Green leader Elizabeth May only became Canadian citizen at age 24

[Dougie93]

I choose the American Religion instead.

Why? 

Deist.

Protestant.

No Tickets to Heaven sold.

No Climate Pope In Rome.

Fall upon your knees and commune with your Creator.

Wherever you please.   No church.  Just God..

[WestCanMan]

Zeitgeist:

Quote

Over the past 10 years, Ontarians’ cumulative net contribution was $96.3 billion — second only to Albertans’ net contribution of $228.6 billion.

from: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/how-unfair-is-ottawa-to-the-provinces-equalization-isnt-the-half-of-it

Ontarians might pay a lot, but they also get a lot back. Alberta gets almost nothing back:

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

She's running for PM.  All the leaders running are from Earth.  Her primary job is to protect and manage Canada's interests, and some of those happen to be global interests as well.

I'm of the opinion that managing some of those global interests are key to managing our's and that efforts to manage our's will fail unless those global interests come first.  We're past the point where fill-in-nation-here-comes-first. 

 

Quote

And despite what she says, she cannot save the earth.  Canada is responsible for only 1.6% of global GHG emissions.  Even if she by miracle managed to slice Canada's emissions in half, that's 0.7% reduction.  Despite what we do it's going to come down to the US and China who together are responsible for almost 50% of global emissions.

Sending our fossil fuels to these makes us complicit for their emissions like sending money to al Qaeda would make us complicit in terror -  the point being we live in an age where chains and networks of complicity can no longer be blurred away because our country comes first.

 

Quote

I'm for helping to fight and reduce climate change.  I'm not for doing so by decimating the economy like May wants to while the US stands around and does jack all.

May actually said she wants to decimate the economy?  In any case decimate means one out of ever 10 so...we take a 10% hit to the economy.  Recall our economy once took a 25% hit to it's GDP when defending the world against tyranny - now we can't position ourselves faster to help fuel the growth of the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet. 

How exactly does that help our planet's interests? How it help's ours is obvious enough but I thought we were better than that.

Edited October 7, 2019 by eyeball

[Dougie93]

I have no complaints about Upper Canada per se.

We would be a trillion dollar economy easily if we could get out of this Self Licking Ice Cream Confederation and run our affairs.

It's not a sky fall.

It's simply an Australia of our very own.

[taxme]

13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Democrats too.   The left has become a religion.  Faith based.    Virtue signalling for their Tickets to Heaven.  Secular Popery.

I think that it can be safe to say that we both are pretty much surrounded by a bunch of no mind Canadians who could careless about what happens in and to Canada. Their country is under attack, and they prefer to remain oblivious to what their present day leaders are doing to them every day. Liberalism is a very very bad religion. Liberalism likes to put out the collection plate, and take ones money, but then finds it very hard to want to give some of that money back. Liberals pretend to be your best friend to your face, but gawd only knows what they say or do behind your back. As they say? Liberalism is a disease that cannot be cured. Only by being eradicated off the face of the earth will liberalism be done with for good. Just saying. 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How exactly does that help our planet's interests? How it help's ours is obvious enough but I thought we were better than that.

 

Why would you ever think that ?   The physical "planet" doesn't give a damn either way, and the people are demanding and consuming more energy each day, from all sources.

[eyeball]

On 10/5/2019 at 5:01 PM, Dougie93 said:

That's not how the universe ends, it just keep flying apart until even sub atomic particles break down, but I said world, not universe, pay attention.

Okay so now we're getting a little closer to defining world, which is probably the philosophical, socio-economic milieu we inhabit.

How that ends or is saved is the question, not the planet. 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Why would you ever think that ?  

Because I think virtue should trump the economy obviously.

Quote

The physical "planet" doesn't give a damn either way, and the people are demanding and consuming more energy each day, from all sources.

Yes but the much of the philosophical world does care and is demanding that people consume less.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Because I think virtue should trump the economy obviously.

 

But this ignores reality and history....not logical.

 

Quote

Yes but the much of the philosophical world does care and is demanding that people consume less.

 

Screw them....the world demands more energy...not less, and that will come from many sources including fossil fuels.

Actions count more than the philosophical world.

[taxme]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I have no complaints about Upper Canada per se.

