JerrySeinfeld

Dion is thinly disguised hard core socialist. This plan is a sweeping change in wealth redistribution (moving dollars from the successful to the useless, and from Alberta to the Ontarian/Quebec yesterdayvilles of the manufacturing era). Actually, it's kind of a blessing he's touting this BS. Why? Because, at least for those thinkers in the world, we will see the curtain pulled back on the environmental movement, exposing it for what it really is (worldwide): a front for those snivle-noser socialist america haters who's side lost the cold war.

It's touched upon in anoether topic, but this warrants it's own: How many times do you see media bashing of right wing politicians, both in Canada and the USA? But I've noticed a distrubing trend. It seems whenever a cartoon, or headline, or quote from a newspaper questions anything or makes fun of Barack Obama, he (and a chorus of left wing media) run to the podium to chastise the quote/cartoon/comment for being so "offensive". First of all, when did any public official or candidate earn the "right not to be offended". Example: Obama's wife was being criticized / analyzed in the wake of some public comments she made in a speech, particularly about how she had "never been proud to be american until recently" or something to that effect. And as well how "tough" it is rasing a family, complaining about how difficult it is to pay tuition bills of Ivy league schools on a $500,000 annual income. When some pundits / pols started questioning some of her words, sentiments, Obama was given exposure on a prominent show (60 minutes?) stating "lay off my wife...that's offside" etc. Another example is that of a recent cartoon in the New Yorker. This is merely one of many examples. I suggest you watch the coverage of Obama with this post in mind. Since when is this "rookie" senator of 4 years given such carte blanche to chastise people for reporting and criticizing what he or his wife say in public speeches? And even worse, since when do voters eat up this garbage so willingly? I think Barack is a major beneficiary of "Evil Bush Syndrome" - a common condition whereby people blame every problem under the sun on GW Bush, irrationally so. Some lefties are so desperate in their irrational fear of GW Bush, they'll eat up anything a junior senator from Illinios says just in the hopes that the Dems might actually win a presidential election. Where is the balance? The rationality, people?

Economic hit or not, this is a blatant wealth transfer and pure politicking. Dion is dropping a bomb on electoral gridlock by saying "f*ck you alberta - we're taking your $ and redistributing it" It's a calculated gamble based around the principle that Alberta is a wasteland for Libs anyway. However, its risky because a tax on carbon (which will absolutely increase the cost of fuel, directly or indirectly) during today's high oil prices could very easily piss off the rest of the country too. He's playing the George W Bush game: screw California and New York etc. My constituency is enough without you. Dion is betting he'll give up the nothing he has in Alberta for a bigger win in Quebec, the only place this tax has any degree of acceptance. Smart politics? or A**hole? You decide

CFCs v Carbon is night and day. Carbon is EVERYWHERE.

I don't understand. Canada as a nation emits 0.3% of the world's total annual carbon dioxide emissions. With oil prices where they are now (a natural, market driven emissions reducer, by the way), this is a horrible time to be piling on with even more punitive carbon pricing. Why is this ivory tower imbiscle trapsing around the country with a holier than thou attitude as if he's actually saving the planet. I thought we as a country and western society in general had finally gotten past smug, know it all academics trying to run our countries into the ground. I guess the GW Bush backlash has primed us for another round of empty plattitude, tax and spend blowhards like Dion and Obama. Shades of Trudeau and Carter. Can you say "ugh"?

If your judgement of a healthy society hinges upon whether or not you're "afraid to smoke a J" because of "idiot rednecks" I would suggest that you 1. Reevaluate your priorities and 2. Examine your stereotyping. Isn't the whole idea of being a buttf*ck liberal that you're supposed to be "accepting" and "tolerant". Or is that only when referring to some brown dude who beats his wife because the koran says it's ok?

As a latecomer to the discussion, not sure if this has yet been brought in but, in my view, the American(?) Concept that any and all of these tyes of "offenses" should be subject to the free "marketplace of ideas" whereby people and free to say whatever they want and others are free to counter that. In a free and just society the truth (which by the way is NOT a defense in the human rights "court" in BC) will prevail amidst the freedom to have and express opinions. This latest "human rights" farce in BC actually ties in very well to the Goldberg book (and concept) of "Liberal Fascism", which argues that fascism won't be coming to our countries in jackboots and tanks. It'll come with a smile on it's face, dressed up as "doing whats right" when really what it's doing is thinly veiled thought-policing. "This is how we all talk" "This is how we should all think" "You're not allowed to talk or write or think that way" Sounds alot like fascism to me. And this most recent farce is a perfect example of "creeping, smiley face left wing fascism". My $0.02.

