kimmy
-
Posts
11,423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by kimmy
-
-
I'm not afraid of refugees in general. To me, what this is about is the rule of law. If the churches can spur some reform of the refugee system, then good for them, I will support their activism 100%.
However, if the government rejects a claim, then the church better step aside.
-kimmy
-
Where is Canada going with R & D for alternative sources of enery?
Where is the research? It is in Burnaby, BC, at Ballard Power Systems.
Unfortunately, the technological obstacles in making hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles a mainstream option are proving very stubborn.
As Ballard falls behind on its timetable, and major automakers like Honda and Toyota are making increasingly viable hybrid vehicles, it looks more and more like the solution is not in new technology, but in consumer attitudes. After all, hybrid vehicles are not really new technology, they're old technologies applied in a new way to meet different consumer goals. A hybrid vehicle could have been developed a lot earlier, but until a significant number of consumers decided that more efficient and environmentally safe transportation was important, there just wasn't an incentive to do it.
And as other energy prices go the same direction as gasoline prices, people will be more conscious of other energy costs too. Being stung at the gas pump is the time when most people become aware of the costs of energy consumption, but now when they open their electricity or utility bills each month, there is also an unpleasant shock. People are becoming very conscious of turning off lights when they're not being used. People replacing regular lightbulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs that use 1/5 the energy. My family recently replaced our old furnace with a high-efficiency furnace-- rebate incentives from the Canada and Alberta governments made the purchase more attractive, but the rising monthly gas bill is what made it a priority.
The obvious way to react to increasing energy costs is to... use less energy. People don't need to wait for miracle technology to arrive, they have choices. Rising energy costs are a blessing in disguise. It makes people more conscious of the costs of their lifestyle.
-kimmy
-
Duncan, say the dog gets a job maybe this support payments are significantly reduced and now the dog has the ability to support itself - and "al.i.mony" is mine
the law is wise i guarantee
This is very true. There's no reason why the dog can't go run around with a little keg of brandy around its neck to rescue lost skiers, like other St Bernards.
-
That is why an environmental levy on each litre of gas makes sense. The amount of pollution you create is directly proportional to the amount of gasoline you use. If you burn 10 litres in a Civic, you might go farther than if you burn 10 litres in an Escalade... but ultimately you've burned 10 litres of gas either way, and created a corresponding amount of pollution.
Ever notice how people are all in favor of the environment right up to the part where their own lifestyle might be affected?
-kimmy
-
Nonetheless the argument is whether or not Clark destroyed the PC party.
Actually, the argument was with the claim that Joe Clark could have lead the Conservatives to victory. Joe Clark's results in the 2000 election cast serious doubt on that idea.
-kimmy
-
Why not both?
Tradesmen and other people or businesses who need larger, more powerful vehicles as part of their livelyhood already claim transportation-related expenses on their tax returns anyway. An environmental levy on fuel wouldn't be an impediment.
I agree with the idea of offering incentives to choose smarter options, though
-kimmy
-
The Media
The Herald and Sun editorial boards have their heads shoved so far up Kleins ass that it's a wonder that a video of it hasn't popped up on the internet.
The media is supposed to act to inform the public, not mislead it.
The media (CFCN, RDTV, CFRN, Global Calgary, Global Edmonton, the Sun, Herald) has an unwritten policy of not doing any investigative reporting into Alberta government waste or scandal.
They don't do their job. They, if anything, defend anything that the province does, while just implying a bit of skeptsism once inawhile.
There is no 'free' press in Alberta. It might as well be run by the province, but of course, that would be against the Charter, so to avoid a repeat of what Social Credit did, it's just easier to co-opt the media.
There's no such thing as conspiracy theories though, merely converging goals.
The only way to get 'exclusives' from the government is to play ball.
You've taken what would have been a good message about media manipulation, and completely trashed it with trolling remarks trying to link Klein's personality with Albertans as a group.
