voteforenvironment

[d_rawk]

Dude, I said Oshawa and you are quoting numbers from Whitby-Oshawa, which is a totally different federal riding with a different political demographic. Review your data before you start screaming at me in bold.

Look up Sid Ryan in 2004 and 2006 in the riding of Oshawa.

Do you actually look at the numbers before you imply ridiculous things like that?

That's rich.

For fucks sake.

[SaggyBalls]

Now Jaimoe...voteforenvironment is about voting (g)reen

[color:purple]I'd hate for any strategic voters to think they're being told how to vote.

[Hux]

Oops! Sorry d, vote NDP in Oshawa and Liberal in Whitby-Oshawa!

[d_rawk]

No prob., it's all cool

[bokonon]

The conservative party supports representation by population. They also want to abolish or at least reform the senate. These are both good ideas. I think a lot of people dismiss this party simply because of the name.

This year I was determined to make an informed decision on my vote. Instead of just listening to the banter and mudslinging I decided to download and read the platforms of all parties. I almost hurled on my shoes when I read the Green platform and that made me sad. You're probably wondering what induced my retching. It was the idea of a guarunteed basic income that is unsupervised. The way I interpreted this is that people can be sure of receiving a subsistence level income which covers their rent and food but not actually have to report to any agency or try to get off the dole! Fully able bodied adults can choose to not participate in the workforce and instead leach off the taxpayers for life and not have to worry about a thing. I'm sorry, but i don't get my ass out of bed every day and go to a job that makes me want to kick most people in the genitals so that my welfare neighbour can sit on her ass all day. oh wait, actually I do do that now....and she has the "big half" of the house I rented.

okay, /rant. Green platform made me want to cry, that is all.

[Thorgnor]

You should move in with Birdy.

[bokonon]

You should move in with Birdy.

which birdy and why?

and who is this? damned name-changers confuse the fuck out of me!

[bradm]

I almost hurled on my shoes when I read the Green platform and that made me sad. You're probably wondering what induced my retching. It was the idea of a guarunteed basic income that is unsupervised. The way I interpreted this is...

Note that there's a well-known concept in economics called guaranteed minimum income, that I've even seen conservative political/economic commentators* endorse. The Green Party platform uses the term Guaranteed Livable Income, but it sounds similar.

Aloha,

Brad

* John Crispo, if I recall correctly.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Guest

[Velvet]

I think a lot of people dismiss this party simply because of the name.

Huh?!?

It's all about the name!!! Remember he was the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party. He would have a hard time if his party hadn't changed their name.

[Velvet]

As a follow up:

I dismiss the party because Harper leads it. He broke the rules by calling the election; he's being a crybaby for not wanting to be PM if he only has a minority; he eliminated the daily media scrums (like c'mon, how does that help Canada?); he offered an MP a bribe to vote with him; he said he was ashamed to be Canadian when we didn't follow the USA into Iraq; he throws around very misleading stats related to his 'environmental' plan; he ignored campaign rules last time around; he thinks artists are rich fatcats who neither require nor deserve funding; he started campaigning against Dion with tv attack ads months before the election (I was truly shocked by that); he changed government letterhead from "Government Of Canada" to "The New Government Of Canada"; I could go on but I'm tired.

Essentially it seems everything he does is for the betterment of the New Conservative Party. If it's better for Canadians, fine, if not he Bushes it up and sadly 39% of voters buy it.

[SaggyBalls]

people that don't care to pull themselves up shouldn't be left down on the ground.

If they're able to have less stresses about their position and have some more advantages to pull themselves up then, in theory, they will be more successful.

Keep in mind these people often have children...by accident or not.

A Guaranteed Livable Income would be a huge plus for the starving artists in the country. Poets, painters, Sculptors could then focus on their work and focus on achieving their dreams.

As people succeed, they would no longer require government assistance.

Sure people would abuse the system. Things would not change...but the money would still be spread around the economy. It wouldn't be a huge jump in spending across the board.

