gc1765

deleted

Couldn't agree more. Cut income taxes, not consumption taxes. The promise to cut the excise tax is even dumber than promising to cut the GST.

Nothing like sweeping generalizations... By the way, does that mean all Conservatives are cut from the same material?

The Greens aren't the only ones with a bad website: link The Conservatives will have to do something about this if they want t be taken seriously

Does anyone really believe that it would have been more politically popular to hold their convention? "We've decided that our convention is more important than the people of New Orleans." Yeah, that's going to win them a lot of votes

And so you'd rather tax income & businesses. I guess the thought here is that people make too much money, so we should discourage people from making money.

Nobody is comparing anyone to Hitler...just pointing out the obvious flaw in your logic, i.e. that just because someone invokes a response does not mean that it is a good response.

Despite conventional wisdom, a carbon tax will likely be good for the economy, because it will allow a reduction in income and business taxes thereby encouraging people to make money rather than pollute.

Any change in price will cause a change in behaviour, the larger the price the larger the change. How can you say that they are unrelated? They are all a product of using fossil fuels. Decrease fossil fuel use, and you decrease CO2, smog and oil dependency.

Even many people who deny global warming still want us to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Whether it is because they don't want to buy it from the middle east (usually Americans, but with the global economy it could equally apply to Canadians as well), because of asthma & cancer from breathing exhaust fumes, reducing traffic, or to leave some for future generations, most of us can agree that we should try to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Putting a price on them gives an incentive to do just that.

Well said.

It was John McCain who said that a VP should be able to step in and take over the role of President. It was John McCain who criticized Obama for his lack of experience. God forbid anything should happen to McCain, but the average life expectancy in the U.S. is about 77 years. At the end of his first term (should he win) McCain will be 76 and has had cancer. As for who has more experience, I don't think either of them have as much experience as other candidates (though I think they are both qualified to be President), but even some of the right-wingers here think that Obama has more experience than Palin. If John McCain wanted to make this campaign about experience, he should have picked someone who is unquestionably more experienced than Obama. Choosing Palin hurts his whole "experience" argument.

Like I said, I'm not expecting fossil fuel usage to disappear anytime soon, but putting a price on carbon (or non-renewables) will encourage the use of renewables. Eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels went from being as rational as believing in the tooth fairy to an inevitability in 100-150 years? I believe you are the one who said that we shouldn't make assumptions about technological advancements. What happens if we run out of (cheap) oil before we completely eliminate our dependency on it? Putting a price on carbon (and I would argue that we should also put a price on nuclear fuels) creates the incentive to find alternatives, and to reduce our overall energy use.

Haha, and thinking that we can burn through fossil fuels at the rate we currently do (or even faster as the population/economy increases) is as rational as believing in the tooth fairy. If you don't think it's possible to have an economy that runs on renewables, then where do you think we will be in 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? Still using fossil fuels as we do today? I'm not saying that we will wake up tomorrow and be free of our dependence on fossil fuels, but it should be what we are striving for.

The problem with the right-wing's criticism of Obama is that it applies equally to Palin.

Coal is also a limited resource, like oil or uranium. I think we should focus on trying to reduce our overall energy use, and use more renewable energy sources (regardless of whether AGW is occurring or not).

Exactly. Oil is extremely important for certain things, and since we seem to be running out of oil (at least, out of cheap oil), that's just one more reason to keep some in the ground for future generations.

The polls that came out today shows that he has gained a significant lead. poll 1 poll 2 poll of polls To be honest, I thought Palin would help McCain in the polls (especially among women), but perhaps I was wrong.

I wonder what Palin's husband does for a living? Maybe he should stay home with the kids...

Haha, good point. My guess is that right-wingers will have a double standard when it comes to the views of one's pastor...

I personally have no problems with him picking Palin (or any other woman for that matter), but you have to wonder why John McCain, who has constantly criticized Obama for his lack of experience, would pick as his running mate someone with even less experience than Obama.

I wonder if certain right-wingers here will now accuse the Republicans of playing "Identity Politics"? Seriously though, is picking a woman, at least in part, an attempt to win over disgruntled Clinton supporters? Will it work?

We have a lot more parties than that, not to mention independents. And if all else fails, there is always the option to run yourself.

Makes you wonder why, if the fixed election dates were never meant to apply to minority governments, Harper even bothered to pick October 19, 2009 as the date for the next election.

Yes. I'm alive and my wife is alive before we conceive and create a new life. Life doesn't begin (except maybe a few billion years ago), it is continuous. When the "life" becomes a distinct human being is what is in question. It's a distinction that I think some posters here don't seem to understand.