blackbird
-
Posts
7,936 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Carbon taxes will not, repeat not increase the cost of living; government can reduce taxes in other areas to offset any carbon taxes.
If you believe that, I have a piece of real estate and a lot of other things to sell you.
As a senior, I paid over $2000 in direct carbon taxes in the last eight years in northwest B .C. on natural gas heating and auto gas. The B.C. government claimed they gave a tax reduction to offset it as part of the so-called revenue neutral carbon tax. Nobody seriously believes that. The fact is only certain citizens paid the most carbon taxes while the rest of the population paid little or no carbon taxes. People that did not use natural gas or oil heating paid no carbon taxes on that. People with electric heating or wood stoves (which are air polluting) pay no carbon taxes. People who live in apartment buildings and ride transit buses or skytrain pay almost no carbon taxes. So it is a very discriminatory tax Most of the rest of the world pays no carbon tax while some of us in B.C. have been used as the scapegoats in the great battle against climate change. It is an unfair and discriminatory tax grab. The slight reduction in income tax that might have been given was spread around to everyone in the province and would amount to a tiny fraction of what some of us paid in carbon taxes. Therefore while some of us paid thousands of dollars in carbon taxes in the last eight years, that money was taken and given to mostly everyone else. Hardly revenue neutral, which is phony political rhetoric.
-
3 minutes ago, Wilber said:
Regulations and standards are what are needed, not a tax which just takes money away from R&D and infrastructure. Emissions regulations have done wonders for the air of our cities. Smog was a huge problem in North American cities during the sixties and seventies, now their air is clean in spite of the fact there are three times as many vehicles on the road. There are things that can be done but they won't happen without commitment.
Agree with emission regulations to reduce air pollution, which is a major problem in many cities. The focus of Trudeau to put a price on carbon is a whole different issue. That will not affect air pollution, but it is a misguided attempt to reduce CO2. Unfortunately carbon dioxide has become the bogey man that many fear because of the fear mongering about the fiction of man-made global warming. Many do not understand that carbon dioxide is an essential part of life on earth. It is necessary for plants, forests, and vegetation to breath. It is also absorbed by oceans and performs a natural function in the equilibrium of the natural order of life on earth. Huge amounts of carbon dioxide are released by volcanoes and forest fires every year. Many scientists dispute the claims of the man-made global warming theorists.
-
1 minute ago, ?Impact said:
Wrong on all counts.
Putting a price on carbon will improve the economy and decrease the cost of living and attract investment and job while reducing the rate of climate change. It is a win, win, win, win, win on all sides.
You will notice that I have provided exactly the same substantiation to my claims as you.
You are being contrary for the sake of being contrary which is being a contrarian!
-
13 hours ago, dialamah said:
.Shall we decamp to SA because the pool offered ladies-only nights that include aquacise training in the hopes of getting us older gals out? I'm grateful that the pool is empty and that when I go to use the hot tub, it's not filled with a bunch of hairy guys, some of whom stare a little too much.
Ah, guess you let the cat out of the bag. You hoped to keep it a secret. LOL
-
41 minutes ago, Wilber said:
Because it seems our survival instinct doesn't go beyond the most primitive level. As a group we don't seem able to do any more than curl up in the fetal position and hope it goes away. So much for human "civilization".
Climate change has always occurred throughout history and don't believe that man has the power stop it. We can adapt to any negative effects of changing climate. The idea that man can control the climate is not credible.
-
2 hours ago, dialamah said:
Whether it's a man-made phenomenon or a natural cycle it is still going to affect humans, so mitigation seems like a good idea to me.
I'm not sure what you mean by mitigation. We should be prepared and adapt to climate change. Putting a price on carbon and imposing carbon taxes on people will only hurt the economy and increase the cost of living and chase investment and jobs away while doing nothing to stop climate change. So people are not only being affected by climate change and must adapt, but they are being hit by government taxes and regulations on the energy industry.
