gc1765

You have some evidence that this candidate has psychological problems? Or is that just a drive-by smear?

I realize that, however I was responding to Riverwind's argument that Canadians in general do not benefit from the tar sands. Anyways, it's obvious that some Canadians benefit a lot more than others. P.S. Alberta is not propping up B.C. either.

That wouldn't be the case if we had a global carbon tax. If we did, Canada would be paying tax on all that CO2 it emits. Being one of the majority of Canadians who do not benefit from the tar sands, I would be demanding that Canada implement it's own carbon tax so that the people who do benefit from emitting that CO2 are the ones paying for it. It is up to each government to reduce the issue to the level of the individual, and it is in their best interest to do so. Food also takes resources to produce. Food is not an inherent right either, unfortunately. Well, at least we agree that people should be paying for their emissions. Does that mean you would agree to the idea of a flat global carbon tax if it did not include an exemption?

How so? Kyoto is a collective (i.e. per country) burden, that is true. However, so long as there is an incentive for countries to reduce emissions, there will be an incentive for people in those countries to reduce their emissions. For example, a country wants to reduce its emissions so that it doesn't have to pay as much tax. Therefore, they put a tax on emisions (for example, a gas tax) and individuals would then have the incentive to reduce their emissions so that they do not have to pay as much tax. That's because oil is a good which requires resources to produce it. Those with more resources (i.e. money) can afford more oil than those with less resources. Oil is not an inherent right, but rather something that we have to work for. However, the right to emit CO2 is not something that any individual has some inherent right to do more than anyone else. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that everyone has the inherent right to emit a relatively small amount of CO2 anymore than I think it's unreasonable to suggest that everyone has the inherent right to breathe CO2 without paying a tax on it. That being said, I realize that having such an exemption would be more complicated than not having one, and I'd rather see a global carbon tax without an exemption than nothing at all. And I still think that exemption or no exemption it's a better idea than Kyoto or anything similar to it.

And in a food shortage, per capita food consumption means nothing - only total food consumption matters. That doesn't mean we should tell starving Africans to reduce their food consumption by the same amount as the 300 pound person. Under my proposed system, countries would (or should) have an incentive to lower emissions because it would mean that the country would be paying lower taxes. Therefore, these countries would likely have their own system of carbon tax, whereby the people who emit more CO2 pay more than those who don't. I wouldn't have a problem with a flat tax on CO2 without any exemption, except that how can someone living in extreme poverty afford to pay such a tax? And why should they when someone who is in such poverty probably does not emit very much anyways.

By the way, if there was a global food shortage and we somehow had to reduce the amount of food that we consume, would you tell someone who weighs 300 pounds and eats 6 meals a day to cut back on food? Or would you tell them that they only have to cut back on food if everyone else, including people starving in Africa, also cut back on the amount of food that they eat?

My argument is very simple. It is based on the premise that those who do harm to others should pay for the harm that they do. I don't believe I have ever once called global warming a "planetary emergency". Right now, people can emit CO2 without consequence, even though it does harm to other people. I also realize that eliminating CO2 emissions altogether is not realistic. Everyone needs to emit at least a small amount of CO2. That is why I believe there should be a small exemption (don't ask me for exact numbers, that's another debate). Those who emit more CO2 than necessary should have to pay for it. If we assume that global warming is due in part to CO2 (I realize you probably disagree with this, but that is really another debate), and that is has negative consequences - if someone's actions (i.e. emitting CO2) cause someone's home to be underwater (for example), isn't the least that person can do is help pay for that person to buy a new home?

Considering that China has about four times the population of the United States, that means China only emits 1/4th of the amount of CO2 per capita than the United States. And considering that a lot of that CO2 is probably produced manufacturing goods for the United States, that means even if China did have to pay a carbon tax, Americans would pay the price through higher prices.

Considering that it is developed countries who are emitting much more CO2 than developing countries, and that developing countries will be affected much more by global warming, I think it is the developed countries who would be much more opposed to such an idea. Especially if we allowed a certain amount of CO2 as an "exemption", similar to how income tax has a basic personal exemption.

What we really need is some sort of Global carbon tax. If industries move to other countries, they will still have to pay the same amount of tax. The money generated from this tax could then be used to provide relief for people suffering from the effects of global warming.