We would be a trillion dollar economy easily if we could get out of this Self Licking Ice Cream Confederation and run our affairs.

It's not a sky fall.

It's simply an Australia of our very own.

Canadians should all be pretty much well off and wealthy if it were not for the thieves that we all keep putting in Ottawa. There concerns are not with Canada or Canadians. They only serve their globalist masters who dictate to our useless bunch of puppet on a string losers as to how Canada and Canadians must obey and follow their globalist orders and leaders. The politicians get to lick the ice cream while we the sheeple get to hold the cone for them. And then they want the cone also. A greedy bunch of batards. Chuckle. 

Did you not see that picture that was painted by some artist in Europe where he painted the picture of a bunch of monkeys and apes sitting in some parliament building somewhere? The picture went to auction, and it got the artist several million dollars for that picture. That picture can pretty much sum up as to what our own politicians must look like when they all sit in the House of Commons. A bunch of monkeys howling back and forth at each other. I just have not seen any of them yet, scratching under their armpits, or hooting, or pounding on their children's desks. I suppose that could happen one of those days.  

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

How that ends or is saved is the question, not the planet. 

Jesus saves.  Problem solved.

[Dougie93]

Just now, taxme said:

Canadians should all be pretty much well off and wealthy if it were not for the thieves that we all keep putting in Ottawa. .  

Still nice for a summer home, if not for tax and rights purposes.

I have right of return in both directions, best of both worlds.

Foreign Internal Defense.

De Oppresso Liber.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

But this ignores reality and history....not logical.

When it tries to ignore physics though...not smart.

Quote

 

Screw them....the world demands more energy...not less, and that will come from many sources including fossil fuels.

Actions count more than the philosophical world.

 

And add up even faster in the physical.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When it tries to ignore physics though...not smart.

And add up even faster in the physical.

 

This is by design...see "Thermodynamics".    Elizabeth May cannot change this reality....and neither can anybody else.

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Dougie93]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This is by design...see "Thermodynamics".

 

There's no such thing as a free lunch

[Rue]

38 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why would you ever think that ?   The physical "planet" doesn't give a damn either way, and the people are demanding and consuming more energy each day, from all sources.

The physical planet in your opinion does not give a damn because you assume as many do it is an inanimate object. Conventional science defines it as inanimate as it does not reproduce. However our definition of what constitutes a sentient being may at the current time be distorted or limited by the boundaries of our knowledge within current science.. It is quite possible what we do not recognize as a life form might be and we are not capable of seeing it  and/or objects we once thought did not have "feelings" do. 

There is much we do not know. Further is not whether the earth feels a thing, its why only one life form on it is destroying it. Homo sapiens by each and every action it does impact on every other life form on this planet as well as its biospheric properties. It is arrogance and a concept called denial that causes us to believe we can pollute it and their are no long term consequences to the entire planet. 

If humans choose to continue to be parasitical instead of symbiotic with this planet we will destroy it.

Now back to the topic, Elizabeth May is an immigrant and should be deported, She clearly is an example of a bad immigrant. Send her back.

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Rue

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

If humans choose to continue to be parasitical instead of symbiotic with this planet we will destroy it.

Malthusian dogma.

People are the problem.

How do we get rid of them?

Eat the babies?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

The physical planet in your opinion does not give a damn because you assume as many do it is an inanimate object.

...If humans choose to continue to be parasitical instead of symbiotic with this planet we will destroy it.

 

Nonsense...the planet has existed for billions of years (with far greater "physical" calamity) and will continue to do so long after humans are gone after being here for a blink of geologic time.

I understand that weak players like Elizabeth May and the Greens need some kind of hook for politics....good luck !

[Zeitgeist]

The issue isn’t survival of the planet.  Earth as a life supporting planet will probably outlast humanity.  What matters is an Earth that can support human life.  That’s the world we must protect.  

Public policy that protects air/water/ecosystems and improves quality of life are the best climate change policies because the rewards are tangible:  Planning communities where everything we need and everything that makes life pleasurable are nearby is a no-lose proposition.  We reduce commute times, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, yet we also feel our lives improving.  

Building more rapid transit gets more cars off the roads and reduces commute times.  Having raw nature and farmland nearby provides a local food supply, hunting grounds, and recreational escape at the same time it provides a carbon sink that reduces CO2 levels.  

