voteforenvironment

[Birdy]

Deadheads come in all shapes and sizes. I don't think that you can equate head to liberal/progressive.

I also think that to vote for Stephen Harper you either have to be ignorant of the issues or a rich selfish idiot. Or an fundamentalist evangelical. But that probably puts you in the former category.

Most of his voters fall in the former catagory, I believe. There is no way he could win without many getting votes from the people his policies most deeply screw. Unfortunately, they don't even know it. Thye just hear the lies and the rhetoric and fall for all the scare tactics.

Care to elucidate on who 'his policies most deeply screw'? I'm not a rich, selfish idiot, neither am I an evangelist and I consider myself pretty well versed on the issues, comparatively speaking, yet I voted around noon for the CPC. Where do I fall into your sheltered and limited categorization?

[personal outrage]

Why the fuck it is that most people who don't want to vote Conservative feel the need to outright judge and belittle those who do? Yet they claim to be sooo open-minded and free spirited. These people don't even give intelligent conversation a fair shake before they claim you as a fundamentalist and/or ignorant and/or selfish. As a person who believes soo much in the good will of man, freedom of thought and the powers of communication, this shit is so fucking limiting I almost feel like jumping off a cliff is a better option. Where's the open-mindedness the good people during the 60s and 70s fought for in this kind of bullshit rhetoric?

[/personal outrage]

Good luck Bokonon. They're all high-fiving in private messages.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Guest

[\/\/illy]

How one can simultaneously enjoy St. Stephen and vote for Stephen Harper is inexplainable - or at the very least' date=' they're not getting nearly as much out of the music as the rest of us.

...Strangers stopping strangers, just to shake their hands...[/quote']

Whatever are you talking about MoMack?

[color:#CCCCCC]Kinda wish the picture was bigger

Best post ever.

[Thorgnor]

They're all high-fiving in private messages.

Active imagination, yet you voted to "stay the course"? That's change right there.

[Birdy]

Burn.

[Thorgnor]

you know what I'm gonna say don't you?

[Birdy]

I can almost predict it like i can my clock turning 6.11 in a few seconds.

[Thorgnor]

word.

[meggo]

birdy don't jump off a cliff!

[Birdy]

thanks Meggo.

[bokonon]

[personal outrage]

Why the fuck it is that most people who don't want to vote Conservative feel the need to outright judge and belittle those who do? Yet they claim to be sooo open-minded and free spirited. These people don't even give intelligent conversation a fair shake before they claim you as a fundamentalist and/or ignorant and/or selfish. As a person who believes soo much in the good will of man, freedom of thought and the powers of communication, this shit is so fucking limiting I almost feel like jumping off a cliff is a better option. Where's the open-mindedness the good people during the 60s and 70s fought for in this kind of bullshit rhetoric?

[/personal outrage]

Good luck Bokonon. They're all high-fiving in private messages.

I think I love you. Wanna high five in public?

....actually, I'll do anything in public!

[bokonon]

Oh yeah....regarding the conservative stereotype...I work in retail (aka i'm broke as fuck!) and I'm an atheist.

[Velvet]

Why the fuck it is that most people who don't want to vote Conservative feel the need to outright judge and belittle those who do?

In this particular case (meaning Harper) I believe it's akin to how the world looked at the 'mericans in horror when they re-elected W. Bush. I think it's because we feel that it's very easy to see through his bullshit and we find it odd that other seemingly intelligent people are unable to see through it.

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

Why the fuck it is that most people who don't want to vote Conservative feel the need to outright judge and belittle those who do?

In this particular case (meaning Harper) I believe it's akin to how the world looked at the 'mericans in horror when they re-elected W. Bush. I think it's because we feel that it's very easy to see through his bullshit and we find it odd that other seemingly intelligent people are unable to see through it.

'xactly.....

and right now I'm starting to feel sick

[Birdy]

Well i suppose when his government does something and/or promises something tangible that would make this fear appear legitimate, then I'd think differently. Until then, I'd venture to say propaganda has done it's job very, very well. Hook, line and sinker.

Even staunch leftys over in the politics forum are agreeing that his platform and government are moderate and centrist, yet seemingly intelligent people keep pulling shit up from 10 years ago when he was with the Canadian Alliance and advocating western separatism, without considering who his electorate was that he spoke to and kept him paid and in politics. A lot of seemingly intelligent people forget that there still is the middle ground old Conservative Party in the new party, yet they continually apply the same bloody brush stroke to us all.

Looks like the CP is on their way to some more seats.

::high fives bokonon!:: hahaha

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

Harper, Baird, Flaherty and Clement is no middle ground. And they are the ones at the top of the party. They have their own agenda and don't believe in scientific evidence. Ya, that's a sign of intelligence.

[SaggyBalls]

MoMack Said:

bokonon Said:

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...

way to misinterpret what I wrote! Yes, people have the right to live, yes we should have a safety net for EMERGENCY USE ONLY. No, people should not be guarunteed the basics in life without trying. If you are able to work go work get off your ass and do it. I don't care if you're a poet or a painter or whatever. If you're good at being an artist then people will pay for your work, just like any other occupation. If people do not value your work then you need to find other work to support yourself.

In fact, this is precisely the mentality and reasoning (or lack thereof) that keeps unskilled workers on the lower rungs of society.

If people don't want to try, don't care, then they should be handed a living wage. It's not an excessive amount. It's more than the <$550 a month that the system allots now, but even then that's a maximum of $350 for lodging leaving less than $200 to eat, clothe one's self, use public transit, and do little else with.