Many rural Albertans still drink and drive.Many rural Canadians still drink and drive. I think you'll find Saskatchewan is Canada's perennial leader in drunk driving statistics, although I could be mistaken.
Also, if you're accusing Klein of drunk driving, I think you've got him confused with the premier of the province to the left of us.
Most of the indigation, again, came from the 30% or so of Albertans who vote Liberal.Most Cons didn't freak out. Again, actions speak louder than words.
Maybe most people just accept that partisan politics is a confrontational business.
So yes, he's a plagerist.Did Albertans respond?
Nope.
So they must agree with it then.
Oh, I see. Kind of like, the Liberals were caught at money laundering and fraud, and Ontario voters continue to support them, so Ontarians must support money laundering and fraud? Yes, this is solid logic...
Hence, instead of the word 'Gerrymander', we use the word 'Gettymander"Make sense?
I did google for Gettymander and Gettymandering, and got zero hits. So when you say "we" use the term, I take it you mean the "royal we"?
I think that if you look at any jurisdiction in Canada you'll find disproportionate representation of rural voters.
Pessimistic:The entire Conservative movement, and the Alliance, and Reform, and SoCred before it, are all the epitomy of pessimism.
That's an opinion. Personally, I find the NDP philosophy is pessimistic: only government intervention can prevent people from ruining everything.
All wheened off the shrivelled tit of lady Alberta.I just have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Yes. I call it hypocritical to say "get the government out of my life" while simultaneously demanding more government in other people's lives.Ie. They're against gun control and seat belts, but, most (a good majority) agree with police CCTV, or with enhanced liscensing.
I don't see how it's hypocritical to oppose new laws while believing that our law enforcement ought to have the tools they need to enforce existing laws.
If you want to see the future of Canada under a Harper government, look into the Skoal-stained mouth of an Albertan.And you just couldn't finish off without one last troll. In what part of the province do you see all this Skoal being chewed?
-kimmy
-
The PC party was led into oblivion by Mulroney who went from the largest majority ever to 2 seats in less than 10 years. Reform and the Bloc were both created to oppose Mulroney, (at the expense of the PC party in Quebec and the West). Campbell put the final nail in the coffin with her lackluster campaign but it was all Mulroney that led to the destruction of the PC party not Clark.
Sure, that was the excuse in 1993, but what about 2000?
In the 1997 election Jean Charest led the PCs from 2 seats all the way up to 20. Then Charest goes to try his luck in Quebec, and Joltin' Joe Clark takes over... and in the 2000 election, wins...
...13 seats. Oops.
But I'm sure he's a great leader, a wise man, a proud Canadian
-kimmy
-
If you're getting all this utility and safety from your SUV, then you and you alone are the beneficiary... but everybody who lives in your city has to live with the pollution you create. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you, the person who has decided he/she deserves this extra convenience, to compensate your fellow citizens for the inconvenience resulting from your choice. Since the amount of pollution you create is directly proportional to the amount of gas you burn, an environmental per-litre levy on gasoline would be an ideal solution.
As for the rest, long-haul highway duty isn't a primary need for most Canadians, as the overwhelming majority of us live in urban centres or within short commuting distance. The ability to carry large loads isn't a strong argument for SUVs, as minivans, and pickups are all superior at that and most deliver considerably better fuel economy. I seldom see an SUV being used as a tow vehicle, or carrying any sort of load, or for that matter even carrying more than 2 people. When I see the way many SUV-owners drive, I don't think safety is a primary consideration in their lives either.
Try to rationalize it any way you want, but we all know that the reason most SUV-owners bought SUVs has nothing to do with safety or cargo. Many people buy ridiculously large pickup trucks for the same reason. While many pickups are used as working vehicles or tow-vehicles, there are plenty of people who do not need any of their vehicle's capability, and just drive them to show off... "cowboy SUVs", I suppose. That's fine... do whatever you want, it's your money, but there is an environmental cost that you should pay.