How about giving our hard earned money back to us.

Can you please point out - as per the above - what exactly is wrong with any of what is quoted above?

Is this really called "why capitalism doesn't work" as China, the last remaining legitimate bastion of marxist thought explodes with economic - and capitalist - growth? GIVE ME A BREAK.

Nobody "knows". My prediction is that it will be McCain v. Hillary If it's McCain v. Obama, McCain will win hands down. If it's Hillary, it should be very...very close. I see McCain winning out in that scenario.

My two cents on Hillary

hahahahahahaha I always look to the left for comedy. unfortunately - this story doesn't surprise me one iota.

The "we were here first" argument holds no water anyway - otherwise we'd all be telling Muslims to shut their traps and integrate already.

This is the empitimy of left wing progressivist thinking: if I close my eyes it will all go away and "everything will be ok because it always works itself out". Actually, in reality it rarely has throughout human history. The American moment in history as it were has mercifully been a brief period of prosperity, happiness and freedom preceded by centuries of opression, dictatorship and misery. Many fundamentailst Muslims would have us go back. Lefties speak as if the evils of nazism, communism, slavery, fascism were not defeated by a strong will to prevail, and a WAR, but rather because we all just ignored them for long enough. This is the kind of thinking that will topple our society: a famous quote: societies don't die from murder - they commit suicide. This complacency is the precise problem and danger we face.

No kidding - I'm aware of the difference between the PA and the GCs. You missed the common thre between the two. In each case it's a question of our side following (or choosing to suspend) traditional rules to be on an even playing field with the other side, which plays by NO rules. THAT's what I'm referring to when I talk about "fighting with one hand tied behind our backs".

Let's start with my question: Do you think it's fair that we (ie. the west - including Canada in it's fight against the inherently evil Taliban, the US in it's improving fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq etc.) engage in this fight with one hand tied behind our backs? Let me explain a bit. In a world where the Pakistani President is killed because an Islamic militant strapped a bomb to an infant baby and invited the President to come over and kiss the little one, will "fighting fair" (as it were, on a battlefield, with enemies identified by uniforms, a la world war II) ever actually work? In a world where, out of the goodness of our hearts, we invite people from all corners of the world - even ass-backward midevil corners - with open arms and treat them as equals, only to (rarely mind you) find that those very same newcomers have chosen not to embrace our society, but rather to create their own society and destroy ours (see third generation UK citizen London tube bombers), is this struggle between radical Islam and our fundamental values of freedom subject to new rules of the game? In times of war, is it possible for societies to "temporarily" shift individual liberties to protect the masses? Or is this simply an admission of defeat - ie. by suspnding some individual privacies / liberties we're curtailing the very freedoms we intend to protect. Personally I side with the patriot act. We all give up some individual liberties when we get on board an airplane. The only ones that really mind (aside from the idea of mere inconvenience) are those that are trying to getb something illegal onto an airplane anyway. We accept the inconvenience for the greater good - and for our own saftey. This is my own opinion. This might sound callous, but I also don't really care about the Taliban getting tortured. Seriously. I heard something vaguely on the news the other day about the "scandal" of Canada handing over Talabin combatants to Afghani forces and being tortured. I mean, Canada is so g*damned worried about our image we are more concerned with that than with winning. Even our money has pictures of soldiers walking around with no guns. GIVE ME A BREAK. OK I digress....haha Given things like the Canadian Islamic Congress Versus Maclean Magazine (via Canadian Human Rights Council), or the Toronto terrorist plotters claims of police abuse, or Islamic UK MPs stating that "bombing plots could easily be avoided if we changed our foreign poliy re: Islreal / Iraq", or Taliban being "tortured", it seems really obvious that radical Islamists have figured out the be st way to defeat our societies is to use our own ego (ie. our need to feel like wer'e a great, gentle, tolerant society) against us while they continue their own barbaric style of warfare unchecked. It should be noted, by the way, that page 1A of the Jihadi handbook (figure o speech obviously) advises that captured combattants complain about abuse by the authorities, which in and of itself is and indicator that they've figured out our key weakenss in thsi struggle but again I digress. The point is, things like the Taliban being tortured (even if that were the case), or the Guantanamo bay detainees, or the CIA monitoring Khomeini Mohammed Jihadi's email under the protection of the patriot act (ie. violating a "U.S. Citizen's" rights) (by the way is this th same kind of citizen as the "Canadian Citizens" who demanded Canadian action to evacuate them from Lebanon only to return back to Lebanon after Israel pulled back a couple of summers ago?)...none of these things really bother me. Following old school "rules of war" seems obsolete in a world where jihadis can use our own laws to destroy us. So again the question fo debate: Do you think it's fair that we (ie. the west - including Canada in it's fight against the inherently evil Taliban, the US in it's improving fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq etc.) engage in this fight with one hand tied behind our backs?

