or pretend to do something and charge everyone based on the pretense?

I probably work on sustainable initiatives more then 98% of the people on this board. I experience highly ineffective government policies every day. I see ridiculous sums of money being spent by governments to their friends based on fake numbers for fake efficiency gains. Most of these programs are provinical programs...and I've seen them in BC, Ontario, Quebec and NB. Guess what, those are left wing provincial governments running out ineffective "green" programs.

Yes, this is a world problem. Canada is 1% of that. Yeah, we all need to do our part. BUT, if the US, China, India and Russia say piss off on the issue we are only going to kill our economy, lose jobs and go through significant inflation in the process. That would just be the eptiome of lunacy. YOU may want to see manufacturing jobs disappear, increased poverty, etc, etc...and hey, the left wing types would probably love to throw even more money and programs at it...maybe that's their ultimate plan afterall...lol.

Canada needs a balanced approach.

The Liberals have already changed their plan to excuse some major emitters. How serious are they?

The Greens could ONLY run on this issue so you can't have them govern on anything else.

The NDP would just throw money at problems, run huge deficits and increase protectionism for it's union friends. We'd have the worst of all worlds with them in power...ineffective policies, protectionist economics, huge overspending on ineffective social programs, overpayments to union contractors, etc...

The Conservatives MAY (we don't know yet) do less then all of them but RIGHT NOW that's the more balanced approach given the global stance on the issue. They were right to NOT sign onto any world treaty and piss on Kyoto. However, I would like to see them truly commit time and resources to get ALL the major countries to sign a WORKABLE agreement, even if it's a small step in the right direction. THEN we can start leading by example. Till then, we'd just be cutting off our nose to spite our face. They need to take the same diplomatic approach that Canada took in helping to pioneer the UN...get workable agreements and build on that.

The bulk of money on this issue should be going to company and university research programs to develop VIABLE, sustainable, breakthrough technologies. I see politicians running around trying to buy technology that doesn't work as advertised but helps to buy the green vote...LED's, poorly applied Solar tech, badly abused rebate programs, allowing people who know nothing about an industry to write the programs, etc. But hey, it's all good PR to the voters who don't know any better. In many applications these government programs have made things worse but they play with numbers, shuffle them around and voila one department shows improvement.

I recently watched an environmental engineer, who knows NOTHING about lighting, write a policy report for an oil sands company. This is without any understanding of the customers applications and it generalized badly. One of their primary references was from an astronomical society whose agenda is based on star gazing and the spill light that limits their ability to see stars. Their "policy" discusses how they should put more light down...a "common sense" approach that ignores a few facts: that their design increases safety risks; that this is in the middle of nowhere; and, most importantly, that they will require more poles and fixtures and therefore more energy, steel, concrete, etc (not to mention the emissions created making the additional required units) and thus a net NEGATIVE environmental impact. THIS is what happens when people who know nothing about a topic are writing the policies. Guess what, this oil sands company, like the government, will implement the policy because it will give them good PR which they badly need...and in all likelihood they'll think their doing the right thing since that's what they paid this engineer to do...woops...seemed like a good idea in our hyper idealogy to save the world NOW.

Anyone get this far? LOL

Edited by Zowpeb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is a world problem. Canada is 1% of that. Yeah, we all need to do our part. BUT, if the US, China, India and Russia say piss off on the issue we are only going to kill our economy, lose jobs and go through significant inflation in the process. That would just be the eptiome of lunacy. YOU may want to see manufacturing jobs disappear, increased poverty, etc, etc...and hey, the left wing types would probably love to throw even more money and programs at it...maybe that's their ultimate plan afterall...lol.

You are definitely right. We must wait another 5 years before China start to care about environment when they will have finish their economic ascension. Oh and wait, another 10 years because it will be India after... By waiting for the other big countries to jump in the wagon, these 4 you named are slowly killing the vibe that should have start 10 years ago. I get way more pissed at countries who don't give a shit than the small 1% countries who actually cares and try to go in the right way. At least, when a government give a shit, that can lead the people to give a shit on their own.

Why would I buy an hybride car or start composting? Why should I believe in a green plan à la Kyoto? My government said it was just a socialist plot anyway.

What pisses me even more is to learn that the electric cars manufactures and related patents were at some point all bought by the big oil and cars industrials. Consequence : slowing down the research to get more money. This world need to break the chains that hold it at the big oil lobbyists. Same with cigarets by the way.

And when I think about this ######er, Richard Branson, and his Virgin Galactic, that is the most stupid thing you can do to this planet. How far can you go to pollute? Burn more fuel, burn more, more, more !

