Previous  1  2  3  Next

Ummm, NEVER!

'Nuff said?

And if you think the NDP are the right choice, give your head a shake, sheesh!

   

No argument there. However, there are many market-based mechanisms that can be used that are inhherently more efficient and usually more effective.

Water meters -- consumers should pay by the liters, and so should municpalities (it would drive them to fix leaky pipes).

Smart meters -- instead of having your electrical meter in the basement, have it in your living room or on your computer. The smart meter doesn't click off kWh, but dollars and acents, so you can see the money flying out of your pocket. It lets you compare your power usage to others and yuor own history and target inefficiencies in your home.

Privatize garbage -- Completely privatized for comercial and insdustrial purpoes, partially privatized for domestic. Why should the city pick up your garbage? The city government should govern the city -- leave trash collection ot the private sector. Now it becomes an economic incentive to sort your garbage, not just a nice thing to do.

Just a couple of examples, plenty more.

   

Quick thought.. vote green.. go green.. hmmm no Adrienne Carr to me still doesn't make me think that thier policies and platforms are sound fiscally and financially. She has a lot of idealistic thought.. but some things just aren't feasible. Sorry. Clean Air, Clean water extremely important yes but we alsp need a strong economy and leader.

   

I'm siding with Aizlynne on this, a vote for the green party is about as useful than voting for the npd or the bloc, it's giving a chance to Paul Martin and his bunch of thugs to come back again.

And this my friend, you don't want don't you ?

Not that I'm a big fan of Harper, but it is all way better than the lib thugs.

   

My wife attempted to become involved with the Green party last year.

After weeks of non returned phone calls, emails, etc...poorly organised events, she gave up on them.

I found that most of the people I spoke to seemed to be poor planners.
Events cancelled, times and dates changed, lots of insufficient planning.

Liked their ideals but leadership seemed lacking.

   

The Green Party is simply a haven for radical leftists who don't like to admit their penchant for Communism so they came up with this "Leftist-Lite" that wraps the old Communist canards in more palatable, libertarian tones.

A good example is found here: http://www.greens.org/s-r/24/24-15b.html

"The precipitating issue in the split was whether the Greens should stand for socializing or just more strictly regulating the private economy."

Boy, there's a mouthful. I especially like the cuddly little 'strictly regulating' buried in the middle of a lot of freedom and liberty chatter.

They prove exactly the point I've made for years:

If you live in a free-market capitalist country you are always free to form a commune and practice communism with your friends. But if you live in a socialist or communist country just you go ahead and TRY forming a free-market capitalist commune with your friends.

Communism requires force to make people participate. And I mean armed force.

Capitalism requires market forces to succeed.

No one is forced to shop at WalMart (and I wish they wouldn't!)

No one is forced to be a capitialist. You don't have to work at all.

Sorry folks, if you let the Greens into power then you might as well just hang up the Maple Leaf and raise the Red Banner because that is precisely what you will be doing.

   

Hopefully the Green Party looks at things realistically. That is, they aren't trying to govern the nation but, through becoming a better organization with increasing support, they can influence and change the policies of the larger parties.

With Green's increasing popularity and support you will see the major parties adjust their policies to keep their support from moving to the Green Party and the Green Party will evolve and adjust their strategies to attract more support and to further influence the policies of the big parties.

In a close election though I feel it is in your best interest to vote for a party that has experience governing the nation and only voting for a minor party when the big party of your choice looks to be set to achieve a majority government.

   

when your land is contaminated, you are all fished out, the timber is all converted to furniture or match sticks... you're forced to shop at WalMart.

   

Then stand up and fight if you have to.

But don't trust the leftists to save Canada. Remember that the absolute worst countries for environmental protections are socialist and Communist.

   

That list would be interesting to see.

   

I completely agree... ..and I think a little more 'green' influence in the Liberal party would be a great thing.. I would never vote for the Green Party however.. There has to be balance.

   

The former USSR: http://www.infomanage.com/environment/russia.html

Excerpt: "The Soviet economy was run at the cost of public health," says a top Russian public-health official. Every third child in Russia, the authorities fear, may be ill because of environmental pollution. The death rate for peopie between 25 and 40 has risen considerably. Even if emergency measures were begun today, scientists warn, it would be 25 years before any improvements would be noticed."

The People's Republic of China: http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/xw/t27444.htm

Excerpt: "In the middle of the 1980s, mineral resource exploitation was encouraged by government, creating a nationwide trend in indiscriminate exploitation."

Also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Sep18.html

Excerpt: "While most foreign observers have focused on the potential social and economic problems lurking beneath China's success story -- rampant corruption, an authoritarian regime and hundreds of millions of people potentially left unemployed as state enterprises shut down -- the country is now home to the world's worst environmental problems, extending far beyond the polluted air. And it is totally unprepared to combat them."

East Germany: http://www.islandpress.org/eco-compass/war/

Excerpt: "When Soviet troops withdrew from former East Germany in 1992, 1.5 million tonnes of ammunition was destroyed. It was reported that most of the ammunition was burned, without filters, in the open air and that nitrogen oxides, highly toxic chemical dioxides, and heavy metals (e.g., mercury) were released to the atmosphere. Under treaty, the munitions should have been removed to Russia, but much of it was found buried on site to avoid the expense of removal. Abandoned garrison towns around Berlin have derelict barracks and villas, wreckage of army vehicles, hidden waste tips with not only ammunition but million of gallons of spent tank and truck oil, and chemical wastes. Officials have estimated that the 4% of East German territory that was occupied by former Soviet bases and facilities is severely polluted. In Brandenburg, north of Berlin, where a third of the forces were concentrated, the environmental damage damage exceeds Dm 10 billion."

The point here is that these tragedies can only occur in nations where the government is all-powerful and socialist/Communist governments either are authoritarian or they lean authoritarian. In free(er) countries the people can hold their government and corporations accountable for these action and actively prevent these problems.

   

Just wondering whether the expressions three mile island, love canal, floating garbage scows, Bhopal,... mean anything to anyone.

It always surprises me to see environmentalists equated with the RED SCARE. Most of the environmentalists I've met are as conservative as you could want and still be free of taint from the fascist risght. Oh certainly their are right wing nuts among them, but no more or less than there are communists.

Overall a pretty representative lot. I thought I heard during the last federal election that the federal Greens at least had recognized that you can't be environmentally conservative without also being fiscally conservative, although the reverse isn't true by a long sight.

The point is that while in a freer society people are sometimes able to impact on corporate or governmental obtuseness regarding a healthy world for our grandchildren, way to often the monetary drive uses our resources as though they are private resources and ignores the consequences. When this occurs, way to often the consequences consequent on non-benefitting members of society.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next