These are no-brainer policies that add value.  We become more efficient and productive, not having to travel as much or as expensively.  I’m all for these climate change policies because they kill many birds with one stone.  Even if you’re a climate change denier, even if climate change is an overblown fabrication, the policies I described will improve quality of life and living standards.  Green tech such as geothermal heating, deep water cooling, solar, wind, and even nuclear can reduce pollution while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such tech should be widely implemented where it is profitable.  

The only argument for subsidizing green tech at a loss is to create the mass production economy of scale that makes units affordable to consumers, and ultimately profitable.  

High carbon taxes and other heavy handed approaches that impact cost of living for most people will always be a hard sell. Ultimately you’re buying into fear.  It’s ecofascist propaganda. Make no mistake, far right anti-immigration sentiment and ecofascism could get along swimmingly, as they do in Italy.  It’s in line with the kind of totalitarian central planning that brought us China’s one-child policy.  

The Environment has to be a desirable product in the marketplace at a price people are willing to pay.  Sensible green policies are desirable and good for the economy.  They always were.  I’m against militant environmentalism for the same reason I’m against any movements that use oppression to make change: They impose a reality that is unnatural and less desirable.  They need radical force because the ideas don’t inspire or sell themselves.  The ends are used to justify the means, and of course, the lousy means employed prevent a better world from arriving: utopian promise to justify a dystopian present.  

Edited October 7, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I'm of the opinion that managing some of those global interests are key to managing our's and that efforts to manage our's will fail unless those global interests come first.  We're past the point where fill-in-nation-here-comes-first.

Canada hardly matters to global interests.  Nothing Canada can do will have a significant impact to climate change.  Elizabeth May is talking like our planet's climate depends on what Canada does.  It doesn't.  We're 36 million people on a planet of 7 billion.  We should do our part, but not cripple ourselves trying to do far more.  Think of it from a logical cost/benefit analysis perspective: what are the costs to Canadians to do what May wants VS what are the benefits to the planet?

Quote

Sending our fossil fuels to these makes us complicit for their emissions like sending money to al Qaeda would make us complicit in terror -  the point being we live in an age where chains and networks of complicity can no longer be blurred away because our country comes first.

Again, you're vastly overstating Canada's impact.  If we stopped building pipelines and exploring for new oil like May wants, do you think this will prevent the people who buy our oil from buying oil?  They're just going to get it from somewhere else.  It may make oil slightly more expensive, but that won't mean much since oil is far cheaper than it was 10 years ago anyways.  May wants to save the world, but she can't.

Quote

May actually said she wants to decimate the economy?

Have you read her platform or her costed budget?  She says no new pipelines, no new oil extraction sites.  She's going to add 74 billion to the annual budget (a 20% annual increase from what it is now) and will pay for it by raising taxes on corporations and the rich.  Farewell foreign and domestic investment.  She wins and I and everyone else will sell the Canadian funds in their RRSPs.

https://ifsd.ca/en/blog/last-page-blog/green-2019-platform-2

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Rue said:

The physical planet in your opinion does not give a damn because you assume as many do it is an inanimate object. Conventional science defines it as inanimate as it does not reproduce. However our definition of what constitutes a sentient being may at the current time be distorted or limited by the boundaries of our knowledge within current science.. It is quite possible what we do not recognize as a life form might be and we are not capable of seeing it  and/or objects we once thought did not have "feelings" do. 

There is much we do not know. Further is not whether the earth feels a thing, its why only one life form on it is destroying it. Homo sapiens by each and every action it does impact on every other life form on this planet as well as its biospheric properties. It is arrogance and a concept called denial that causes us to believe we can pollute it and their are no long term consequences to the entire planet. 

If humans choose to continue to be parasitical instead of symbiotic with this planet we will destroy it.

Now back to the topic, Elizabeth May is an immigrant and should be deported, She clearly is an example of a bad immigrant. Send her back.