Actually, the way the world, not only Canada, the whole world, think and care about environment pisses me off. Maybe we should start a WW3, a good reason to wait another 5-10 years before investing into environment, at least the economy will be in its prime !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are definitely right. We must wait another 5 years before China start to care about environment when they will have finish their economic ascension. Oh and wait, another 10 years because it will be India after... By waiting for the other big countries to jump in the wagon, these 4 you named are slowly killing the vibe that should have start 10 years ago. I get way more pissed at countries who don't give a shit than the small 1% countries who actually cares and try to go in the right way. At least, when a government give a shit, that can lead the people to give a shit on their own.

Why would I buy an hybride car or start composting? Why should I believe in a green plan à la Kyoto? My government said it was just a socialist plot anyway.

What pisses me even more is to learn that the electric cars manufactures and related patents were at some point all bought by the big oil and cars industrials. Consequence : slowing down the research to get more money. This world need to break the chains that hold it at the big oil lobbyists. Same with cigarets by the way.

And when I think about this ######er, Richard Branson, and his Virgin Galactic, that is the most stupid thing you can do to this planet. How far can you go to pollute? Burn more fuel, burn more, more, more !

Actually, the way the world, not only Canada, the whole world, think and care about environment pisses me off. Maybe we should start a WW3, a good reason to wait another 5-10 years before investing into environment, at least the economy will be in its prime !

I get your points and your passion but what cost are you willing to pay?

We are talking about a depression here not a recession. Our economy will not only stumble, it will collapse.

Big environmental changes need to happen first at the grass roots level. When the majority of the population starts making green choices and living the green lifestyle then business will respond. Supply and demand.

Most people just like to talk about it though and leave the work up to someone else. How many would actually start taking the bus to work instead of driving for example? Not many, only the hardcore, the excuses will flow.

It is a big issue that has been turned in to a shit-storm by the media. People need to put up or shut up.

(I am in no way suggesting that you are one of these people)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your points and your passion but what cost are you willing to pay?

We are talking about a depression here not a recession. Our economy will not only stumble, it will collapse.

Big environmental changes need to happen first at the grass roots level. When the majority of the population starts making green choices and living the green lifestyle then business will respond. Supply and demand.

Most people just like to talk about it though and leave the work up to someone else. How many would actually start taking the bus to work instead of driving for example? Not many, only the hardcore, the excuses will flow.

It is a big issue that has been turned in to a shit-storm by the media. People need to put up or shut up.

(I am in no way suggesting that you are one of these people)

For now, i'm talking about the 1% of TPS they cut to be elected last time, is it THAT exagerated ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are definitely right. We must wait another 5 years before China start to care about environment when they will have finish their economic ascension. Oh and wait, another 10 years because it will be India after... By waiting for the other big countries to jump in the wagon, these 4 you named are slowly killing the vibe that should have start 10 years ago. I get way more pissed at countries who don't give a shit than the small 1% countries who actually cares and try to go in the right way. At least, when a government give a shit, that can lead the people to give a shit on their own.

Why would I buy an hybride car or start composting? Why should I believe in a green plan à la Kyoto? My government said it was just a socialist plot anyway.

What pisses me even more is to learn that the electric cars manufactures and related patents were at some point all bought by the big oil and cars industrials. Consequence : slowing down the research to get more money. This world need to break the chains that hold it at the big oil lobbyists. Same with cigarets by the way.

And when I think about this ######er, Richard Branson, and his Virgin Galactic, that is the most stupid thing you can do to this planet. How far can you go to pollute? Burn more fuel, burn more, more, more !

Actually, the way the world, not only Canada, the whole world, think and care about environment pisses me off. Maybe we should start a WW3, a good reason to wait another 5-10 years before investing into environment, at least the economy will be in its prime !

Look, it's not about creating delays. It's about putting some realism into the hysteria that is being created. There is no sense running around with our hands in the air screaming and buying any "green washed" product people throw at you. I said they need to work on creating workable, attainable solutions that they can get everyone to agree on...incremental change. Get everyone on board and slowly create changes so that we get where we want to be...this "you gotta cut 30% of your emissions in 10-15 years even though your population is growing" is just BS. Make it 20 years and make it a 15% drop, trust me, the world isn't going to blow up in that time...then you start adding incrementally to improve that 15% over the timeframe. Then get governments to make informed, smart policy decisions that are uncompromising and based on useage rather then technology...BUT also fund a lot of tech research...let the viable techs work themselves out.

What is the point of the "vibe" when 65% of the worlds population, and probably more in emissions, live in those 4 countries and are not on-board with the changes?