I hope you have another pair of shoes. this could be implemented in the next decade as politicians begin to realize supporting citizens in every way is a huge plus to any thriving society.

Again, people that don't care won't ever care and it's not healthy for us to impose ourselves upon them.

These people shouldn't be left to rot and decay and get sick because we're gonna have to ride on the bus with these people or walk past them on the sidewalk.

I don't need to get a cold cause some welfare bum can't afford to eat properly or pay for heat, buy socks, or mittens for wintertime.

Ultimately, it's generous and warmly fair. It is less miserly to be fair. The funding for social programs can be found and made if situations demand them. Not what taxpayers want to think about, but taxpayers could really be thinking about how they can make more money and how the government can attract higher salaried positions to their lives instead of worrying about spending...aim high, not low.

A Guaranteed Livable Income would combat underemployment, which is a really serious social issue in many parts of the country.

I was just thinking how much Bokonon reminds me of Birdy. Good Call, Trogdor.

I believe that this country should do much more to eliminate poverty. With poverty being gone, we could only focus on securing prosperity for posterity.

(not with the SPP...but under our own means)

[Thorgnor]

Let's do it through tax cuts

[Birdy]

I dismiss the party because Harper leads it. He broke the rules by calling the election; he's being a crybaby for not wanting to be PM if he only has a minority; he eliminated the daily media scrums (like c'mon, how does that help Canada?); he offered an MP a bribe to vote with him; he said he was ashamed to be Canadian when we didn't follow the USA into Iraq; he throws around very misleading stats related to his 'environmental' plan; he ignored campaign rules last time around; he thinks artists are rich fatcats who neither require nor deserve funding; he started campaigning against Dion with tv attack ads months before the election (I was truly shocked by that); he changed government letterhead from "Government Of Canada" to "The New Government Of Canada"; I could go on but I'm tired.

You should dismiss pretty much every party then.

Harper by no means broke any rules when he called an election. The fixed-election law was an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act which declares parliament can be dissolved at anytime. The Liberals (through their continued support of the Conservatives on voting issues) brought all committee initiatives to a stand still, thus making it pretty much impossible to accomplish anything and so Harper called the election, which is entirely within his rights and the law.

All four of our potential PMs are being cry-babies. Even Gilles f'ing Duceppe is being a cry baby. Margaret Atwood is being a crybaby. The NDPs are talking coalitions, the Liberals are talking strategic voting, Lizzie May is taking bribes from the Liberals, the Bloc is appealing separatist votes from outside of Quebec. It's all a shit show. Noone is better than the next in this regard.

Good riddance to the daily media scrums. Journalists need a huge wake up call to the amount of tripe they feed an unexpecting public. If journalists took it upon themselves to report the truth, the world would be a much better place. But these dudes have bigger political agendas than those running for office themselves and unfortunately for us all, the Canadian electorate is generally not politically savvy enough to wade through all the bullshit.

Stephane Dion offered Elizabeth May a cabinet position and Senate seat to get her to encourage Greenies everywhere to vote Liberal. I love how our politicans encourage diversity except when such diversity threatens their popularity. Vive le Canada!

I could go on too, but I'm tired.

[Velvet]

I'm not sure if you're misinformed or misleading.

I'm sorry, but after much deliberation that is the nicest response I can come up with.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Guest
I found a nicer way of putting it.

[Velvet]

To follow up:

You say Harper couldn't get anything done because Dion keeps voting with him. What?!? Please explain what Harpers amendment was supposed to do if not limit the PM's ability to call an election when it's deemed advantagous.

Please link to the news story about May being bribed.

You claim the best way for Canadians to get news is to limit the reporter's access to the PM. Ummm....

Please link to where Dion has said he will name May to his cabinet.

Finally, you seemed to have skipped over a point or two:

he offered an MP a bribe to vote with him; he said he was ashamed to be Canadian when we didn't follow the USA into Iraq; he throws around very misleading stats related to his 'environmental' plan; he ignored campaign rules last time around; he thinks artists are rich fatcats who neither require nor deserve funding; he started campaigning against Dion with tv attack ads months before the election (I was truly shocked by that); he changed government letterhead from "Government Of Canada" to "The New Government Of Canada"

Not surpisingly, you're post reminds me a bit of Harpers campaign.