-kimmy
-
I think that if you investigate crash safety ratings, you'll find that "death-trap" is not an accurate description of most small cars. And unless your family is bigger than the Waltons and Brady Bunch put together, you can fit a week's worth of groceries into a fuel efficient vehicle with no difficulty.
I also think that if you're honest, you'll concede that one doesn't need a 6000 pound, 300hp off-road vehicle to carry groceries or get the kids to soccer practice. If one is genuinely concerned about cargo space, a minivan can hold at least as much as an SUV, and deliver twice the fuel economy. I think you'll also concede that most people who purchase SUVs have no intention of ever taking them off-road. Most people purchase these large, ridiculously inefficient vehicles as status-symbols, with no consideration of the environmental cost that their ego-trip is causing.
I've noticed you're fond of calling people teenagers. I am old enough to drive, I owned a car, and got rid of it. I made a personal choice, based on my lifestyle, beliefs, and economic common sense. Even for people who do need a large or powerful vehicle on occasion, they don't need it all the time. Fuel taxes are a way of getting people to make smarter transportation choices.
I think that higher fuel taxes are the only way of getting people to bear a fair share of the environmental cost of their lifestyle. Sadly, hitting people in the pocketbook seems to be the only way to get the message through.
What is fairer than a fuel tax? People who use the most fuel pay the most tax. It's beautiful in its simplicity.
-kimmy
-
And why does Klein always get re-elected?
Because Albertans see him as one of themselves.
In other words, Albertans agree with drunkard bullying plagerists who hate homosexuals, think Gettymandering is alright, believe in direct democracy while simultaneously rejecting, hate the media while simultaneously proclaiming its freedom, and being rude, pessimistic and otherwise hipocritical.
Yup. Sounds like Alberta.
Congratulations on setting the bar high!
drunkardAlbertans are drunkards?
I believe Klein has been dry for about 3 years, since that well-publicized incident. Like many Canadians of all political stripes and social status, Ralph liked to go on a bender from time to time.
The fact that Ralph would go to a regular bar and drink with regular people might be a clue to why people can related to him. Perhaps you might think on that.
bullyingCould you expand on that?
plageristsAlbertans are plagerists?
GettymanderingYou'll have to explain this term for me.
believe in direct democracy while simultaneously rejectingWhile simultaneously rejecting what?
hate the media while simultaneously proclaiming its freedomTo paraphrase Voltaire, I disagree with what the media says, but I will defend the media's right to say it.
Is anybody in Canada really excited about the media? Those on the left say the media is controlled by corporate interests. Those on the right resent the CBC and CRTC. People in "the regions" feel that the national media is too dominated by central Canada. Smart people feel that the media is geared toward dumb people.
Just because many people are highly critical of the media doesn't mean they don't believe in a free press, and it doesn't make them hypocrites.
rudeYou should talk.
pessimisticAs a group, Albertans are the most confident and ambitious of Canadians.
hipocriticalDo you mean hypocritical?
In regard to what?Yup. Sounds like Alberta.Doesn't sound much like the Alberta I know.
-kimmy
-
People who don't like paying high fuel taxes are certainly welcome to park their SUVs and drive an Insight, take the bus, or use their bicycles. Vancouver residents should be in favor of higher gas taxes
it would unclog some of those ridiculously choked streets and maybe even make a dent in that yellow-brown dome of pollution that's visible all the way from Victoria.-kimmy
-
Really? Who would have voted for them? Not conservatives, that's for sure. So who? Oh, liberals? Socialists? Why would they? They never did before. They could have voted for Joe (Canadian politics' own Forest Gump) Clark last time around and they didn't.Well Kimmy, the consevatives would probably have won the election if they had a more rational leader such as Orchard or even Joe Clark.Well said
Joe Clark could have lead the Conservatives to victory
the same Joe Clark who lead the PC party into oblivion. 