If you could get them to sign a working agreement to cut 10% of their emissions in the next 12 years the world would be FAR better off then if Canada cut it's ENTIRE emissions. That is the legacy that I want to see our politicians striving to acheive RIGHT NOW...get these big countries to start doing something. In the interim, it makes no sense to KILL ourselves and weaken our position to positively influence the world...and yes our economy is a big part of that. Our population and emissions are like throwing a pebble in the ocean, those 4 countries ARE the ocean. Get them to commit to some changes and start there.

You don't care about economics on this issue but that's just being blind to reality. Old, inefficient technology is CHEAP (compare an incandescent lamp to a CFL lamp in price). If people and business are taxed to death, prices of everything are rising, manufacturing starts fleeing the country costing jobs then a ruined economy will mean people will not be able to afford this great "green" technology and WILL buy the old inefficient tech, drive cars longer, not upgrade to efficient appliances, HVAC, water systems, etc, etc...if the government prods it into those industries slowly the current grass roots demand will grow into main stream demands and the economy will "shift" to become greener on it's own. Without the Liberals killing the steam by taxing it.

Do you realise that much of the carbon footprint required to make "green tech" is just as bad or worse then the old technology?

Do you also realise that, in many cases, this represents the biggest part of that products carbon footprint?

These are the kinds of issues that get ignored when people are running around like chickens that have no heads...something you are dangerously close to sounding like...

Edited by Zowpeb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could get them to sign a working agreement to cut 10% of their emissions in the next 12 years the world would be FAR better off then if Canada cut it's ENTIRE emissions. That is the legacy that I want to see our politicians striving to acheive RIGHT NOW...get these big countries to start doing something. In the interim, it makes no sense to KILL ourselves and weaken our position to positively influence the world...and yes our economy is a big part of that.

Why to KILL ourselves?? Could we just invest more money in the research by the time the rest of the ocean agree on a plan ? But this is why I hate the economic issue on this. I think these countries don't realise yet that it will be more expensive in 12 years than it is now, in terms of diseases, pollution, etc.

I understand China and very soon India want to reach their full economic potential before thinking ecologic. Personnaly, I just think it is a low blow to the humanity.

You don't care about economics on this issue but that's just being blind to reality. Old, inefficient technology is CHEAP (compare an incandescent lamp to a CFL lamp in price). If people and business are taxed to death, prices of everything are rising, manufacturing starts fleeing the country costing jobs then a ruined economy will mean people will not be able to afford this great "green" technology and WILL buy the old inefficient tech, drive cars longer, not upgrade to efficient appliances, HVAC, water systems, etc, etc...if the government prods it into those industries slowly the current grass roots demand will grow into main stream demands and the economy will "shift" to become greener on it's own. Without the Liberals killing the steam by taxing it.

What I don't understand is that the green technology is not growing up at the same speed as digital, electronic, aerospace engineering, cars, etc.

A few years ago, HD tv arrive and a 32' was like 1800$. Now it is 800$ some 3-4 years later. Why wouldn't it be the same with ecologic tech ? As you say, If at a certain point, the cheapest and inefficient tech on the market is more ecologic than what we have right now, it is a step in the right way IMO. Why would we have to wait 10 years to start this process ?

What i am affraid of, and hope i'm wrong on this, is that these ecologic tech will come from Exxon. I'm affraid, and it is fair enough to be so, that big oil multi-national hold it in terms of Eco research. I accuse them to slowing down the process since 10-12 years now. These companies have the biggest and most influents lobbies in the world. The major way of transport being the car, they are economicaly right to act so, but this is a disgusting practice when you think about it from the environment point of view. And their oil is a big part of other products, plastic being the most important. I remember a few years ago when environmentalists were talking about eliminating plastic bags in grocery shops, lobbyists were screaming "People will have to PAY FOR THEIR eco-friendly bags". People backed down. Found out 3-4 years later that these eco bags cost 1$ piece!!!!

Do you realise that much of the carbon footprint required to make "green tech" is just as bad or worse then the old technology?

Do you also realise that, in many cases, this represents the biggest part of that products carbon footprint?

These are the kinds of issues that get ignored when people are running around like chickens that have no heads...something you are dangerously close to sounding like...

Does it sound like a headless chicken if I ask why it will be different in 12 years ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why to KILL ourselves?? Could we just invest more money in the research by the time the rest of the ocean agree on a plan ? But this is why I hate the economic issue on this. I think these countries don't realise yet that it will be more expensive in 12 years than it is now, in terms of diseases, pollution, etc.

I understand China and very soon India want to reach their full economic potential before thinking ecologic. Personnaly, I just think it is a low blow to the humanity.

What I don't understand is that the green technology is not growing up at the same speed as digital, electronic, aerospace engineering, cars, etc.