[MoMack]

The conservative party supports representation by population. They also want to abolish or at least reform the senate. These are both good ideas. I think a lot of people dismiss this party simply because of the name.

This year I was determined to make an informed decision on my vote. Instead of just listening to the banter and mudslinging I decided to download and read the platforms of all parties. I almost hurled on my shoes when I read the Green platform and that made me sad. You're probably wondering what induced my retching. It was the idea of a guarunteed basic income that is unsupervised. The way I interpreted this is that people can be sure of receiving a subsistence level income which covers their rent and food but not actually have to report to any agency or try to get off the dole! Fully able bodied adults can choose to not participate in the workforce and instead leach off the taxpayers for life and not have to worry about a thing. I'm sorry, but i don't get my ass out of bed every day and go to a job that makes me want to kick most people in the genitals so that my welfare neighbour can sit on her ass all day. oh wait, actually I do do that now....and she has the "big half" of the house I rented.

okay, /rant. Green platform made me want to cry, that is all.

Spoken like a true neo-con without consideration of what placed those people in the position they're in in the first place. Without consideration of the fact that every Canadian has a right to live. Without consideratoin that slavery was abolished years ago. And without consideration of the fact that if the welfare state helps just one person out of a hundred pick themselves up off the ground they're likely to pay enough taxes for the other 99...

Edited October 14, 2008 by Guest
spelling

[Thorgnor]

Three cheers for Velvet and Mo!!!!!

Edited October 14, 2008 by Guest

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

I could spend days writing about all of the faults of Harper and his Conservative Party. I just want to note that whil ehe didn't actually break any rules in calling this election, he did break the spirit of the legislation, and in my books thas is unethical. It is unethical to call almost all votes in Praliament as being votes on th confidence of the government, which he has said he will do. IIRC he called for this election saying that Pariament was not functioning (there was NO vote of non-confidence). It was not functioning the way HE wanted it to function, but it surely was frunctioning. Ina minority government you need to make compromises. How the man can claim to have a clear mandate from the people with less than 40% of the vote is beyond me. Actually, I take that back - nothing the man does really surprises me any more. He is a lying weasel sonofabitch. And don't tell me that he's an "economist" and knows his stuff. Cause he doesn't listen to the true practicing economists out there who are doing good and solid policy research. Research based on facts and evidence. But the Conservatives have a problem with science and evidence when it doesn't back their agenda.

rant off.....

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE......people of Canada - come to your senses and keep this man away from a majority. Better yet kick him out of office. While we're at it I'll dream that we can have a Liberal/NDP coalition - if somehow they can both get enough combined seats AND manage to work together......

[Velvet]

On your first point Birdy, from cbc.ca:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean to dissolve Parliament on Sept. 7, arguing that his Conservatives were unable to govern because they had reached an impasse with opposition parties.

Harper's Conservatives had the longest uninterrupted minority government in Canada's history, with two years and nearly seven months in office."

How can Harper accurately say that the New Conservatives were unable to govern when a) the house was on recess, and he was leading the longest running minority in the country's history?

And I'll stop you before you argue that he had a meeting with all the leaders to determine his inability to lead. Each and every leader emerged from their meeting with Harper stating that he was determined to hold an election, proving that the meetings were just for show.

[jayr]

Why the government believes that Canadians could possibly have changed their minds so drastically since our last annual election I do not know. I predict the election to be very similar to last and therefore also predict that we get to do this all again very soon. Hopefully I am so, so wrong.

rant = Conservatives have won in my riding for quite awhile and it (they) irritate(s) me for so many reasons.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

To follow up:

You say Harper couldn't get anything done because Dion keeps voting with him. What?!? Please explain what Harpers amendment was supposed to do if not limit the PM's ability to call an election when it's deemed advantagous.