 

The people that are starting to destroy the earth are the people who are living in the non-western countries of the world. They are the reason why the population of the earth is exploding, and who may be causing this climate change. They all are breeding like flies. When they can immigrate to any western country that they can get into, they start having many children in those countries also. Why do you think that the population of Canada has reason in over two years from 35 million to 37 million? Massive immigration and more children being born to these new non-western immigrants. The population of all of the western nations in the world is approx. 800,000 compared to the non-western countries where the population is over 6 billion and climbing. So who is really causing global warming/climate change? There is not one politician in Canada that will put the blame on where it belongs. They instead want to blame Canadians for climate change, and not blame the people who are causing climate change.

These socialists and wacko environmentalist politicians like May are full of it. Politicians like May are able to get plenty of Canadian fools out to demonstrate, like we have seen happen in Canada over the weekend, by demonstrating and blocking traffic on bridges. Blocking bridges will not get them any extra votes or support when they try and upset other people's lives, and who are just trying to get by, and go where they need to go. Those fools only hurt their cause instead of helping it. Most of them are made up of welfare recipients, old men and women on pension, and hippie drug users. Those people have nothing to offer the world anything anymore but more bs, and only now enjoy creating more chaos and mayhem.

I do not want to have anything to do with these environmentalist fools because they all appear to have fallen out of a tree that they were trying to save and hurt and did some damage to their heads. They offer nothing but job losses and to try and end our way of life as we know it today. Anybody in their right mind should ignore  and not bother listening to those fools at all.They all are panic mongers with no real proof of anything serious going on here on planet earth. A few degrees more by 2050 will not make any big changes to the earth. Matter of fact it might even benefit earth even more. Hey, you never know, eh?  

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

Hey, you never know, eh?  

Yeah, eh?

 

[eyeball]

22 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Have you read her platform or her costed budget? 

Nope and I could care less. I'm voting Green because of it's global scope and it's the only political party that wants to move in the direction the world needs to go.

I might have voted for a more stepwise approach to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels 10-15 year ago but it's too late for that now and I think we need to go cold turkey.

The only stepwise approach I'm willing to consider at this point is one in which we commit ourselves to cutting China off any fossil fuels whatsoever. This would include sanctioning any nation that insists on dealing with China.  It'll be bad enough going over a cliff with all the dysfunctional baggage we're packing but if we also have to face the cliff with the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet in tow we might as well just party our way out like it was 1999 on steroids.

[marcus]

On 10/6/2019 at 10:30 AM, Zeitgeist said:

While I agree that much needs to be done, I think we’re in dangerous and largely rhetorical territory when some argue that there should be an economic penalty imposed by government for production that produces greenhouse gas emissions, since our very existence is a carbon footprint.  I worry that such rhetoric and policy will only hasten the fight for resources and the fear response to keep those with the means to protect themselves safe.  It’s already happening.  The cost of living is high.  Housing costs are outrageous.  If someone is penalized for living in a more affordable home far from the city because there are no transportation options apart from driving a vehicle, I don’t think it’s right to pile on more costs.  

I don’t think we can lose by adding green tech to building codes or building rapid transit.  Positive incentives can’t lose, as long as the tech we fund or incentivize is actually profitable.  

A car is in need of a few parts to be fixed, otherwise it can create more damage to the car in the long run. The owner decides to hold back on the upgrades because of the costs involved. A few months later, the car breaks down and now the engine needs to be replaced and the car owner now must pay thousands of dollars more than what he had to pay before.

This is what is in front of us when it comes to climate change.

What the policies are going to be and whether governments or companies want to take advantage of the situation in a negative way is a different question and discussion. The potential for bad policy should not stop us from realizing the urgent problem and finding an immediate solution. We cannot continue with business as usual.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Nope and I could care less. I'm voting Green because of it's global scope and it's the only political party that wants to move in the direction the world needs to go.

I might have voted for a more stepwise approach to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels 10-15 year ago but it's too late for that now and I think we need to go cold turkey.

The only stepwise approach I'm willing to consider at this point is one in which we commit ourselves to cutting China off any fossil fuels whatsoever. This would include sanctioning any nation that insists on dealing with China.  It'll be bad enough going over a cliff with all the dysfunctional baggage we're packing but if we also have to face the cliff with the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet in tow we might as well just party our way out like it was 1999 on steroids.

How are you going to get to work, heat your home, produce/ manufacture  anything , cook, clean, hot water,  every aspect of our lives revolves around fossil fuels directly or use them to produce electrical power....... with no replacement in site what is the plan...there is no plan....thats a good plan.