A few years ago, HD tv arrive and a 32' was like 1800$. Now it is 800$ some 3-4 years later. Why wouldn't it be the same with ecologic tech ? As you say, If at a certain point, the cheapest and inefficient tech on the market is more ecologic than what we have right now, it is a step in the right way IMO. Why would we have to wait 10 years to start this process ?

What i am affraid of, and hope i'm wrong on this, is that these ecologic tech will come from Exxon. I'm affraid, and it is fair enough to be so, that big oil multi-national hold it in terms of Eco research. I accuse them to slowing down the process since 10-12 years now. These companies have the biggest and most influents lobbies in the world. The major way of transport being the car, they are economicaly right to act so, but this is a disgusting practice when you think about it from the environment point of view. And their oil is a big part of other products, plastic being the most important. I remember a few years ago when environmentalists were talking about eliminating plastic bags in grocery shops, lobbyists were screaming "People will have to PAY FOR THEIR eco-friendly bags". People backed down. Found out 3-4 years later that these eco bags cost 1$ piece!!!!

Does it sound like a headless chicken if I ask why it will be different in 12 years ???

You can, and should, start developing the technology bases...and note these are not all around oil and gas. I believe I said exactly this...spend our money on supporting R&D. China, India and the US are looking at countries that are trying to tell them they have to implement emission cuts that are below current levels at an insane amount. China and India will never meet that target with the level of growth expected from their populations...if someone said I want you to pay me $1,000,000 by next year and you only make $30,000 you will just ignore them. Targets need to be manageable and workable...and the holier then thou movement just isn't going to convince them.

You want to know why your TV dropped in price...mass consumption and production on a wide scale. You have to have enough people buying the technology AFTER it starts to prove it's value. So much green tech is unproven and unreliable so no one will spend the money on it yet. The technology in these TV's has been around for decades...but it's only been viable in this application for the last 10 years and pricing has gone from $10K to $800 as it became proven, reliable and consumption increased accordingly. It's simply economics...you decry economics but the reality is that sound economic principles can make the green movement a reality. Look at CFL lamps...prices have dropped dramatically compared to 15 years ago when the tech wasn't really ready and had problems. People jumped on-board with CFL's and they had high failure rates, poor light quality, caused fires, etc...so everyone stopped buying them. Then about 3-5 years after that they became pretty viable but no one trusted them. NOW people are finally going back, prices are dropping, technology works...and it's taken an additional 7-10 years for that adoption to really start happening. The green movement in it's rush to fix the world now actually hurt themselves by pushing things that aren't yet viable.

The supposed next green saviour in my field is LED lamps. An incandescent replacement can cost as much as $60...though the tech isn't fully ready yet. I was at a municipal event where the number 1 question I heard about was "how can I buy LED lighting for my city?"...after explaining how you could use current tech to save as much energy with more reliable quality people didn't want to hear it because it's not the current green "buzzword". There are hundreds of off-shore guys who are offering gimmicks that are laughable the technology is so bad...people are still buying it. Why? Because Al Gore told them we'd have an ice age in the next 25 years...despite the fact the worlds median temperature hasn't changed since ~1997.

I fully agree that this is a generational issue that needs addressed. It's just not worth rushing headlong and blindly. If it's done right the first time with viable technologies it will actually help to be implemented faster. That's my point. Effective legislation, good economics, diplomacy and reasonable, attainable targets will push the green movement further, faster, then any hardline push that we are now seeing so often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The single biggest problem with the Green Plan? Too much too fast. It isn't too much of a leap to believe that, down the road, most governments will eventually take this route either by choice or necessity. Trying to shove everything down the collective Canadian throat at once, though, won't work either. You're preaching a plan of this magnitude to one of the worst abusing countries in the world environmentally - and you want them to turn it upside down in one term of government? Politics just doesn't work that way (sadly).

Anyhow, that Green Plan would be hard-pressed to get past a first reading. Let's be honest, the car companies, oil companies, and other un-green elements out there are rich because we use carbon. The philosophy there is that they'll make as much as they can as long as they can regardless because, in the end, it doesn't matter a whit to these older fellas what's left of the planet when they die. Cynical, but a whole lot of truth in there.

Look what happened in California with the EV1 (electric car). Worked fine, perfectly useful for the average person, and GM took the cars back and destroyed them. Why? Ultimately because it would have cut the throat of their main business, which was selling gas cars. The profit margin was just too small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone who wonders if the media in this country actually promotes an unbiased agenda I present you with this:

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/499724

But wait, you say, that's the comments section of the Editorial pages, people are just speaking their mind...I can tell you that, on-line, the majority of comments after most articles in The Star are fairly conservative. The comments in this link are chosen at the discretion of the editorial board for The Star.