-
I am opposed to carbon taxes of any kind. I am not convinced man-made global warming is anything more than fiction. Leftist politicians and governments love it because it gives them an excuse to tax us. In the last eight years in B.C. I paid over two thousands dollars in direct carbon taxes and more on the indirect increase in the price of everything. We are one of the few places in the world that pay any carbon taxes. Most people on the planet pay nothing. In fact only a select few in B.C. pay significant carbon taxes. There is a 7% carbon tax on natural gas heating and auto gas. So those living in apartments and riding rapid transit pay almost nothing. Those who heat their homes with electricity or wood stoves pay no carbon taxes. There was a small tax cut but that applied to everyone so it was spread around to all taxpayers. Those who paid little or no carbon taxes got the rebate, while those who paid most of the carbon taxes got the same small tax break.
Canada as a whole only emits about 1.9% of the world's CO2 emissions and B.C. a tiny fraction of that. Carbon taxes in B.C. have done nothing to curb global warming which always has been a natural phenomena. It is just a scam and tax grab.
-
On 2016-11-09 at 6:55 AM, Argus said:
I don't think Trump thinks one way or the other about Canada, but I find it very hard to believe he's going to think much of Justin Trudeau, or vice versa. I think Trump and his VP are anathema to Trudeau and his entire cabinet. Trudeau or someone is going to have to sit on his people to keep them from making nasty comments to the media. Trump doesn't forget or forgive.
Ironically, I think Harper would have gotten along with both him and Pence far better, particularly Pence, who is likely going to be by far the most powerful Vice President in US history. He and Harper share that evangelist stuff, and he and Trump would have respected Harper in a way they definitely won't respect Trudeau.
This is going to be an isolationist government, and with so much of our trade with the US it's going to be important to try and maintain a good relationship, particularly in light of how vindictive and petty Trump can be towards perceived slights. It's going to be even harder because, no matter what he might say about wanting 'fair deals' in trade he has never sought fair deals with anyone before. He's sought to screw them over. Fortunately, Trump won't be in charge of much, other than as a general overseer. I think Pence will be the guy to deal with. Trump is not the sort to hold long meetings or read long reports. Pence will do that and verbally summarize what he thinks Trump needs to hear.
I don't think Pence is going to have much time for Trudeau either, though. Which does not bode well for NAFTA and other trans border agreements. I think the US is going to get even more heavy handed at its border because of the number of Muslims coming into Canada, and that Canada might also face heavy pressure due to its lack of military spending. In fact, Trump might want to make an example out of Trudeau in this regard. You can forget any sort of climate change legislation for the foreseeable future, which means Canada is left imposing heavy penalties on industries located here while no such penalties exist across the border. Which means even if NAFTA remains we're going to see a surge in relocations as industries move south to take advantage of the lower taxes and lower energy costs.
All in all, I see little good coming out of this presidency for Canada, other than that cross-border pipelines will be given the go-ahead.
Lots of good comments.
The U.S. always has been a tough negotiator on things like the lumber agreements. Canada and/or the U.S. have gone to the arbitrator on the lumber agreements. So I don't expect anything to change on that.
I don't think we will see any major changes to NAFTA because it is a good deal for both countries as it is. There may be some slight tinkering. Canada has top negotiators ready. We have years of experience at it. Shouldn't be any big problems. I don't think Pence or any top officials will be involved themselves. They probably don't know much about it. It will be done by specialists in negotiating NAFTA.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, GostHacked said:
So why does the west and the EU cozy up to the Saudis? Even if you go with the fact that 9/11 was masterminded, but not really by Bin Laden but via connections from Saudi Arabia. Most of those hijackers were in fact Saudi nationals, but yet every other nation in the Middle East is paying for it by being destroyed.
My guess is that travellers from Saudi Arabia are not considered a possible threat to the U.S. and the country is considered an ally on the war against terrorism, and/or Saudi Arabia has a vetting system they trust.
