peter_puck

We are having an election for no good reason. It is going to return the same Conservative minority we had before. The election itself is going to cost half a billion dollars. The pre election pork -barrel spending of the alleged conservatives have likely put the country into a deficit. The spending plans of the Conservatives and Liberals will sink us even deeper. We are likely a few more elections away from bankrupcy

First of all, I did not say Schreiber was telling the truth - I said he wasn't telling the truth, but that he knew the truth. My first statement was "I know Mulroney is lying. The basis for that is 1. Mr Mulroney took $200-$300 thousands in envelopes in a foreign country from a known scuzzball. 2. Mr Mulroney lied under oath about his long term relationship with said scuzzball-a crime 3. Mr Mulroney lied on his taxes about the money he received - crime 4. Mr Mulroney went to CRA right away to correct his tax return once Mr Schreiber was arrested (Schreiber must have known he did not report it) 5. Mr Mulroney has claimed he was a lobbyist, but has been able to produce no records. The people claims to have lobbied are all dead. 6. His statement that he took the money from Schreiber because Schreiber told him thats how international deals are done is bizzare. Mr Mulroney is a sophisticaed international businessman. 7. Mr Mulroney is a very bright politician. Since he knows how this would appear and did it any way, the only thing you can conclude is that he had something to hide. My second statement was that Mr Schreiber knew the truth but not telling the truth He cleary knows the truth about deals he was a partner in. Like Mulroney, he felt the need to conduct these transactions in a very questionable manner. Like Mulroney his explanation of events is questionable. It is clear that his business is bribing politicians. From his days being banned from talking to Alberta cabinet ministers, to getting charged with bribing German politicians. Saying he paid Mulroney Airbus money would be stuipid (if thats what its about). Here we clearly have an illegal act and two liars. Unless someone finds god, we will never know the true story, but I think the statement that they are both lying is reasonable.

The media prints what people want to read. While the other individuals said some dumb things, what the Conservative minister said had a greater shock value, and was much more orriginal. It is a more interesting story. Harper compounded the problem by appearing to blame the person who released the information to the public. (he had a bit of a point, but it was a totally dumbass thing to do). To put it another way, a few elections ago in Quebec, there were all sorts of scandals and dumb remarks, but the picture of the BQ leader wearing a hair net got all the press. Does that mean there is a big anti-BQ media conspiracy ? Same with Dukakis ridding the tank/jumping the shark. That got played over and over again by the media, does that mean the media is anti-Democrat ? While we are at it, lets look at puffin poop and Hitler. Obviously one was a lot more serious that the other. The puffin poop thing was different and kinda funny, so it got all the media play.

As much as I wish they would, I don' think the BQ will go away. First of all, while they may loose the "soft soverignist vote", the "hard soverignist" vote has no where else to go. It is also the offshoot of the provincial party, and it shows no signs of dissapearing. They will always have access to the PQ machine. There is also a limit to how much of the vote will go to the conservatives. The orriginal reform party grew in large part to Quebec bashing, complaining about boat loads of money being spent there, etc. While the current conservative government is spending billions looking for a Quebec breakthrough, there is a large hunk of the party that does not believe in it in principle, and I think many voters know this.

Okay, your the historian, when is the last time your province has had a Conservative/Social Credit government ? Even better when has it had a Conservative/Social Credit government that has not had scandals that make the Sponsorship Scandal look minor in comparison ? While we are at it, which province did Dion steal the idea for the Green Shift from ? You know, I could substitute a few different words for "EASTERN CANADIANS" there that would get my post/or my account here deleted . "EASTERN CANADIANS" may not cause the same social stigma as putting the name of a minority group there, but it comes from the same type of narrow minded thinking.