In their chosen letters you can read the hysteria that people are attempting to spread about Harper...let me see if I can list most of them:

- he's a right wing extremist

- he's a threat to health care and social programs

- hurt the environment

- attack culture

- create a corporate welfare state

- create a "belligerant" foreign policy over our current peacekeeping role

- butcher democracy

- disintegrate hundreds of years of socially concious legislation --> (this is hilarious if you think about it really...)

- health care will come to pieces

- health insurance will come out of the woodwork

- gays will have to go back to the closets

- gay marriage will be dissolved

- judges will be appointed on religious beliefs

- water will be lost to the US

- the abolition of the Crown and GG

- the death penalty will be brought back

- abortion outlawed, even when raped

- oil polluters will have free reign

- economy will be in the red

- he is a front for big business

- Harper is a pathological liar

- Harper wants to turn Canada into a US state

- two tier health care

There was not one positive Conservative letter chosen by the Editorial board despite almost every comment made at the end of articles being of a pro-Conservative nature. This list was compiled from 21 letters they chose. Only 1 article actually presented an intelligent, balanced response that essentially states the Conservatives and Liberals both play centrist politics.

THIS is how the media trys to change elections.

If I understand this correctly: Harper has already apparently destroyed democracy even though he had a minority government. Of course, it's really the Conservatives fault that the opposition Liberals didn't want to stop him, right?

Since he had this all encompassing power why didn't he just push through some of those items above???

Oh wait, they couldn't actually report that the above list is all last ditch desperation to try and smear the real Conservative agenda...which would simply be governing for the majority of Canadians...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their chosen letters you can read the hysteria that people are attempting to spread about Harper......
Ha ha. I love it. I get a real kick out of people. I live in Halifax. Certainly not Harper country. The Atlantic Accord plus some of Harper's earlier career comments about Atlantic Canadians doesn't ensure him any Christmas or birthday cards from this part of the country. So, I quite familiar with his "boogeyman" reputation.

Most of what fears people about Harper is a vocal rant culled (as you've listed Zowpeb) into a giant soup of misinformation. I already posted this earlier on a different board. I asked how Harper was directly tied to Bush as it relates to Canada and how it tranlates to pro-Bush policy as it applies in Canada. Once again, I received this "soup" of gobbledygook in responses.

When Harper compelled Parliament to extend the mission in Afghanistan he also made it clear at that time that this was the maximum extension much to the disappointment of Bush. Bush quitly pressured Harper to reconsider. However, Mr. Harper held his decision. A decision that had me smiling and believing that the PM was doing what is best for Canada. Harper DID NOT cowtow to Bush.

Now, ask any person who holds the Bush/Harper are one in the same opinion and I guarantee they were sleeping when this took place. It staggers me that when Harper does something positive, it's missed but when something smells all you hear is, "See, Harper is a...". What is this? The self serving bias (a condition learned about in psychology) gone bad? That is, if I do something positive it's my doing and I'm great. If I do something bad, it's your fault. So too with Harper. That is, if he does something positive it's the Liberals or NDP who did all this wonderful stuff over 13 years. If something stinks after ONLY 2 1/2 years in power, it's evil Steven Harper.

So many little things add up to this. It staggers me that people who don't like him do not know him. For crying out loud, some people think he's from Calgary. Wrong. He attended to University of Calgary and was a member of the National Citizens Coalition out there but he's from Toronto. He was born in Toronto. This is one of the misconceptions about him.

At least there is some sane management going on $40 billion paid down in debt over 2 1/2 years versus an average of 8 to 10 billion a year by the Grits. By paying down the debt and utilizing proper liberal fiscal policy we can keep the country relatively stable where the economy is concerned. Lots of people don't like debt reduction but we now at least have a good rainy day fund.

It certainly is far more refreshing than having a party boast it'll give health care dollars and all sorts of goodies to Canadians while at the same time taxing corporations. Many leftists don't like corporate tax cuts. They'd rather penalize them.

So, let's say (as an example) you open a medium sized business in Rhode Island and you employ 3 people. Suddenly the US government decides to tax medium sized businesses and it doesn't allow you to function. You then have the opportunity to move home to Canada where it's more affordable.

Sorry USA, That's another business that has left and those 3 people who were employed are now out of a job. Too bad the taxes were too high.

But, we would all love to live in a world of make-believe. With flowers and bells and leprechauns. And magic frogs with funny little hats where there's a big giant vault of cash buried deep below the Houses of Parliament.

In reality, money is generated by GDP and GNP. The thrust of which is created by commerce. You have to pay for what you buy.

