How many Green votes?

Alta4ever · October 27, 2008

I'm not saying it's perfect as it isn't. I too would like too see them use garbage too but they won't for whatever reason. Even if they did it couldn't replace the energy created by one nuke plant.

What ever did we do before nuclear power? Out here we have done just fine without it. IF Ontario would upgrade its coal fired plants and add some other types of power generation they wouldn't have to build nuclear either. It is the worst of all choices.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Alta4ever

White Doors · October 27, 2008

What ever did we do before nuclear power? Out here we have done just fine without it. IF Ontario would upgrade its coal fired plants and add some other types of power generation they wouldn't have to build nuclear either. It is the worst of all choices.

You may be getting one soon for the Oilsands

Alta4ever · October 27, 2008

You may be getting one soon for the Oilsands

I really hope it doesn't go through.

PoliticalCitizen · October 28, 2008

There aren't any better alternatives to produce the amount of power from 1 nuclear station.

There was a US project to harness solar energy on the orbit and beam it down to Earth.

It never go to the testing phase...

Obviously fighting for Iraqi oil is a much better investment for the taxpayer's dollars

Mr.Canada · October 28, 2008

There was a US project to harness solar energy on the orbit and beam it down to Earth.
It never go to the testing phase...

Obviously fighting for Iraqi oil is a much better investment for the taxpayer's dollars

I know facts get in the way of your communist agenda but Canada isn't in Iraq. Sorry to break it to you like that kid.

PoliticalCitizen · October 29, 2008

I know facts get in the way of your communist agenda but Canada isn't in Iraq. Sorry to break it to you like that kid.

In case you missed it - I was talking about the US of A.

Mr.Canada · October 29, 2008

In case you missed it - I was talking about the US of A.

Which is completely off topic. This is the "Canadian" Federal Political forum. Bash the USA forum is down the hall. Try to stay on topic please, we would appreciate it.

What ever did we do before nuclear power? Out here we have done just fine without it. IF Ontario would upgrade its coal fired plants and add some other types of power generation they wouldn't have to build nuclear either. It is the worst of all choices.

The Ont. Liberals are closing them and building new nuke stations because the environmentalists want to save the planet but still want to power their Macs and use the microwave to heat up their burritos.

kengs333 · October 29, 2008

The Ont. Liberals are closing them and building new nuke stations because the environmentalists want to save the planet but still want to power their Macs and use the microwave to heat up their burritos.

Oh, of course, it has nothing to do with all of those neocon corporate types who have to live in oversized cookie-cutter houses... :rolleyes:

Mr.Canada · October 29, 2008

Oh, of course, it has nothing to do with all of those neocon corporate types who have to live in oversized cookie-cutter houses...

Be fair. The Liberal Elite live in big houses too.

PoliticalCitizen · October 29, 2008

Which is completely off topic. This is the "Canadian" Federal Political forum. Bash the USA forum is down the hall. Try to stay on topic please, we would appreciate it.

When did you become a moderator? This isn't even your thread

I brought it up as an alternative technology to nuclear power.

bush_cheney2004 · October 29, 2008

Which is completely off topic. This is the "Canadian" Federal Political forum. Bash the USA forum is down the hall. Try to stay on topic please, we would appreciate it.

LOL....forgive them, for they know nothing without bashing the USA, the foil which defines the UnCola that is Canada.

M.Dancer · October 29, 2008

... the UnCola that is Canada.

We're Seven Up?

....Pass the Seagrams 7, but, i prefer Canadian Club.

PoliticalCitizen · October 29, 2008

LOL....forgive them, for they know nothing without bashing the USA, the foil which defines the UnCola that is Canada.

Isn't PepsiCo American?

BTW - it made its way into Socialist countries way before the original cola.

jbg · October 29, 2008

Which is completely off topic. This is the "Canadian" Federal Political forum. Bash the USA forum is down the hall. Try to stay on topic please, we would appreciate it.

BC2004 is spot on:

LOL....forgive them, for they know nothing without bashing the USA, the foil which defines the UnCola that is Canada.

In any case, go here (link) for the Bash the US Home (though I'm sure that the forum management doesn't intend any part of the forum to systemically bash the US or any other country). Edited October 29, 2008 by jbg

PoliticalCitizen · October 29, 2008

BC2004 is spot on:In any case, go here (link) for the Bash the US Home (though I'm sure that the forum management doesn't intend any part of the forum to systemically bash the US or any other country).

LoL

I didn't mean to BASH the US... just made an energy-related remark

Alta4ever · October 29, 2008

Isn't PepsiCo American?
BTW - it made its way into Socialist countries way before the original cola.

Is that so, I guess you should do some research into China then.

Mr.Canada · October 29, 2008

We're Seven Up?
....Pass the Seagrams 7, but, i prefer Canadian Club.

Is that your drink of choice M.Dancer? CC and 7?

madmax · November 1, 2008

Eventually the Greens will replace the NDP.

An interesting note on riding-based subsidies. If a candidate gets at least ten percent of the votes cast in a riding, that candidate qualifies for a substantial subsidy of the costs incurred in that candidate's riding campign. Here are the numbers for how many candidates for each party qualified for this subsidy:

Conservative: 290

Liberal: 270

New Democrat: 243

BQ: 71

Green: 41

Independent: 4

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

An interesting note on riding-based subsidies. If a candidate gets at least ten percent of the votes cast in a riding, that candidate qualifies for a substantial subsidy of the costs incurred in that candidate's riding campign.