Your memory does not seem to go back 40 years. I seem to remember a Mulroney cabinet minister being charged with bribery and influence peddling. I remember Mulroney promising to end the rampant patronage system - even winning the election with his attacks on the issue - then opening the trough back up the minute he got into power. I remember Mulroney being called "lying Brian" even before he took envelopes with 6 figures from a professional politician briber. I remember the Conservatives calling for a criminal investigation when Stronach jumped parties, then giving Emerson a cabinet post RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION. I remember the Grewal tapes. I remember the Conservatives complaining about the power concentrated in the PMO and supporting the report on the Sponsorship Scandal, only to concentrate even more power in the PMO's office, and to through out many of the recomendations once the came to power. I also just remember them violating their own elections law...... The bottom line is that nobody's politicians are any more honest than the other guys. The last period of Conservative rule was known as a period of lies and corruption. They were replaced by the new, fresh, ethical Liberals. Chretien in the first couple terms used to brag about how he was scandal free compared to Mulroney. Then, eventually, look what happened. Power corrupts. The only reason I haven't added the federal NDP, Block, or even the Greens is because they haven't gotten to power. What would impress me is very firm promises of action to make the system more transparent and honest. Instead of complaining about how bad the other guy is then doing the same thing once they get to power. You have not done the "research", you just have a selective view of history.

They are an international party of very ideological people. They were not something created overnight by Dion. If they do go over though - you add their vote total to the Liberals, the Conservatives would be in deep trouble.

Pinch yourself, when you wake up, the numbers will change. My view. The numbers will be about what they are now (all except the debt, which will be about half a billion higher because of the election).

First of all, I would hardly call them a fringe party. They get near double figures in the polls. They have a sitting (if crooked) MP Harper's decision to kick them out confuses me however. The Greens are extremely unlikely to defeat a Conservative candidate. The percentage of small c conservatives in their ranks is rather small, so if their vote total went up, they would mainly suck from the other parties. This would be the reason the NDP and the Liberals should want them out of the debate. Most Greens were probably NDPers before, and the split of the left vote is just killing the NDP. The Liberals, with the green shift, are also competing with the Green party. Harper is a cold, calculating, very smart guy. I am wondering why the heck he is doing this ? The idea that the Greens would endorse the Liberals seems a little silly (though it is a scary though, the Liberals would be close to a majority if those votes actually went). Why wouldn't he want the vote of the tree huggers split ?

Nah, that was him. He also demanded that 3 supreme court justices be disbarred also. Karl Rove this guy is not.

Wasn't this the same guy/twit who sued Bush and Cheney saying they were responsible for 9/11 and should be arrested ?

I think that is inaccurate, at least in the federal scene. (though Mulroney and Chretian lived in different economic time) It amazes me that this socialist fool can sit there, say things like "We should teach intelligent design in schools" and do things such as start moronic wars and the brain dead social cons can cheer him like the messiah as he loads oodles of debt onto their children.

The carbon cycle is well understood in terms of the amount in the air. The rate of C02 has been increasing dramatically. There may be plenty of sinks, but they are not absorbing it nearly as fast as it is produced. You also have to remember too that carbon sinks are not linear. The arctic has been a carbon sink, but may soon "flip" to become a carbon source because of melting permafrost. The same thing with the ocean, right now it is a sink, but if the world gets much hotter, it could start to emit more than it absorbs as well. You also run into the problem that there is a limit as to how much carbon a given ecosystem. Increased C02 may cause trees to grow taller in the rain forest (hypothetical), but eventually that tree will run out of nutrients, run into the law of physics, etc. The same thing with the oceans. If you increase the number of aquatic plants, you will increase predators.

Because then people can cry cover up. Sending him away so he could not appear before this investigation. It would be foolish for Harper to do that. Right now Harper is not connected to Mulroney's corrupt behavior. If Harper is be said to be covering up for it, then a historical scandal becomes linked to the current government. Also, as I said earlier, Schreiber wants to tell the truth as much as Mulroney does. The more the Schreiber circus continues, the more focus is on Schreiber dog and pony show rather than the actions of Mulroney.

It is not what he has said that makes me think he has evidence. It is what Mulroney said and did. I don't know what the real story is, I just know Brian is lying about it (just like he lied on his taxes about it). I don't think Schreiber is telling the truth either. I am just saying he knows the truth.

"Model makers" don't forget such things. They have Phd's in Physics and atmospheric sciences - not in economics or political science. Some people specialize only in a tinny area of cloud formation. They debate these things at a higher level than either of could participate in There are all sorts of feedbacks, positive and negative. The bitch is that some of the negative feedbacks turn into positive ones once you hit a certain tipping point. Right now the arctic and the oceans are carbon sinks. They are net absorbers of C02. Get the earth hot enough, this changes - they become positive feedbacks. That is a very dangerous tipping point.