I finish this rant off with an admission and it's obvious. Taxing corporations and minimizing the tax burden on the middle and lower class is effective too. Nothing is an absolute. Whether or not you believe in conservative or liberal fiscal or monetary policy is irrelevant. A good government knows when to employ policy that best suits the situation. If an industry is an trouble, a fiscal policy might be best as a bailout. Maybe the economy could use monetary policy with cuts. At the end of the day the economy is an instrument which is difficult to navigate.

A bad government is one that believes in fiscal policy and infrastructure without any hint of raising taxes. A bad government is one that believes in fiscal policy while taxing the economic engine that generates money. Or, I'll put it this way: if money actually grew on trees and there was such a thing as a money tree - you don't chop it down and kill it for firewood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their chosen letters you can read the hysteria that people are attempting to spread about Harper...let me see if I can list most of them:

- he's a right wing extremist bah

- he's a threat to health care and social programs I don't think so

- hurt the environment already done as Greenpeace gave them a F for their program while other parties were giving between C- and B+

- attack culture already done by cuting the subventions to pieces of art that doesn't fit THEIR values.

- create a corporate welfare state

- create a "belligerant" foreign policy over our current peacekeeping role seems like they try hard to get there

- butcher democracy not sending their members to parliamentary committes and claiming that the parliament can't run because of opposition

- disintegrate hundreds of years of socially concious legislation --> (this is hilarious if you think about it really...)

- health care will come to pieces I don' think so

- health insurance will come out of the woodwork

- gays will have to go back to the closets can easily replace it by - gays rights could have to step back a little

- gay marriage will be dissolved can easily replace that by : gay marriage could be dissolved

- judges will be appointed on religious beliefs that just can't happen as they will lost their government straight up

- water will be lost to the US :lol:the one who sent this letter is funny

- the abolition of the Crown and GG If that means that Michaëlle Jean's job would be eliminated, then this would be the best thing ever done by a government

- the death penalty will be brought back I don't think so

- abortion outlawed, even when raped If religious lobbyists say so, they try to go further with Bill C-484

- oil polluters will have free reign they already have

- economy will be in the red bah, no.

- he is a front for big business every government who is not socialist is a front for big business somehow

- Harper is a pathological liar :lol:

- Harper wants to turn Canada into a US state :lol:

- two tier health care bah, even provinces could manage to get this done, health care would become a business and it sucks, but it has nothing to do with Harper directly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Environment? :lol:

The Conservatives are a joke on the silly issue that few truly care about. It has got to be the most hypocritical issue out there. Now, I'm not talking about the diehards or the true believers. I'm referring to those people that talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

I'm also tired of people complaining all the time about it. Go join a social awareness group. Donate money. Join the Liberal party if you're ticked off. If you join, you can vote there too. Join the Greens. Give them money! Why don't people seek out interest groups and work on this? We all can have influence.

Too bad life has to interrupt all of those things. It never gets done. Most people would rather the government take care of it. In Canada everything must be given to citizens or done for them it seems. Maybe some would like Ottawa to wipe their ___. We do need government to solve the environment problem. But, "Why should I bother, the government will look after me so I'll continue to be a rotten polluter. It's not my problem, it's the Prime Minister's"

Boo Urns to that!

Of course it is an issue that government must be responsible for. Don't get me wrong. With the economic crisis happening right now, I don't see it as an issue. We need to survive economically first. Canada's best bet would be to go for long range targets to shift our sources of energy to greener ones. It'll take years. I'm not talking benchmarks because they never work. I mean a solid date set that hundreds of windmills will be up in various regions by 2013 and set the money aside and DO IT!!! In time we can become less reliant on greenhouse gas to heat and power our country. We need to also set strong dates on polluters to make revisions. While we are transitioning our power sources, the old fashioned ones could be phased out or made more efficient by filtering. Coal can be sequestered but it's not nearly done enough in this country. Strong commitment backed up with solid money and a true plan is what is needed.

The most pathetic thing about this is neither Dion nor Layton have any genuine answers for the environment either. Where was Dion when he was in power? It's all just a bunch of nonsense. What Canada need is a majority to get serious and get it done. Too bad the spectrum is backwards as to what party would be best to form it.

Ontario auto workers are furious they can't make money or earn a living (sarcasm) building emission free cars. People are worried about the earth and the future of their kids. Too bad for many it might take a backseat to this issue: "How do I put food on the table for my kids today so they have a tomorrow?"

Environment? Bah! It'll be fixed some day :blink:

Edited by Athlétique.Canadien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, I don't agree with many your responses to that laundry list but at least you offered a more balanced viewpoint on the claims we're seeing doled out by the "sky is falling" media who is hoping to prop up a Liberal vote...