It was meant to keep "majority" governments from calling elections to suit their popularity. The fact is, the Opposition wasn't acting as the Opposition in this last minority government, continuously voting in favour with the Conservatives. But when it came to committees where all progress is truly made, Liberals were stifling any kind of progression the Cons could make. Which in turn makes it extremely difficult to function as a minority gov't. Hence, the election.

Please link to the news story about May being bribed.

http://www.bourque.org/notes.html

There's many others that google would turn up.

You claim the best way for Canadians to get news is to limit the reporter's access to the PM. Ummm....

Until reporters change, abso-friggin-lutely. I hasteningly connect journalism today with the Walmart Corporation. It's too much about looking to sell their thoughts than it is to report the truth. You can argue this with me up and down and all around, but the media is a very, very evil entity as it exists.

Please link to where Dion has said he will name May to his cabinet.

http://www.bourque.org/notes.html

Finally, you seemed to have skipped over a point or two:

he offered an MP a bribe to vote with him; he said he was ashamed to be Canadian when we didn't follow the USA into Iraq; he throws around very misleading stats related to his 'environmental' plan; he ignored campaign rules last time around; he thinks artists are rich fatcats who neither require nor deserve funding; he started campaigning against Dion with tv attack ads months before the election (I was truly shocked by that); he changed government letterhead from "Government Of Canada" to "The New Government Of Canada"

Please link me to actual fact-based articles and not opinion pieces in the Toronto Star that claim Harper called artists "rich fat-cats". 45 million cut in a 300 million dollar program has more people outraged then if the same were to happen to the welfare system. Is that right? Don't get me wrong, I truly think the CP's fucked up royally when they did this, and I'm glad to see they have seemingly realized this too over bill C-10. I personally wish they hadn't touched the arts, but I cannot sit here and keep my mouth shut when lefty propaganda puts words into people's mouths.

Please link me to very mis-leading numbers concering the environment. I don't think it's even possible considering the true impact of carbon foot prints cannot even be measured. However, that being said, I'm a huge supporter of the environment and have taken stance on this very issue many, many times over in the politics forum. I'll say it again, but I would prefer a government who supports industry to change and adapt to greener technologies before we start taxing them and possibly driving their business and our jobs out the door. If the Cons tripled their environmental plan budget, it'd be the best plan out there. All countries who have seen success in reducing ghgs and carbon pollutants have seen this because of what they did prior to a carbon tax. And there's countless articles online to show this.

What campaign rules did he ignore?

You win on the attack ads. I hate them all. Especially those produced by the NDP with subliminal Hitler references. A new all-time low in campaigning politics... even agreed by staunch lefty politicos such as Warren Kinsella himself.

Not surpisingly, you're post reminds me a bit of Harpers campaign.

Not suprisingly, your post reminds me a bit of the stuff I speak of when I talk of biased journalism.

To each their own though!

Edited October 14, 2008 by Guest

[d_rawk]

also predict that we get to do this all again very soon

I'm trying to figure out when it may be. The Liberals are out of cash, and about to enter another leadership crisis. If an election was called within the next year or so, they would be campaigning with about half the budget of what they had this time around, which itself wasn't much. The Libs. need to figure out how to do fundraising and build grassroot support and volunteer networks, something the other parties are old hands at (the campaign financing rules Chretien brought in mean no more quick and tidy mega-corporate donations to see them through)

They are going to have to support the Conservatives for a long while before they have their house in order enough to take another crack at the bat (barring coalition type speculation). The Liberals are likely to spend their time abstaining from votes and milling around in the lobby all over again, not sure what choice they have.

Two knives aimed squarely at Dion's back in the form of Rae and Iganetieff and the internal Liberal party in-fighting will probably stretch it all out even longer, as the factions scramble over themselves to consume Dion's carcass in the hunger for power.

Harper will probably try to force it with egregious policy (crime bill?), but the Libs. won't be able to do much but nod their heads and play along, again, again, again, again.