Schreiber will never produce evidence - even thought I am sure he could. If he produces evidence that he was involved in a plot to bribe the Prime Minister, then case closed, he goes to Germany where he will never get out of jail. Even if he does get out of jail, he would be charged with bribery in Canada as well. He just wants to play this game until he dies.

You feel free to weight the various cost of reducing CO2(ad nauseam). Why is it that gc cannot count the benefits ?

How so ? Is America facing a threat from its neighbours ? Is Canada or Mexico about to invade ? How about the Cubans ? When is the last time America had a brutal dictator ?

I thought David Koresh set fire to Waco. Maybe I missed that news flash. Do you have anything other than conspiracy theories that say the FBI set fire to the place ? As for "letting them burn". Go talk to an ambulance driver about what they can do entering a crime scene. Its pretty much a standard policy that emergency vehicles don't go in to the shooting stops. Look at the killing of the cops in Alberta there. Ambulance crews did not go in for hours because of danger. The siege was a result of the brutal murder of a number of police officers. I forget what the original raid was over, but I believe it had to do with protecting the children you feel that the police did not care about.

Top ten reasons this pick sucks 1. She has come out gagged, not saying anything in uncontrolled forum. Biden came out swinging, she has come out (I assume) spending all her time being briefed. Biden on the other hand has come out swinging 2. "Vetting" has become a popular search item term for the first time since the pick. 3. Obama has come off a lousy convention (in terms of bounce) only to streak up in the polls after the pick 4. The Republicans have spent all their time talking about her and explaining the pick rather than talk about what they want to talk about. 5. Her stepmother could not give her an endorsement. 6. Republicans and conservative commentators have dumped on the pick. It takes a lot of balls to trash your party's pick in the heat of a race. The "She's not even qualfied to be governor" comment will likely appear in attack ads. 7. People are not questioning Obama's experience anymore, they are questioning Palin's. 8. The media are now talking about McCain's health issues more. 9. It has come out that she supported teaching creationism in schools. May play well to the social conservatives, but it is a point of mockery for the independents. 10. The revelations keep on coming, like a bandaid being slowly pulled off. Nothing fatal, just a wave of papercuts. Husbands DUI, independents party, petty feuds, purges of local officals. And for a bonus. This topic has gotten (already) 600 replies and is growing rapidly. The Biden one got only 50 as is dead

The amount of water in the atmosphere is fixed (for a given temperature). If I put a gallon of water into the atmosphere, in a short period of time a gallon of water will fall on my head. I can put as much water in the air as I want, but the concentration will quickly return to normal. The air can hold only a limited amount of water vapor, so the rest is quickly turned into water. Remember that the amount is fixed for a given temperature. The real scary global warming predictions say that when you increase the temperature, you increase the amount of water vapor...which being a greenhouse gas increases the temperature..... C02 is the reverse. The Earth can only hold a limited amount of C02 (plant life, corals, free CO2 in the ocean, so what is left over gets put into the air. If I put a tonne of C02 into the air, the earth will have an extra tonne for years to come. (yes, its is more complicated than that, but I don't think you want a 10 page science lesson. To make an analogy. If I drink 500 barrels of water in a week then wait for a few days, the amount of water in my system will the same as a twin who didn't drink any water (assuming their is no kidney damage). On the other hand, if I eat 500 barrels of jelly beans (which contain carbon) my ass will be fat for years.

I think the point is that many of the people who oppose AGW were kooks and on the fringe of science BEFORE the AGW debate. Yes, there are a handful of serious people, but not that many.

You are missing the point. I asked for a list of hard scientists who have done relevant research. This post came as a response. This post did not have that list. I wanted an apple and I got an orange. Economists and Sociologist are relevant to the debate about the EFFECT global warming will have on social structure and the economy - but thats not what we were debating . I don't really give a rats ass about that side of the debate. I know a section of the IIPC had experts in that area, but I really don't know if there views are outside mainstream views or not. I got into this debate because of the anti-science attitudes and ignorance of many of the anti-AGW groups. When someone cannot form a logical scientific argument, it annoys me. Perhaps if I had been an English major, spelling errors would drive me nuts. Maybe if I were a political scientist, I would go crazy over something else.