With the hurdles and other conditions lacking access to people living less than cramped lives, the socioeconomically challenged are doomed to social disease.

If you want to work then you'll make more money.

If you want to volunteer then you'll do some good.

If you are working towards a non-lucrative aim in your career path then you shouldn't be forced to change your career. That is unfair and has held people back for as long as the economic power struggle is old.

With the problem of poverty eliminated, we can move on to more important, difficult decisions.

Eliminating extreme poverty is a very easy problem to fix. It just takes investment and ironing out the kinks. Personally, I believe that one should be contributing to society or striving to - sick people, the mentally challenged, the underqualified, and the unskilled all have hindrances that keep them from working or volunteering, let alone ever making enough money to live sustainably from.

More pressing is the living wage to support the UNDEREMPLOYED. So say you have a crappy mcjob and don't have the skills or experience to get something more. And have to pay rent. And eat.

And your job is causing you stress and distress, as it's a mcjob.

and you only get enough hours to scrape by.

Try quitting your job to find work or finding suitable work in such a state.

So, Bokonon, you focus at the drain of 'welfare bums' doing nothing to pull themselves up, but fail to recognize some of the key issues that lead people to not have access to support or understanding of how the system works, and also fail to recognize that a cycle of despair and malaise about being in poverty does nothing to elevate a person towards achieving for his/herself, let alone right beside the gold ring.

You're a great presence Bokonon, but that's one of the points that the Green Party had bang on and it takes the correct understanding and practice of compassion to even just understand that.

While 'leaching' off society may seem horrible, that's the only position most people stuck with assistance as a means of survival have, as it is an affliction rather than a transitory tool.

Best of luck understanding that point.

I feel that when we finally get past this rut of poverty we will finally work on developing a supportive, peaceful, healthy nation. If nobody has to fight then more people will work together.

[SaggyBalls]

Would it be fair to presume that Bokonon would appreciate a living wage?

[ollie]

Oh yeah....regarding the conservative stereotype...I work in retail (aka i'm broke as fuck!) and I'm an atheist.

Edgy.

[Velvet]

Wish my country was part of this crowd:

EU upholds climate plan despite financial turmoil

Last Updated: Thursday, October 16, 2008 | 8:34 PM ET CBC News

Europe's financial market crisis will not interfere with an expensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the continent, leaders of the EU pledged Thursday.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently holds the rotating presidency of the 27-country European Union, said that despite some misgivings about the cost, "climate change is so important that we cannot use the financial and economic crisis as a pretext for dropping it."

Following a two-day summit in Brussels, members of the EU agreed on a climate change package that includes measures to make heavy polluters accountable to a cap-and-trade emissions program.

Designed with major emitters such as energy generators, steel makers and cement producers in mind, the program could garner $70 billion US annually in polluter fees.

"We are not going to let up on the battle against climate change," European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said at the summit's close, the BBC reported.

Eight central and eastern European countries on Wednesday called on the EU to pull back from the goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 because Europe faces "serious economic and financial uncertainties."

The countries — Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — made the plea at the opening of the meeting of the European Council, the top EU decision-making body.

"We want a package that will be tolerable for the poorer member states," said Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

They were later joined by Italy, which argued that the cost of polluter fees, compounded by fallout from the financial crisis, would be overly punishing for industries.

Sarkozy said he will try to lay out a plan that avoids penalizing the bloc's former Communist countries that depend largely on carbon-heavy coal for their power.

"On the climate package, we have obtained unanimity.… It is now for President Barroso and myself to find solutions for those countries which have expressed concerns," Sarkozy said, the BBC reported.

EU hopes to lead international change

The European climate-change package will be enacted in 2009, and EU leaders hope it will draw the United States and other countries into an international program for dealing with global warming.

Barroso had earlier said that the credit crisis did not justify abandoning the climate-change plan.

"Climate change does not disappear because of the financial crisis," he said.

Following closely behind those in the U.S., European financial markets have been wracked by weeks of instability, prompting the EU to put together a $2.3 trillion emergency bailout for the banking sector. Agreed to by some leaders over the weekend, the bailout was endorsed by all EU members at the summit this week.

Sarkozy and Barroso are to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush on Saturday at Camp David, Md., to lay the groundwork for a global summit on overhauling the financial system.

The Group of Eight major industrial countries and the EU have both endorsed the idea of reforming the world's financial system to prevent another credit crisis.

The G8 said the meeting should include developed and developing countries, which would include large, strong and growing economies like China, India and Brazil.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Wednesday the meeting could produce "very large and very radical changes."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/16/eu-climate.html

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

Wish my country was part of this crowd:

yup. it is very dissapointing. I just don't get it. I don't understand what Harper's aversion is to addressing the issue (except that it wouldn't be good for the tar sands industry. Even Peter Lougheed has come out and said that the tar sands are terrible for Alberta in many ways and that way too many projects are being done.) Just about all of the economists in the country agree that carbon taxes (along with cap and trade down the road) is the way to go. Yet Harper calls it "crazy economics," and says that it will destroy us. Except there is no evidence to support such statements. Without a sustainable environment, there is no economy.

sigh...

[Birdy]

Sarkozy said he will try to lay out a plan that avoids penalizing the bloc's former Communist countries that depend largely on carbon-heavy coal for their power.

Where's Canada's plan?

[Thorgnor]

You voted against making one.

[SaggyBalls]

ZING!

[Davey Boy 2.0]

ZING!

[SaggyBalls]

only the most beautiful can quote Yours Truly.