This is a dumb category

[JerrySeinfeld]

Seriously, I'm sick of Canadian politics.

What is there to talk about? There is no groundbreaking ideeological debate ongoing, because every discussion is from the left perspective.

How are we going to bail out the unions/auto industry (as opposed to should we at all?)

How are we going to save medicare (as opposed to is it a good system at all)?

How are we going to cut greenhouse gases (as opposed to is it even necessary at all)?

It's just one big left wing love in. The conservatives and their roots the Reform Alliance, originally were elected to shake up ottawa, but all that big buraecratic behemoth of an institution has done is break their will and turn them all into Toronto |Star sock puppets.

BOOOOOORING.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am sick of Canadian politics myself. Not for your reasons though. In fact I dispute your premise that every discussion is from the left perspective. I will suggest that you are only listening to one side or the other instead of hearing what both sides have to say and forming your own opinion. I will suggest that you are being lazy in your approach by not looking for your own answers and instead complaining not only about the opinions of others, but the questions at hand as well. You are the typical Canadian voter, apathetic. You just don't give a damn because it doesn't interest you. The problem with that is that politics are about the group not the individual. You seem to have difficulty with your own identity.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Charles Anthony
re-copied Opening Post deleted

[Smallc]

Seriously, I'm sick of Canadian politics.

Well then, if you don't like it we should obviously all stop talking. Seriously, most of Canada is relatively liberal and they don' share your beliefs. There aren't going to be many ideas come forward that you agree with from any party that ever hopes to form power in this country.

[August1991]

Seriously, I'm sick of Canadian politics.

What is there to talk about? There is no groundbreaking ideeological debate ongoing, because every discussion is from the left perspective.

...

BOOOOOORING.

Boring?

I think it's time to raise Jerry's taxes.

[Battletoads]

How are we going to cut greenhouse gases (as opposed to is it even necessary at all)?

Anyone who is still arguing about this being a necessity is an idiot, whether climate change exists or not.

If you have no background in any form of chemisty your opinion is worthless on regaurding this subject, please stop wasting bandwidth.

If you do I would like to hear why you think the continued consumtion of limited hydrocarbons supplies is a good thing is a good thing.

[Sir Bandelot]

Seriously, I'm sick of Canadian politics.

What is there to talk about? There is no groundbreaking ideeological debate ongoing, because every discussion is from the left perspective.

The conservatives and their roots the Reform Alliance, originally were elected to shake up ottawa, but all that big buraecratic behemoth of an institution has done is break their will and turn them all into Toronto |Star sock puppets.

If it is, it's because the "right" have been intellectually annihilated. But I would blame it on the fact that there is no rational right wing alternative.

There is a hole in Canadian politics that todays puritanical and naive "conservatives" can't fill. The real conservatives have gone away. The average Canadian is not a bible thumping, woman hating, racist, war lover (from a distance!), U.S. ass-licker that hates the environment. They simply cannot relate to the CPC.

[Topaz]

Do you think the supporters of Harper who are against the bailout of GM and Chrysler will still support Harper on election day?

[bush_cheney2004]

..There is a hole in Canadian politics that todays puritanical and naive "conservatives" can't fill. The real conservatives have gone away. The average Canadian is not a bible thumping, woman hating, racist, war lover (from a distance!), U.S. ass-licker that hates the environment. They simply cannot relate to the CPC.

Not to worry....I think the Liberals found somebody to cover the "U.S. ass-licker" duties.

[sharkman]

Okay, so what's the deal with having 'toad' in your name, maybe I should change mine to toadman.

Anyway, compared to American politics, Canadian politics is boring. Also contributing to the boredom is the fact that Harper does not give the left media in Canada much in the way of scandalous headlines, though they are keeping the faith. Old man Chretien would beat up a protester now and then or suggest to a reporter that she get pregnant so she could take advantage of his new program. If Harper did something like that our media would have enough material for a month.

[Smallc]

Canadian politics is far from boring.

[Argus]

Anyone who is still arguing about this being a necessity is an idiot, whether climate change exists or not

This has got to be one of the strangest statements anyone has made here. Whether climate change exists or not?

Uhhh, if it doesn't exist, then why is it wrong to argue about whether reducing greenhouse gases is necessary? Wouldn't elementary logic say that if climate change is not real than there is no actual reason to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Do you even know what greenhouse gas emissions are?