And I have no idea what voters David Orchard was going to appeal to. Having read some of his articles, his ideology appears to be most at home with Jack Layton, but Canada already has an NDP and doesn't need a second one.
-kimmy
-
Find new trading partners! I wonder why nobody has ever tried this before!
Like, they could put together "Trade Missions" of trade ministers, premiers, industry leaders, and businessmen, and they could travel to other countries to promote Canadian goods and services!
Uh, they already do this, caesar. They work their asses off trying to gain new footholds for Canadian trade all over the world. Guess what, no matter how hard you try, you're not just going to replace the billions and billions of dollars of business we do with the US by just deciding to trade with somebody else instead.
-kimmy
-
I kind of agree, except for the phrasing.
I don't really care if petroleum is conserved, I just think less should be burned. It's not the decreasing supply that worries me, it is the increasing amount of pollution in our air.
-kimmy
-
Canada was by no stretch of the imagination 'split'.
Canada is a lot like Switzerland or Sweeden a-la World War One.
We no longer want to fight for our own freedom, perfectly content to let others to do it for us.
And it's disgraceful.
I do believe Canadians were split, and I offer this article as support:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National
The poll found Mr. Chrétien had the support of 56 per cent of Canadians for his handling of the Iraqi crisis — a drop of 10 points in a week. Outside of Quebec, his majority was razor-thin, according to the survey conducted this week.I have mixed feelings. I think the world is much better off without the Taliban or Saddam in power. The Taliban were the worst sort of scum-bags. Saddam was horrible. Nobody can seriously be sorry that they're gone. But I don't know if I would be personally willing to commit my life to that goal. If I was a Canadian leader, I don't know whether I could in good conscience commit Canadian soldiers' lives to that goal, not without real evidence that Iraq was a threat to Canada and its allies.
I do worry about the rise of Islamic militants as a political force in our world. I'm not sure what the answer is. You can't reason with fanatics, and fighting them just attracts more people to their cause. I think there should have been some sort of international effort against Saddam, and I think it should have happened when he first started giving the UN inspectors trouble. I really do think that if it had been a more international effort, it wouldn't have turned into such an ugly mess.
-kimmy
-
Maybe if Canadians had joined the US and UK in taking action, things would have worked out better. Maybe more nations would have joined in. Maybe the whole thing would not have turned into a debacle if it had been a multinational effort.
At the time, Canadian opinion was relatively split on whether we should have gone, although it has certainly gone downhill now that it is obvious that the invasion was supported by flimsy evidence.
The US and Great Britain are Canada's two oldest and strongest partners in the world, and believing them when they said this was something that needed doing didn't seem unreasonable at the time. I feel a little betrayed that they seem to have come to us under false pretenses asking for support.
-kimmy
-
I thought Canadians were supposed to worried about internet pharmacies supplying US customers, since the US market could deplete Canada's supply of cheap medicine very quickly. Shouldn't we be relieved that "Jeb" doesn't want Florida residents tapping into our stash?
As for David Orchard, I don't get what you're trying to say? Are you saying that David Orchard has something that Conservatives ought to listen to? I read his post-election rant, where I thought he came across as a bitter, sad little man. Was there something else on his page that I was suppose to get, particularly in regard to US trade protectionism?
-kimmy
-
If it gets Chretien off Canadian soil, then I'm in favor of it!
-kimmy
-
A real shocker?
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/28/godfr...ey_cities040728
A Liberal campaign promise gets put on the back burner? And there are strings attached?
No, sadly it is not very shocking at all.
-kimmy
-
Typical, when somebody challenges your view with any substance, you avoid their argument and post something completely out of left field to try and support your cause.
Yes, I remember the Montreal Massacre, even though I was very young at the time.
Marc Lepine used a hunting rifle, a Remington .223 semi-automatic (not an "automatic gun" as your article claims). He legally purchased the rifle in Canada. He had no criminal record. Is there any reason to think that the current firearms registry could have done anything to prevent the tragedy in Montreal? I don't see any reason to assume it would have prevented him from acquiring the gun he used. Unless you can provide me a reason to think otherwise, I suggest that *you* are the one using red herrings to distract from the real argument.