Aha, seems we're back on topic after that enlightened discussion on carbonated beverages.

The funding noted above is 65% of election expenses (excluding fundraising expenses).

You're actually approaching the fundamental question of Electoral politics, namely resources. People, and money fight the ground war, Skilled people and money fund the Air war. The GPC is building their base in both these fundamental commodities, people and $$. There have been a plethora of errors, strategic, and tactical, BUT there are a lot of really bright people in the GPC, and they learn from their mistakes. In addition, over the past 4 years increasing number of skilled hacks and flacks have been migrating from the Libs and Cons to where the good policies are, namely the GPC. I ignore the NDP, because there has grown a really visceral hatred of Dippers by Greens. Besides, the only competent flacks and hacks in the NDP are MP's, and there's no way they'll abandon their cushy jobs for any cause.

This election was really great, because, despite the way turnout tanked, the GPC scored a significant increase in votes. The GPC has an interesting way of dividing the loot. Those EDA's (ridings) that are well organized, have active executives etc. qualify to receive the bulk of the EC financing back from the central party. Those who are not organized don't get a dime. There are a growing number or ridings that are building real war chests, and with the money they will attract stronger candidates, with better local organisations.

I'm happy with the growth track, and the next By-Elections will provide for Parliamentary representation. The policy smarts have always been there, now the GPC is becoming a political party instead of a policy club.

madmax · November 6, 2008

Aha, seems we're back on topic after that enlightened discussion on carbonated beverages.
The funding noted above is 65% of election expenses (excluding fundraising expenses).

You're actually approaching the fundamental question of Electoral politics, namely resources. People, and money fight the ground war, Skilled people and money fund the Air war. The GPC is building their base in both these fundamental commodities, people and $$.

I don't believe the CPC needs the approximate $10 Million from the $1.95/vote Tax Payer Handout.

I don't believe the LPC needs the $1.95 Handout of $7Million

I don't believe the NDP needs the $1.95 Handout of $5 Million

I don't believe the GP needs the $1.95/vote Handout of $2 Million

It is time to end this practice of Political Party Welfare.

Edited November 6, 2008 by madmax

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

I don't believe the CPC needs the approximate $10 Million from the $1.95/vote Tax Payer Handout.
I don't believe the LPC needs the $1.95 Handout of $7Million

I don't believe the NDP needs the $1.95 Handout of $5 Million

I don't believe the GP needs the $1.95/vote Handout of $2 Million

It is time to end this practice of Political Party Welfare.

It should be done retroactively for the last election

Smallc · November 6, 2008

The practice should be continued. Our spending and funding rules keep our parties out of hands of big business and unions making things like the sponsorship scandal less likely in the future.

The system we have now is designed to stave of corruption and I beleive its working.

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

The practice should be continued. Our spending and funding rules keep our parties out of hands of big business and unions making things like the sponsorship scandal less likely in the future.
The system we have now is designed to stave of corruption and I beleive its working.

That doesn't mean it needs to be funded with public money. Our taxes would be better spent on other projects, then fund political parties no matter the stripe.

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

That doesn't mean it needs to be funded with public money. Our taxes would be better spent on other projects, then fund political parties no matter the stripe.

The reason that Chretien implemented this reform was to hand Paul Martin a poisoned chalice, the same reason that he worked with Jean Augustine to bring Ignatieff into Etobicoke Lakeshore from abroad. I have spoken to senior Liberals who concurr that it was a very beneficial piece of legislation, but they hate it because it skewered the Liberals. 'Good law, wrong reason' to paraphrase.

The reason it is publicly funded, and tied into the election spending limits is to remove undue influence of political contributors on a) policy formulation, and policy implementation.

It is really hard to say NO to people upon whom your' next election victory depends. I am no fan of government spending, but this pittance strikes at the roots of political influence peddling, and corruption. It is the singlemost important piece of legislation in the last decade.

Don't fall victim of idealogical posturing. This so called welfare is IMPORTANT.

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

The reason that Chretien implemented this reform was to hand Paul Martin a poisoned chalice, the same reason that he worked with Jean Augustine to bring Ignatieff into Etobicoke Lakeshore from abroad. I have spoken to senior Liberals who concurr that it was a very beneficial piece of legislation, but they hate it because it skewered the Liberals. 'Good law, wrong reason' to paraphrase.
The reason it is publicly funded, and tied into the election spending limits is to remove undue influence of political contributors on a) policy formulation, and policy implementation.

It is really hard to say NO to people upon whom your' next election victory depends. I am no fan of government spending, but this pittance strikes at the roots of political influence peddling, and corruption. It is the singlemost important piece of legislation in the last decade.

Don't fall victim of idealogical posturing. This so called welfare is IMPORTANT.

This is not important, if political parties had proper fund raising sytems in place they wouldn't need a nickel of the tax payer funding. They don't need it, $2,200 per person per year is enough for any politcial organization. That does have anything to do with undue influence as the corperate donations are gone. Taxpayers do not need to fund political parties, if the party can't make it on its own, it should be doomed to the history books.

Political party welfare is not important, that money is better spent on social programs for citizens or for infrastructure, policing, or military spending. Taxes given to political parties are wasted.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Alta4ever