No different than how Conservative supporters refer to "Liberals" as corrupt...even though the Liberals guilty of corruption are long gone...

Maybe commuters can take mass transit to the train station

To be honest, I really don't know who was worse. I'd have to look at every appointment ever made...and that's just not realistic. I know that Chretien was bad when it came to patronage appointments. So, it seems, is Harper. Hard to say who was worse though. I don't remember hearing about many patronage appointments by Martin. Of course, I'm certain that it happened, I'm not denying that, just that it appears he was better than either Chretien or Harper when it comes to patronage appointments. Of course, I'm opposed to patronage appointments no matter which party does it. "Hey, at least we're not as bad as the last guys" is not a valid excuse, in my opinion. It might work for you, but not for me. Because as far as I can see in this thread (though perhaps I overlooked it) you haven't expressed how you feel about patronage appointments. I can only assume then, since you haven't condemned the Conservatives, that patronage appointments are just fine by you. And it stands to reason that if you have no problems with Conservatives making patronage appointments, so long as they are reasonably qualified, then you have no problems with Liberals making patronage appointments, so long as they are reasonably qualified? I don't know, how have the Conservatives improved the system with respect to patronage appointments?

Perhaps a better idea would be for the government to try and recover the $2.1 million from Mulroney, given that he lied under oath in the lawsuit where he won that $2.1 million, instead of spending millions on an inquiry?

Just out of curiousity, what are the two missteps you are referring to?

Why do you doubt that? While I'm quite certain that you watched all of Mulroney's testimony today, all of Schreiber's testimonies - not just in this committee but in all relevant cases - read all of the affidavits filed by Schreiber, watched/read all of the testimony in Mulroney's lawsuit against the government, read all of the press reports related to the matter, etc...Well, most people, like myself, just don't have that much time to spend. Prior to his testimony, I thought the whole thing looked very suspicious. There were many unanswered questions in my mind which I was hoping Mulroney would clear up and clear his name. I saw his attempts to answer all those important questions in my mind - nothing he said convinced me otherwise

The fact that's it's been in the news for I don't know how long now...

You're right, I don't. Please explain to me why when questioned about his relationship with Schreiber, he was allowed to mention having a cup of coffee, but not the $225,000 deal? I watched most of it. Not all - but most of it. This has nothing to do with smear tactics. This has nothing to do with anything the Liberals have said, or anything Schreiber has said. Working only with the facts: Cash received from a shady figure, put into a safety deposit box, no records, receipts, contracts, denied under oath, denied through a spokesman, changed the story from being about pasta to being about peacekeeping vehicules, etc.. My question is WHY? Mulroney hasn't adequately explained the why, IMO, which makes him look guilty.

Do you honestly believe Mulroney's story? Do you honestly believe that the money was legitimate, despite the fact that it was paid in cash, put into a safety deposit box, no records, no contracts, no receipts? Despite Mulroney saying he had no "dealings" with Schreiber, saying through a spokesman that he never received any money, claiming it was for a pasta business - which changed to peacekeeping vehicules. I know Mulroney is very smooth and all, but to be honest I think he pulled a fast one on you. As I mentioned before, I don't think Mulroney would be found guilty in a court of law. If I was a betting man I'd say he's 95% certainly guilty - but that's not enough for a conviction.

Very true.

The Conservatives were criticizing the appointment of Liberal insiders, SOME of which were unqualified. You are one of the few people I know who could try to spin that into not being critical of appointing insiders - unqualified or not. But if that's the angle you want to play, I'll ask you right now, point blank: Do you see any problems with appointing predominantly "insiders", be they qualified or not? I mean, if the Liberals appointed all of their "insiders" to various positions, but they were all reasonably qualified, would you have a problem with that?

Do you really think Mulroney's testimony will change the majority of Canadians minds? I think most Canadians already know the story, including Mulroney's version, and they don't like what they hear.

That's exactly what it is. What is the definition of "dealings". Seems to me that a business deal would be considered a dealing. If that's not bad enough, at the very least he omitted a very important aspect of his relationship with Schreiber. Apparently a "cup of coffee" was worth mentioning, but a so-called business deal worth $225,000 wasn't worth mentioning?

Seriously? You don't think he broke any laws? If he is innocent, why all the lies? Why change stories? Why was the cash put into a safety deposit box where there would be no records? Why are there no receipts, etc.?

Apparently it is: Link