-kimmy
-
Well, I guess I will take on the role of devil's advocate.
* the Liberals say that the registry costs are now capped at $25 million. But haven't they promised all along that they were going to control costs on this? Can we believe them this time?
* Clayton Ruby says that "900 affidavits based on registry information that supported criminal prosecutions were filed in Canada last year."
This doesn't mean that the registry resulted in 900 convictions. He doesn't really offer any explanation of how the information from the registry was used or how valuable it was. He just hopes that we'll be impressed by the figure of 900.
At the supposed cap cost of $25 million per year, and 900 affidavits, that works out to over $27,000 per affidavit! Those better be some damned good affidavits at that price
* He offers the statistic that there were 1367 firearms deaths in 1989 and only 842 in 2001, hoping to link the firearms registry to the drop in deaths to the firearms registry. He is being misleading.
For a real look at firearms deaths, I offer charts from the government's own firearms site!
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/othe...ath/default.asp
First of all, we notice that firearms deaths declined sharply from 1992 to 1995, before the registry even came into effect! If Clayton Ruby wants to be honest, why doesn't he compare statistics between 1994 and 2001? Only because the figures don't support his point!
Second of all, I will point out that the large majority of firearms deaths in Canada are suicides and accidents. The # of deaths due to violent crime has been fairly steady at 200 per year since 1970! Suggesting that stronger firearms registration has reduced violent crime is not supported by fact.
The # of accidents has also stayed fairly stable since 1980. Even a glance at the graph shows that the main variable is the # of suicides in any given year. We know that many suicides are related to financial matters. I would offer the suggestion that the # of suicides in a given year will have more to do with the unemployment rate for that year than anything to do with firearms legislation.
I think trying to argue that the registry will have any effect on suicides and accidents is pretty ludicrous. And the # of homicides linked to firearms has clearly not changed that much in over 30 years. So what Clayton Ruby is trying to sell is clearly not supported by the facts, although he is trying to present figures to suggest otherwise.
* in response to concerns about the availability of illegal firearms smuggled from the United States, Ruby offers only a bunch of talk about international agreement on the value of gun control. That is well and good, but what about the availability of illegal firearms sumggled from the United States?
I actually have no objection to the idea that firearms should be registered. If automobiles should be registered, so should firearms. There is no reason not to. However, I am very concerned that Canadians are not getting good value for the money that is being spent on the registry. I also object to someone like Mr Ruby presenting an article loaded with misleading statistics to try to support an opinion that seems poorly supported by facts.
-kimmy :angry:
-
Read my lips:
I think you should go back and read *his* lips again.
It's a fair question: if a church and the dept of immigration have a difference of opinion, who should win out?
If the United Church is allowed to harbour some guy the government says is not allowed to be in Canada, then why shouldn't a mosque? Why not a mosque with a radical agenda? Where do you draw the line?
The United Church doesn't represent me. The United Church isn't accountable to the people of Canada. And the United Church shouldn't be allowed to decide who gets to stay or go.
Ed Broadbent might be right that the immigration system needs to be overhauled first. It seems to me that there were persistent allegations of corruption (say, isn't that why Gagliano wound up in Denmark?) and the criteria might not be fair. That doesn't change my view that churches don't get to decide who is allowed to live in Canada.
This issue is going to haunt the Martin Liberals. Sure it is! It's going to be a hot-button issue next election, right up there with the shortage of French highway signs in BC -kimmy
-
you're hopeless
As per caesar's request, Queen Elizabeth II shall no longer be refered to as Canada's Head of State. She shall heretofore be known as "Canada's Head of Provinces or Federal Government"
-kimmy
Ignorant Canadians
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Her experience agrees with my own experience living in Ottawa.
-kimmy