If you have no background in any form of chemisty your opinion is worthless on regaurding this subject, please stop wasting bandwidth.

Clearly you have no such background.

[Argus]

If it is, it's because the "right" have been intellectually annihilated. But I would blame it on the fact that there is no rational right wing alternative.

I think your assessment might be somewhat coloured by your inability to understand what the term "rational" means.

I get the impression that in your mental dictionary "rational" says "anyone who agrees wholeheartedly with me".

As for "intellectual" that one has a crayon drawing of that cute girl that sits next to you in algebra and wears glasses so she seems to be smart.

[Argus]

Do you think the supporters of Harper who are against the bailout of GM and Chrysler will still support Harper on election day?

As opposed to supporting the Liberals?

I will likely support Harper - with no great enthusiasm, believe me - simply because everything I dislike about the Tories the Liberals do just as badly or worse.

[Battletoads]

This has got to be one of the strangest statements anyone has made here. Whether climate change exists or not?

Uhhh, if it doesn't exist, then why is it wrong to argue about whether reducing greenhouse gases is necessary? Wouldn't elementary logic say that if climate change is not real than there is no actual reason to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Do you even know what greenhouse gas emissions are?

Choo Choo here comes the logic train, If you reduce emmisions what else are you doing? Oh yeah reducing comsumption...

Which might be a good idea looking at the state of the world, and the limited and expensive nature of these resources.

Man what a jump of thought, no wonder you were confused.

[Sir Bandelot]

I get the impression that in your mental dictionary "rational" says "anyone who agrees wholeheartedly with me".

Actually I appreciate it when others do disagree with me, and have an important point to make. Still waiting for such a thing to be posted by you.

As for "intellectual" that one has a crayon drawing of that cute girl that sits next to you in algebra and wears glasses so she seems to be smart.

Speaking from personal experience? Did she make you want to climb the ropes in gym class?

[Argus]

Choo Choo here comes the logic train, If you reduce emmisions what else are you doing? Oh yeah reducing comsumption...

Which might be a good idea looking at the state of the world, and the limited and expensive nature of these resources.

Man what a jump of thought, no wonder you were confused.

Sorry. It's because I'm not used to people who try to trumpet inane, poorly thought out nonsense as rational thought.

Reducing emissions does not equal reducing consumption. Just for a start. Or hadn't that occurred to you?

[JerrySeinfeld]

If it is, it's because the "right" have been intellectually annihilated.

Oh really?

Maybe you should replace "intellectually" with "politically" in the above statement. Why? Because when greater than 50% of your citizenry are dependant upon the government for health care, employment benefits, retirement pensions or even just a job, then government intervention isn't up for debate anymore.

Everyone just goes to the ballot box to vote themselves more lollipops from the next version of socialist government while the rest of us still stupid enough to go out and actually produce something in the private sector are left to cry foul on political forums while being shouted down by said government teet suckers (no names named here battletoad & sir bandelot).

But you're right abobut the "annhilated" part. When you're in the minority who gives more than he gets from the massive bloated public sector, it's a very tough row to hoe.

The US is going through this transformation under Obama right now, and by the next election he's gonna make damn sure that government teet suckers are up over the 50% barrier to ensure he's a two (maybe three?) termer.

Edited June 6, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[Sir Bandelot]

Sorry. It's because I'm not used to people who try to trumpet inane, poorly thought out nonsense as rational thought.

How long have you been on these forums??

[Sir Bandelot]

(no names named here battletoad & sir bandelot).

But you're right abobut the "annhilated" part. When you're in the minority who gives more than he gets from the massive bloated public sector, it's a very tough row to hoe.

The US is going through this transformation under Obama right now, and by the next election he's gonna make damn sure that government teet suckers are up over the 50% barrier to ensure he's a two (maybe three?) termer.

The right wingers in USA had 8 years to prove something, look what it brought them: economic devastation. No one else did this to them, they did it all by themselves. Through greed, they imploded. Capitalism has had its chance full and well, now its time for some good old socialismo to step in. Better brush up on yer nazi economics 101!