My responses to your take on that list are below:

I wouldn't use Greenpeace as a standard for judgement on the environment. IMHO they have lost a lot of credibility due to their over-zealousness on the issues. Their "by any means necessary" approach is often built on misinformation and in MANY cases science simply doesn't support their stance on issues. Which is too bad because the world could use a legitimate voice that everyone can look to on these issues...

I also refuse to believe this notion that the cuts to funding are an attack on culture. No one has ever told me why the taxpayer should be funding arts programs that no one is interested in...what does that have to do with culture? THAT has more to do with a bunch of mouths trying to get free handouts. No different then most social programs the Liberals put in place under Trudeau and then again the Conservatives under Mulroney.

I think you need a better definition of what it means to be a peace keeper...

I really don't see anything happening on gay rights, health care, abortion, none of it...the Conservatives know this is about trying to become a national party and that they need to try and maintain power for generations, not one term.

The Socialist parties ARE fronts for big business. I'm amazed that people just haven't seen through this illusion. It's just not the same big business you see the Liberals or Conservatives standing with. They are fronts for, in my opinion, a far worse sect...all parties are fronts for their "friends" but socialists friends make money off the backs of the poor and needy. Groups who, at their tops, have little interest in resolving the issues facing the poor and needy...after all, they'd lose their meal ticket if the issues disappeared. Any business could masquerade as non-profit if the people at the top just paid themselves enormous salaries to be "non-profitable". UNICEF pays their CEO ~$2,000,000/year last I heard...as one example. They want their money and don't want any true accountability for what they do with it...this is the biggest problem with all government grants and loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, I don't agree with many your responses to that laundry list but at least you offered a more balanced viewpoint on the claims we're seeing doled out by the "sky is falling" media who is hoping to prop up a Liberal vote...

My responses to your take on that list are below:

I wouldn't use Greenpeace as a standard for judgement on the environment. IMHO they have lost a lot of credibility due to their over-zealousness on the issues. Their "by any means necessary" approach is often built on misinformation and in MANY cases science simply doesn't support their stance on issues. Which is too bad because the world could use a legitimate voice that everyone can look to on these issues...

You might mean a legitimate voice like Hubert Reeves and David Suzuki, 2 men who also publicly dissed the Conservatives about their Green Plan ?

I also refuse to believe this notion that the cuts to funding are an attack on culture. No one has ever told me why the taxpayer should be funding arts programs that no one is interested in...what does that have to do with culture? THAT has more to do with a bunch of mouths trying to get free handouts. No different then most social programs the Liberals put in place under Trudeau and then again the Conservatives under Mulroney.

IMO, art, and I mean art under all its forms = democratization of the culture. You ban a form/category of art that (you think) no one is interested in, then you prevent people from expressing themselves, from conveying certain thoughts. And that is wrong! It is just like controlling a part of the mass medias.

And, this has directly to do with the province of Québec. Believe it or not, Quebec is the biggest exportator of Canadian culture. So, when Harper cuts in a bunch of art programs, that will get down numbers of creators from here, even maybe eliminate some jobs. One of the major cut is the PromArt program, to help artists to promote their art outside of the country.

Take the band "Holy F.u.c.k" as an example. They use to receive 3000$ wich they used to travel in Europe to play. Harper quoted this band as an example of something who shouldn't be founded by the governement : HOLY ###### IS AN INSTRUMENTAL BAND !!!!! They don't give a damn about the content, it is just ideology.

I think you need a better definition of what it means to be a peace keeper...

I really don't see anything happening on gay rights, health care, abortion, none of it...the Conservatives know this is about trying to become a national party and that they need to try and maintain power for generations, not one term.

The Socialist parties ARE fronts for big business. I'm amazed that people just haven't seen through this illusion. It's just not the same big business you see the Liberals or Conservatives standing with. They are fronts for, in my opinion, a far worse sect...all parties are fronts for their "friends" but socialists friends make money off the backs of the poor and needy. Groups who, at their tops, have little interest in resolving the issues facing the poor and needy...after all, they'd lose their meal ticket if the issues disappeared. Any business could masquerade as non-profit if the people at the top just paid themselves enormous salaries to be "non-profitable". UNICEF pays their CEO ~$2,000,000/year last I heard...as one example. They want their money and don't want any true accountability for what they do with it...this is the biggest problem with all government grants and loans.

I have to inquire more about that. I've just heard that in Bolivia, the "poor" ones were about to vote Morales again and not the "richs" ones and that "poor" people wouldn't do so if socialist governments were just big front for their rich friends.

