Previous  1  2  3  4  5

Harper set that vote up to fail and you know it. That is even the official editorial position of both the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star who both believe that Harper is trying to steal centrist voters from the Liberals and with a real majority in hand will open the debate once again.



That's just your MO in life. You're not exactly one of the posters here noted for a clear support of the democratic will of the people or freedom of speech and expression etc if any of the above mentioned run counter to your own beliefs. If you don't believe me reserve one of today's 10 or so banishment requests PM'd to the mods trying to stifle conservative123 or redneck456 and ask them about the principles of democratic expression instead.



Right from the get go you're wrong. CO2 is not a pollutant and is essential to life on earth. High concentrations may or may not have a positive or negative effect on the environment but a pollutant is not defined by concentration. If that were the case Winnipeg floods are the result of excessive pollution.



It does not meaningfully address real issues surrounding real pollutants nor does it address the very real probability that if in fact climate change is occurring, it is likely not man induced through the release of CO2 and instead we should be focusing our efforts in a different direction.



David Suzuki saying "trust me" or expressing outrage at his science being questioned by news reporters hardly qualifies as sound scientific supporting data. I have repeatedly demonstrated through real references to ice core data and tree rings that concentrations of CO2 historically always follow an increase in temperature and have never been recorded to do so the other way around. Tell me why this should be so for the first time in the known history of the earth?

I have also provided supporting evidence to suggest that both the man made HCFCs and methane (natural and man induced) play a serious and worrisome role. Oddly, both you and the majority seem to dismiss this outright. It reminds me of how to catch a monkey. Find some hanging around in a tree then dig a hole right in front of them. Show them an orange then place it in the hole being sure to affix it in a manner in which it cannot be extracted. Walk away and when the monkey sees you leave he will try to remove the orange. At this point you can just walk up to him while he screams and tugs and flails and throw a net over him but all during your obvious approach he won't let go of the orange but rather just increase his screaming and thrashing. That seems to be the environmentalist reaction to CO2 with each new revelation that it is in fact not the problem.



Tell me aboot our free trade agreement with China.



Agreed

   

I think there is a small but core minority of seperatists in QC that won't waver regardless.

In addition I don't think that having 13 loosely bound pseudo countries will be all that great for unity either.



The differences (true differences) between liberalism and conservatism are usually rates of change. I'm very much a social liberal as you are a social conservative.



really? Can you give a specific example? Mind you I was referring to internal politics only. Canada is unique being that we have such a large and diverse (even counting only the "true Canadians") then say Australia or Scotland.



It all depends on if they expected everybody in Canada to switch as they did.

As for Kyoto, the opposition against it is coming from the industries most likely to be adversely affected and more then enough come from Alberta so its perfectly understandable who opposes it. I imagine BC might change its tune if we decided to ban logging & fishing. Personally I am against Kytoto vehemetly because harming select industries is a recipe for disaster both politically and financially.

CWB? If you mean the wheat board then it seems to me that control lies entirely with western farmer elected reps.

Gun control. I agree. The problem is urban Vs rural moreso then east VS west. City dwellers think a few shootings constitute a war zone because its a knee-jerk reaction. However gun control need not be done on a federal basis because you can't take such a diverse group and shoe-horn legislation that will satisfy everybody.



The only reason they did was because it became lodged in the voter psyche and they told the voters what they wanted to hear. Deep down they knew they were going to be just as guilty because they knew that those things where part and parcel to our politics. I think they did it for the same reasons the Liberals did it, because thats what it takes to get elected in our country.



They did. They just have far fewer years in power with which to generate scandals. As you are admitting, Harper is doing all the same things and if he had 13 years in power we would see exactly the same thing. Its endemic.



What did you want done? Given that you put lower taxes as a high priority I can only surmise that you think the surplus should have been eliminated by simply dropping taxes proportionally.

Surely you can see the wisdom in paying down the debt as saving us a great deal as each year has ever increasing returns?

Same principle as dividend re-investment.

   

Ok how did this thread end up being a debate on the function of the Canadian Gov.?

   

If Jesus came back and ran Liberal I'd run against Him as a Conservative and during the debates I'd sneak up behind Him and give Him an atomic wedgie.

   

LOL

   

how'd you give wedgie to someone who wears a robe?

   

Uhm, yeah - now that you pointed it out you're right - he is all gaga over his own reflection like a toddler would be. Creepy is right.

   

Quite profound. I hope you won't mind if I quote you on this.

   

You use the robe.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5