-
1
-
3
-
-
"Rather than succumb to these apocalyptic “chicken little” cries of “#MuslimBan,” forcing our attention away from the real problem of Islamic extremism, I gently urge Muslims—and other well-intentioned folks—to take this unique opportunity of a new presidency to directly challenge the ideology of Islamic extremism, directing our outrage at the real enemy, the ideologues that promote Islamic extremism, defeating them and saving lives everywhere, so that we actually ban something very nefarious from this world: the ideology of Islamic extremism."-- Asra Q. Nomani (@AsraNomani) is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and the author of Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam. She is a cofounder of the Muslim Reform Movement
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, kactus said:
The said travel ban has nothing to do with terrorism.
If you believe that, there is not much we can say.
-
1
-
-
Just now, ?Impact said:
Can you give examples of citizens of Iran involved in terrorist activities in the US? Most of those from Iran that I know are high educated and fit very well into North American culture and economy. No matter if they are Muslim or not, they don't want to be in Iran because they don't support the regime there.
i never said any citizens of Iran in the U.S. are involved in terrorist activities. The problem is not with those who are in the U.S. The travel ban is not for them.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, ?Impact said:
While that might be true for country with very new and developing government like Somalia, how could that apply to Iran which is highly developed?
Iran is considered a country very hostile to the U.S. and Israel. They are reportedly a state-sponsor of terrorism.
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, kactus said:
Trump's revised ban has nothing to do with making America safe again...
I won't really care if anyone here really thinks he is doing A "great job" as a POTUS but if anyone really cared and decent enough with a bit of morality they would realise that this is not doing anything to help make US safe again but instead unnecessarily increases animosity towards the US.
What do you think? Please argue rationally instead of resorting to name callings and blankets statements.....
Not a single American has been killed from a terrorist act in the United States committed by nationals from the countries targeted in the so-called revised travel ban..6bc
An immigrant from Somalia did attack about 13 people with a knife sometime in the past year or so in one of the northern U.S. states. Fortunately nobody died. One reason I heard for putting the six countries on the ban list is because they have administrations which are unwilling or unable to properly vet travellers. Some governments in these countries are in a state of anarchy or hostile to the U.S. Trump also receives confidential security information from national security agencies that he cannot make public for national security reasons. He may have specific information which indicates there are genuine terrorist threats from groups in some of these countries.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
Things are not going to get better any time soon, I'm thinking. Muslims are looking more and more like 1940s Jews in Germany, but on a worldwide scale. Our 'side' has been invading and killing Muslims in their home countries for decades, whilst we sit in our safe little living rooms and are delivered our sanitized stories about making life better for these people (and safeguarding oil). After decades of this, some Muslims start to fight back - and they're the 'bad guys'.
You are completely out of touch with reality. Check the website religionofpeace dot com
Jihad report for March 4 to 10th, 2017.
Attacks 30
killed 309
injured 228
suicide blasts 3
countries 12
Total number killed by terrorist attacks since 9-11: 30,446
I would guess a lot of these victims are Muslims.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Altai said:
Now I will put you in my ignore list because of lying and slander. Despite I excplained why I dont reply you, you dont want to understand because of it contradicts with your personal ego and interests. This topic is about "whether or not Sharia is similar with countries laws including Canada laws". You are asking something complately irrelevant with the topic subject. You are asking me "Whether or not I can prove that Quran is the word of God". So in this case it does not matter whether or not Quran is the word of God. Here the case is there is something called Sharia and its similar and non-similar parts with countries' laws. Your question has "zero" effect nor "relevance" with the content.
So Quran is not the word of any God/Gods, but I am still questioning its suitability with countries' laws.
Quran is the word of God/Gods, but I am still questionin its suitability with countries's laws.
I invited you to start another topic and you rejected it too.
Bye !!!
What lie or slander did I say? Disagreement and pointing out facts is not a lie or slander. You might not like it or disagree with it but it is a point of view. A lie is something meant to deceive. Sorry if I offended you. If you want to put be on your ignore list, you are free to do that.