Edited by JoeLassister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, there is no doubt that there are more credible people then Greenpeace who attack the Conservative environmental agenda...however, the same could be said of every parties strategy including the Green Party. I'm no fan of Suzuki's stance either as he just seems to be rushing along to do something for the sake of it without any real plan.

You stated IMO, art, and I mean art under all its forms = democratization of the culture. You ban a form/category of art that (you think) no one is interested in, then you prevent people from expressing themselves, from conveying certain thoughts. And that is wrong! It is just like controlling a part of the mass medias.

First off, the Conservatives did not "ban" any category of art. They just refuse to fund it just because someone thinks it's art. I think it's fair for the government to say that they want better accountability and control of how taxpayer dollars are spent. If an instrumental band needs $3000 to travel to Europe then you really have to question why the government needs to be involved...if they aren't making enough money on their gigs then maybe they shouldn't be going. That's not banning them...they can still go, make/perform their art, etc...same as all the other "artists" who can no longer feed at the taxpayer money tree.

I would fully encourage you to look into concept of a social "industry". There are lots of "non-profit" groups that have HUGE admin costs (like wages) with very little money going to the cause. Many of these groups have dipped deep into taxpayer money too. It's a lose lose situation for any government to cut their funding because the outcry is a public relations nightmare. I'll give you a hypothetical example of something that occurs: Imagine a nice non-profit group that helps homeless people with blankets they make. Great cause. Now the people who run it pay themselves a nice comfy salary from limited donations (Canadians are FAR WORSE at donating then the US and most of the G8 btw) and largely government money. Now ask yourself, would they really want to see homeless people taken off the streets? Would they really want to see this solution fixed? After all, they then lose their nice comfy salary that allows them to find volunteers to knit blankets.

This type of concept is in peoples minds when it comes to pharmaceutical companies finding cures for Cancer...after all the chemo drugs are a cash cow. Why would they want to cure it? It's in many peoples minds when it comes to the donations given to evangelical groups and how they spend it?

No one wants to blame social organizations because the cause is good. But there are just as many people abusing the system as any other business. Artists are no different with their hands out for government money either. This is not an indictment of all social organizations or artists...there are many truly good groups that deserve the funding they get. In all likelihood there are more good ones then bad. However, I think that people would be surprised how many bad ones there are...after all no one ever wants to call them out because of the bad PR that results. All I'm saying is that accountability needs to be improved at all levels of government spending, including social and arts groups...they're just upset that the government is trying to improve the standards needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They just refuse to fund it just because someone thinks it's art. I think it's fair for the government to say that they want better accountability and control of how taxpayer dollars are spent.
I don't recall Harper cancelling other art projects anywhere else. Which province? This is (IMO) the responsibility of the National Assembly.

Ottawa should give good budgets to Quebec to help them do these cultural things. That's what Harper did in 2006!!!

FACT-2006 Budget: The Canada Council for the Arts will got $50 million extra over two years – $20 million in new money for 2006-07 and $30 million more in 2007-08.

And quite a budget in was from Harper. Historical for Quebec.

IMO. Ottawa should not do silly cultural things and boost with minor infrastructure nor hand out free Canadian flags. Nor should they bend the rules and screw Quebec over with a questionable No win in the last referendum. For all the glory that is paid to the Grits I sometimes wonder why people forget about the one that almost got away. Chretien is very hated by some Pequistes. Lucien Bouchard hates Chretien amongst all the other politicians he has ever met. Good thing Charest and Johnson were there. it was Charest and Johnson who were the heros IMO!

Yes it's true that Harper openly in a budget paid off Quebec but at least that's honest and transparent. I prefer this to several Liberal social handouts in cognito to attempt to put sovereignty to sleep. Millions of dollars :wall: Almost makes you feel like someone picked your pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL what jerk. this man is gone by tommorrow.

http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com/2008/09/...-minister-ritz/

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz unnerved some public servants at the height of the listeriosis crisis by resorting to gallows humour during a conference call about a public health scare that has now killed 17 people…Sources who took notes during the call said Ritz fretted about the political dangers of the crisis, before quipping: “This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts.” . The disease was linked to cold cuts from Maple Leaf Meats. …when told about a new death in Prince Edward Island, Ritz said: “Please tell me it’s (Liberal MP) Wayne Easter.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep I meant Mr. Stephane Dion, clearly I was not referring to Stephen Harper. I'm embarassed to have to call him my Prime Minister.

I was at the policy annoucement today at the CNE GO station where the Liberals annoucement a committment of 70 billion dollars over the next 10 years to go directly to infrastructure development in Canadian cities. Yet another great and well thought out policy from an intelligent and principled leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...