Hey, the lievly debate on this thread proves that Goldberg has achieved what was probably intended: he has levelled the playing field. For far too long the left have had the market cornered on namecalling and demonization. Finally they have been exposed, and the discussion has been opened up regarding the very same BS they accuse of their right wing counterparts. HEAR HEAR!

That's classic. I'm laughing out loud - thank you! Conformity? Not a hallmark of left wing liberalism? hahahahahahahahahaha Suspension of rights? Like freedom of the press? Can you say Canadian Islamic Congress abuses Human Rights Comission 3 times fast?

Has anyone heard of this book? Here is a quote from the Amazon intorduction to the book: This is so absolutely true - think of the college campuses of today with it's accepted "code" language (green language, progressivism etc.). Just one of many examples. I know I'm going to pick up a copy...

Well I don't know that but those beautiful new ballparks in American cities' downtowns are amazing. Safeco field in Seattle is superb. One of the reasons I left Edmonton was because the "development" takes forever. I used to tout the other side of the tracks on Whyte avenue as "the next big area" but it's moving at a bloody snails pace. Same goes for downtown. Sure - some new condos have been developed downtown, but I was in Edmonton a few weeks ago and downtown is still a dumpy wasteland from what I saw. Jasper avenue still looks like a sewer.

True. I used to have a saying: how do you know you're in a first class, world class city? People who live there have stopped trying to convince you their city is world class / first class. You never hear New Yorkers at conferences or vacation spots bragging about how "happening" New York is these days. You never hear Londoners going on ad nauseum about sky high real estate prices in Notting Hill or King's Road. You don't hear people from Hong Kong talk about how "busy things are". Or San Fran people bragging about their new baseball stadium. By that measure Calgary and Toronto are still in the "trying" category

Not true - encana will be 59 stories. The current height of the (not finished) Shangri-La is about 61 stories and I believe it will be 66 when complete. Just the facts

It's more than that, though. For those looking to buy a home centrally (not out in the sticks), for many young home buyers a single family rotten shack for $1,500,000 in Vancouver proper just won't do it - so the next most reasonble solution is a condo downtown - then all of a sudden $700,000 for a well finished two bedroom two bath doesn't seem so unreasonable. Yes - a la US cities lol. I believe every city with any sense of pride should have an awesome building.

Exactly, Buffy. When politicians and alarmists start running around banging the "the scince is settled" drum, I don't think they realize how 1. Religious 2. Close minded they sound. And as well, with something as massively complex as climate - for which there is very scant hard provable data (what? a few ice core samples? tree rings? come on people). - it's unbelievable that any scientist with any self-respect would fall entirely into one camp or the other. Especially given that science is always advanced by disproving theories - not by proving them to an absolute degree. Anywone who understands what science actually is knows this to be true - which makes it even more fantastic that so many scientists have shamelessly habbled up to slurp from the funding trough - or allowed themselves to be silenced by IPCC (who routinely kicks out, ostracizes or censors member scientists who point out contradictory scientific data). These eco-kooks are really starting to look like flat-earthers all over again - denying data, squashing truth and shunning dissenters. I think the founder of Greenpeace said it best when he mentioned this: when he left greepeace they were talking about trying to BAN chlorine. He piped up at a meeting stating (paraphrased) "guys - Chlorine is an element in the periodic table - I don't think it's in our jurisdiction to ban a whole element" Another thing the founder of greenpeace mentioned is that, after the Berlin wall fell, he found the organization was starting to attract "activists" who, in a very clever way, began to use environmental language to cloak their true agendas against capitalism etc. If you think about global warming, it's the perfect anti-USA, anti-capitalism, anti-BUSH (think of Al Gore here) agenda - and you can guilt the general public into it without ever bringing up "politics". It's so obvious.