gc1765

No kidding! But if every globe and mail reader thought this was hypocritical and decided not to vote for the Conservatives because of it, the Conservatives would be in trouble. (note: in order to avoid the potential for a strawman, I'm not saying every globe and mail reader is going to decide not to vote for the Conservatives because of this, but it's likely that many will) edit: I should also note that this story was not just reported in the globe and mail. It was reported in several other newspapers as well. Most people who follow the news closely would have probably heard about this by now, and some of them may be turned off by it.

Like I said in my original post, sponsoring a race car probably won't change anything in terms of climate change...but it does give the appearance that they don't care about the environment. I imagine this is probably why a lot of Globe and Mail readers, and that translates into a lot of voters, think it is a bad idea.

Again, I don't put too much faith into online polls...but still. It would be nice to see a more scientific poll. If this is how Canadians in general feel, it doesn't look good for the Conservatives. I'm not sure if you ever answered my question (perhaps I overlooked it): Which newspaper do NASCAR fans tend to read? Anyways, NASCAR fans are not the only voters. I'm sure a lot of people who read the globe and mail read this story and think that it shows the Conservatives to be hypocrites on the environment, and that could lose them votes.

Ouch! . Even though I don't have much faith in online polls, these final poll results certainly don't look good for the Conservatives.

Agreed as well. I don't care for the monarchy, but getting rid of it is not exactly a top priority for me.

I've gotta agree with geoffrey on this one:

I agree with Manning on this one.

Are you suggesting that Brian Mulroney is a fool? Or that the Conservatives are run by fools? Because, it's pretty clear that the Conservatives are in fact trying to court the "green" vote. What about the billions spent on greenhouse gas reduction? What about banning inefficient lightbulbs? Or replacing the environment minister because the public was not satisfied with her? But hey, don't take my word for it

Sure, and when I'm outdoors I'm going to spray benzene into the air wherever I wish. If you don't like it, you can stay indoors.

If you read my post, you'll see that I've argued that cars emit carcinogens as well, and thus should be taxed as well. Do you at least agree with me that pollution from cars should be taxed?

I'm talking about public property here. How much second hand smoke/exhaust do you inhale walking down the sidewalk? Shouldn't you have as much right to walk on a sidewalk (which you paid for through taxes) as a smoker without endangering your health?

If the Conservatives want to court the "green" vote, which they are trying to do, then the answer is no, it won't work. More than 1% of the Canadian public will read about this in the newspaper (but hey, if you think it's less than 1%, I don't see how much of a positive effect it could have). And most people don't think the Conservatives are anti-global warming. Polls show their public support on the environment is almost as high as the NDP or Liberals, and it's pretty clear they are trying to appeal to people on this issue. Sponsoring a race car is likely going to kill any support they have gained for the environment. Again, I have a feeling the Conservatives are going to look back on this and ask "what were we thinking?"

The OP links to a story by the Globe and Mail. Where does it say anything about the Sun?

Considering that politics is all about public opinion, it's not a bad idea to want to get public approval for advertising. If most pepole think it's a bad idea, that kind of defeats the purpose of advertising. Absolutely. It's their money, they can waste it how they want. I'm just saying it's not a very smart move and will probably lose votes for the Conservatives, if anything. Just like their attack ads. Just goes to show that having a lot of money can actually be a disadvantage for the Conservatives.

Which newspaper do you think NASCAR fans would read instead? No, I'm sure they'd rather decide how to vote based on what a race car tells them to think.

You can follow the results of this unscientific poll Here So far, Canadians aren't impressed with the idea, but it will be interesting to see how this poll turns out. I would have thought most people would agree it's a stupid idea.

But how would you ensure that people pay for behaviours that are unhealthy for OTHER people? How much second hand smoke have you inhaled? How much exhaust have you inhaled? Are you ok with people freely endangering other peoples' health?

Realistically, sponsoring a race car probably won't change much in terms of climate change, because if the Conservatives didn't sponsor a car, someone else would have. BUT... This certainly doesn't look good on the Conservatives who are trying to be "green". What the heck were they thinking? I'd like to know which "advisor" came up with this idea...I have a feeling they will get canned pretty soon.

I guess that makes you "pro-choice" Just kidding

Take the bus or ride a bike, walk, run etc. Use this health/environment tax to reduce income taxes, so there is no net increase in taxes.

Good idea! I think I've argued several times on this forum for a carbon/environmental tax.

I agree with jbg. Smokers should still get healthcare, but should have to pay more. As for taxes on cigarettes, I'd agree that we could get rid of them...but only if we completely ban smoking except on private property. I don't care what you do in your own homes, but when you put other people's health at risk, you should have to pay for it.

Sure, and the people who vote for it are paying $1.75 a vote, so what's your point?

It's from the link within your link: Link

Political parties are like the free market, if you don't like one you can choose another. We aren't talking about the government here, we are talking about a political party, and if they discriminate (which there is no indication that they are) they will likely never form government. If you want to argue that they have the potential to form government and therefore the potential to take away your liberties, I could argue that private businesses have just as much potential to take away your liberties (or life) as well.