Martin in trouble?
Rev_Blair @ Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:38 pm
$1:
Yes, and they paid the price for it. People stoped buying beef, sales droped dramticaly. They started breeding the cows in a more natural order (sort of) and managed to bring beef back on the market. If the companies do something like this (mad cow) they will pay the prive for it in sales. The food companies nowadays have to make sure their food is up to health standards otherwise they won't make sales. Capitalism saves the day again.
Actually they not only refused to do anything themselves, but have fought government regulation to force them to do something. You need to learn your facts, Godz.
$1:
I don't know about that,
You've demonstrated that quite nicely.
$1:
Technology has come a long way buddy. Fertilizers are becoming more and more economicaly friendly
Is that Freudian slip or are you admitting to being more concerned with short-term profits then long-term viability?
$1:
Look I'm not god, and I don't have a vote in parliament,
Thank Christ for that.
$1:
but I DO know that with the falling prices in food, more and more people are able to afford it, and therefore are well fed and more healthy.
What we're doing is not sustainable, Godz. If we keep doing what we're doing, there will be nothing left for the future. You're a young guy, right? Planning on having kids someday? Have any nieces or nephews? Are you really willing to allow them or their children to starve to save yourself a few bucks today?
$1:
Yes Rev, I do know that. I know that 40 years ago it was the manufacturing industry that was the lifeline of the economy.
No, actually you don't. Countries cannot be successful without an agricultural sector because that sector is more than an economic concern...it supplies the food to rest of the country. Want to see food get really expensive? Try having no alternative but import it, even the most basic staples.
$1:
Leger is one of the most respected polling companies in the country. I'm very familiar with their work, since I'm in marketing. And its not considered flawed by anyone. Whatl the sides argue about is the analysis of the results.
46% still isn't a majority, Godz. The wording of the questions and the timing has been brought into question by both sides. It does not match other polls done in this country. That particular poll is considered highly questionable.
$1:
No. the guy (a metereologist) clearly shows tempretures in MOST regions of the world have been dropping! He brings up stats from very reliable sources (national geographic for crying out loud, that's not reliable to you?) and when you say "greater scientific community" you mean Greenpeace and "Friends of the rainforest".
The guy is a lone meteorologist who is using short term data and trying to argue with the greater scientific community. By the way, I don't mean "tree huggers" by that...I mean working scientists all over the world from all political persuasions and all scientific disciplines. You see, most scientists who have looked at the data agree that global warming is happening.
The cold summer this year actually fits the models for global warming. It is an extreme fluctuation...the kind of anomaly that's been predicted for the last twenty years. Why don't you and you meteorlogist buddy fly up north to live with the inuit for a year and tell them that the ice isn't melting. Why don't you go to Churchill where the bears are waiting for the ice-pack that comes in later and goes out earlier every year and tell the bears that the ice is actually there, they just can't see it.
Zenfisher @ Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:50 pm
You can't get much more to the right than Martin. 
It will still be difficult for any conservative party in Canada to get elected after what Mulroney did to the country.
Even if there is a huge influx of conservative thinking immigrants. Elections are not fought on one issue. assuming that a large segment of any group will all vote for one party is naive. A lot of people will actually forego voting for a party that supports a particular issue and vote for a party that seems to be more in line with a group of other issues and values. While a group may support specific social issues or political agendas, it does not necessarily mean they will vote for that party.
As an example... Would you vote for a party that would make it difficult to bring your relatives into Canada. Even if that is not your intention, the underlying message is there. Consciously or subconsciously, that may contribute more to how someone votes than standard political leanings.