Now, I aint no fan of Obama, or anyone else in politics today. I admire the strong leadership of Bush, but with the intelligence of an Obama. Without both you've got either a stubborn dangerous jackass or what amounts to just a fancy talker no action. It's hard to find someone who has both clout and wisdom, and the charisma to lead people. Such a person was last seen to some extent in previous leaders like Jean Chretien and Bill Clinton... both liberals. Not saying they were prefect but they left the country in a better condition than when they started with it.

I'm trying to think of an inspiring leader who was a conservative, in either Canada or USA.

[Argus]

The right wingers in USA had 8 years to prove something, look what it brought them:

The problem with the US is that the Republicans, the ostensible standard bearer of the right, is completely dominated by the religious right. Their priorities have little to do with principled conservatism and more to do with idiotic emotional religious factors. Bush was not terribly bright, and surrounded himself with arrogant people who thought they knew a lot more than they did. As a result, you have a curious mixture of bombastic morons of the same mindset as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, and religious wackos like Pat Robertson. The Republicans seem incapable of weaning themselves off the easy money, and eager volunteer help of the religious right, and so have ceded far, far too much power to these people.

That is not the case in Canada. The religious right does not enjoy anywhere near the same degree of power. It's certainly a strong element, but if you examine the policies and priorities of the Conservative Party, there really isn't much there to cater to the religious fundamentalists.

[Battletoads]

Sorry. It's because I'm not used to people who try to trumpet inane, poorly thought out nonsense as rational thought.

Reducing emissions does not equal reducing consumption. Just for a start. Or hadn't that occurred to you?

You are right there is no link between how much fuel you burn and how much water and carbon dioxide you put out as exhaust.

Man I don't know what I was thinking there. (sarcasm)

[Argus]

You are right there is no link between how much fuel you burn and how much water and carbon dioxide you put out as exhaust.

Man I don't know what I was thinking there. (sarcasm)

The way much of Europe reduced its emissions, by way of comparison, is that they simply introduced better pollution and emission control gear on their factories, many of which were quite old, esp the ones from the east. The Norwegians, I believe it is, are pumping much of the carbon emissions from their oil industry into the sea bed - at great expense. In fact, the Tar Sands people are talking about doing the same thing, pumping the emissions underground. Clean coal is supposed to use much better emission and pollution trapping equipment than was previously the case. It does not use up any less coal, of course. It simply produces fewer emissions. Etc. etc.

There is a huge difference between "reducing emissions" and "reducing use". Mandating stricter pollution control gear on cars, trucks and generators will reduce missions but not reduce use.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Argus

[scribblet]

Seriously, I'm sick of Canadian politics.

What is there to talk about? There is no groundbreaking ideeological debate ongoing, because every discussion is from the left perspective.

BOOOOOORING......

I think you hit the nail on the head here - I rarely post anymore because the content and posters have changed over the last couple of years... not a pretty sight

[Sir Bandelot]

The problem with the US is that the Republicans, the ostensible standard bearer of the right, is completely dominated by the religious right. Their priorities have little to do with principled conservatism and more to do with idiotic emotional religious factors. Bush was not terribly bright, and surrounded himself with arrogant people who thought they knew a lot more than they did. As a result, you have a curious mixture of bombastic morons of the same mindset as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, and religious wackos like Pat Robertson. The Republicans seem incapable of weaning themselves off the easy money, and eager volunteer help of the religious right, and so have ceded far, far too much power to these people.

"There is a hole in Canadian politics that todays puritanical and naive "conservatives" can't fill. The real conservatives have gone away. The average Canadian is not a bible thumping, woman hating, racist, war lover (from a distance!), U.S. ass-licker that hates the environment. They simply cannot relate to the CPC."

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=428038

That is not the case in Canada. The religious right does not enjoy anywhere near the same degree of power. It's certainly a strong element, but if you examine the policies and priorities of the Conservative Party, there really isn't much there to cater to the religious fundamentalists.

You are joking now, right? I mean, how can you see it clearly in the US but not see it in Canada?

Harper gave a speech to an extreme right wing group, the U.S. Council on National Policy.

When elected, they were dancing around on the anti-abortion hot potato.. their endorsement of mandatory minimums, their hatred for the gun registry, the bigoted views of various members. Sounds much the same to me.

Harper is an evangelist. His father was a pastor.

Preston Manning... aka "The Rev."

Stockwell Day... say no more

[scribblet]

Harper is an evangelist. His father was a pastor.

So -

what about this you forgot to mention the evanglical Liberals..

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1650066