[Jaimoe]

Velvet knows Harper never said "fat-cats", but he may as well have said it with ignorant statements like this:

From The Globe and Mail:

...the cuts as a "niche issue for some."

"Of course, this government chooses its priorities," Harper told reporters after announcing a campaign proposal to end house arrests for serious crimes.

"You know, I think when ordinary, working people come home, turn on the TV and see … a bunch of people at a rich gala all subsidized by the taxpayers, claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know the subsidies have actually gone up, I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people."

[Velvet]

"It was meant to keep "majority" governments from calling elections to suit their popularity. The fact is, the Opposition wasn't acting as the Opposition in this last minority government, continuously voting in favour with the Conservatives."

I had no idea that his amendment referred specifically to majority governments. I suppose that must be due to the evil reporters. And I would argue that the Opposition wasn't acting as the New Conservatives wanted them to act. There is no law to my knowledge that dictates how the Opposition is supposed to vote.

As for the link to bourque.org, I am truly sorry I don't have time to read the whole page right now and thus would appreciate if you could cut and paste a bit. I found this, which I hope you're not referring to:

"Yet, this still-very-active politico tells Bourque he fears a secret deal has been cooked between Dion and Elizabeth May"

Utilising that journalistic integrity, I could easily and accurately post that I fear that Harper enjoys an incestous relationship with his children.

"Please link me to actual fact-based articles and not opinion pieces in the Toronto Star that claim Harper called artists "rich fat-cats". 45 million cut in a 300 million dollar program has more people outraged then if the same were to happen to the welfare system. Is that right?"

I didn't claim that he said artists were rich fat-cats. I claimed that he thinks that, and it's based on a very commonly reported story. What the fiasco does prove is that Harper was very wrong when he indicated that arts funding doesn't resonate with ordinary Canadians. The fallout from his comments proves he was wrong about that.

"Please link me to very mis-leading numbers concering the environment"

I won't search out the links because work calls, but I'll tell you what I was referring to. While Kyoto and others call for a reduction of emissions based on 1990 (is that the right year?) levels, Harper's reduction numbers are on today's levels, a fact he refuses to say out loud. He makes it sound like he's matching or beating Kyotos numbers, but in actual fact, he's not even touching them.

"What campaign rules did he ignore?"

The ones on how much you can spend on advertising. No need for us to argue about it while it's still before the courts.

"You win on the attack ads. I hate them all. Especially those produced by the NDP with subliminal Hitler references. A new all-time low in campaigning politics..."

You missed my point. He rolled out the political ads early so they wouldn't count as election spending. Given that only he knew when he was going to call the election, he was at a great advantage over the other parties on this point.

Finally, given that I am contemplating a new career in journalism, I appreciate the encouragement.

[d_rawk]

As for the link to bourque.org, I am truly sorry I don't have time to read the whole page right now and thus would appreciate if you could cut and paste a bit. I found this, which I hope you're not referring to:

"Yet, this still-very-active politico tells Bourque he fears a secret deal has been cooked between Dion and Elizabeth May"

Utilising that journalistic integrity, I could easily and accurately post that I fear that Harper enjoys an incestous relationship with his children.

Haha I don't want to leave Birdy twisting in the wind, but do want to point out that similar allegations are coming in from all sides. That May might enjoy a senate position funneled into an environment minister cabinet position should the Liberals win (ala Fortier) and others are equally suggesting that the Conservatives are contemplating the same (again, ala Fortier) in order to Greenwash the party.

May's deal with the devil, which majorly PO-ed many candidates and supporters of the Green Party left her open to such speculation, but it is all speculative to date. No doubt that legitimate insiders on either side are leaking this information, that much seems quite clear as it plays out, but whether their private motives overshadow their credibility on the matter is a very, very open question.

The charitable position is that the GP naively allowed themselves to be gamed, which is the position the deputy leader of the party seems to have adopted. (See last night's Mike Duffy, and the deputy leader's frustrated outburst)