-
13 hours ago, dialamah said:
If someone who hasn't yet made Altai's ignore list would like to repost that for me I would appreciate it, cause I would like her to see it.
Don't know if I am on the ignore list or not. She threatened to put me on it if I continue asking a question she didn't like. So I gave up.
Do you know what OP means?
-
There have been other religious groups that make demands too, such as having the public swimming pool have men only swimming at certain times, changing the menus in public institutions, removing certain foods from the menu, special prayer room in a university, use of a gymnasium in a public school on Fridays to use as a mosque, special prayer breaks on the job, not accepting a female as a teacher or authority over them, etc. etc. Should these kinds of demands be accommodated? Some would say yes, others no. Is this creeping Sharia?
-
9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
Good, then he should be able to hear the cries of billions of pathetic fools suffering in an insane world, much of it is due to arguing about the esoteric meaning of some obscure passage in an ancient book, that gets interpreted wrongly by some psychopath who in turn starts killing people in the name of said God.
Wheh, are you angry?? I don't know if I would blame the bible for the billions of suffering people in the world. Most of them probably never even heard of it.
-
3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
That's not what you said earlier
What did I say?
-
On 2017-03-08 at 7:24 AM, BillyBeaver said:
if you research O'Leary's history in life and business you'll find another silver-spooner that discarded his ethics for money. Not somebody I would want as PM.
Yes. I don't like the idea of him living in the U.S. and just flying in here to grab the leadership. A lot of his ideas are haywire too. I think he even supports carbon taxes. He could just as easily be a Liberal in a lot of ways.
-
On 2017-02-25 at 4:24 AM, betsy said:
Can our candidates running for leadership please stop sounding like liberals?
Really.....I think most of you are liberals in conservative clothings - or you're now confused about your own stripes. When I listen to you talk, all I have to do is close my eyes, and I feel like attending a blasted liberal rally!
I know, if you want to have the chance of getting elected in this land, you've got to talk the talk - you've got to sound liberal. However, how can we ever change things around here if nobody will muster up the courage to say things that only makes sense? Win or lose, you have to stand up and be conservatives in your visions!
There is a major shifting happening next door, and I don't think I'm imagining things when I say that it's catching on. You've got to know when to seize the moment. That's part of a being a great leader.
I think, all conservatives should watch this. And I think, anyone who's aspiring to be leader of the party should take some lessons from it.
The era of empty talk is over.
The OP from the topic America Under President Trump was revisited. He`s been doing as he`d promised.
What citizen doesn't glow hearing that he comes first? That the best interest of his country comes first?
You bet, a lot of everday folks - folks who have no secret agenda - are secretly wishing our politicians are like Trump.
I agree with you. But you've got to contact the Conservative MPs and let them know your thoughts. I think the only reason a lot of them are opposing M103 is because a lot of members contacted them and told them what they thought. Otherwise they would have probably just gone along with it.
-
With the availability of the internet Google these days, almost anybody can look up a commentary or several to see what a passage is saying.
-
20 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
Same goes for all the screwy holy books of old. Anyone can read practically anything in it. Tell you what, you want to present a book that gives some kinda moral code for everyone to live by, better make it as simple clear as possible. Not a bunch of cryptic mumbo jumbo.
Since the Bible was written by God maybe you can take that up with him. I am sure he can hear you.
21 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:Same goes for all the screwy holy books of old. Anyone can read practically anything in it. Tell you what, you want to present a book that gives some kinda moral code for everyone to live by, better make it as simple clear as possible. Not a bunch of cryptic mumbo jumbo.
Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
So you think people that live in homes that are heated by natural gas or oil furnaces in communities where that is the most common way of heating should abandon their homes or spend thousands of dollars? Natural gas is known to be an extremely efficient form of heating and causes almost no air pollution. It is a vast resource in the ground that creates thousands of jobs for Canadians. We also sell huge amounts of natural gas to the U.S. Billions of dollars in tax revenue for government pays for health care, education, etc.