M.Dancer Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Elizabeth May has steadfastly opposed "attack ads" They hurt democracy, she opines... Nevertheless, the Green Party will soon launch their own attack ads. No one knows what they will feature. No one knows where they will be placed. They are hoping that, they go viral.... Well Done Green Party! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/have-attack-ad-touting-greens-gone-cynical/article1929993/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfezziwig Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 May is using the party to further her own career and ego. The Green Party deserve to be marginalized for electing a leader year after year that promotes her own career more than the Green Party. How many years and taxpayer millions do they need to get someone elected with May at the helm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Despite getting $1.9 million dollars in taxpayer funding (each party is financed by taxpayers to a great extent now, depending on the number of votes received... ~44 cents per vote) the Green Party has been completely invisible. The leadership of the Greens is ineffectual at best.... Come on Greens.... get it together!! Canada does need more political discourse, not less. And the Greens could (should) be filling the void somewhat. And yet, they are nowhere to be seen. Elections Canada - Party financing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Is it wrong for me to judge May on her slob appearance? Who wants that leading their country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Elizabeth May has steadfastly opposed "attack ads" They hurt democracy, she opines... Nevertheless, the Green Party will soon launch their own attack ads. No one knows what they will feature. No one knows where they will be placed. They are hoping that, they go viral.... Well Done Green Party! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/have-attack-ad-touting-greens-gone-cynical/article1929993/ I'm surprised they did'nt hold a presser to say that the Green Party has determined that Carbon Tax is the capitol of PEI... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 I don't care whether the Green Party is a viable political force or not; I am still going to support them because the three major parties consider the environment to be just one more political chit to play, rather than what it actually is: THE No.1 issue. Everything else: taxes, medicare, other gov. spending, social issues, fed/prov relations etc. are all inconsequential if the World continues on its present course to extinction. I wonder if the politicians of the Easter Island Civilization a few centuries ago, were spending all of their time debating which tribe got to build the most giant statues to the gods, while they were cutting down every tree on the island and giving a death sentence to their children and grandchildren! Now that we are living in a world where the human population has almost reached the limits of exploitation of the environment, we need some voice on the political stage to make the case for things that go beyond petty short term concerns that will have no longterm value if humans continue to follow our instincts rather than use our capacity for logic, and keep doing what every other animal tries to do: reproduce and use up all of the resources in its ecological niche. Next Mass Extinction an Eyeblink Away: Scientists Back to Elizabeth May...I can't take seriously a statement that the Green Party leader is ineffectual, since the oil industry that dominates our economy to an even greater degree each year, has also taken over the media and the political process as well. Most of the major newspapers and private broadcasters in Canada now are in the tank for the oil industry...as we can see by the increasing amount of disinformation about climate change being pumped out by the Sun newspapers, and the Post, all of which are perennial money-losers that need to be bankrolled by corporate benefactors. So, as long as the three major political parties are trying to curry favour with the producers of toxic tar sands, a party with a dissenting view is going to have limited resources, and a limited reach on traditional media....and a party that needs to hold true to its principles regardless of political strategizing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 *yawn* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 I I am still going to support them because the three major parties consider the environment to be just one more political chit to play, rather than what it actually is: THE No.1 issue. Everything else: taxes, medicare, other gov. spending, social issues, fed/prov relations etc. are all inconsequential if the World continues on its present course to extinction. Hahahahahahahahaha **gasps for air** Hahahahahahahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 I do agree with you about the environment WIP, but I'm not in total agreement regarding the media. With $1.9 million in 2010 alone, there should be SOMETHING from the Greens... What do the Greens even mean when they say they are releasing "attack ads"? Is any criticism in an ad considered an "attack"? I would think not... attacks in advertising are the ones that take things out of context or attack someone personally (making fun of Chretien's face whan he talked was a classic example). Or like the new Con ads attempting to scare people with the whole "Bloc coalition" nonsense.... But criticism of policies is NOT an attack ad. SOme advice to the Greens: Try ANY ads... try some informative ones first... try funny ones... try SOMETHING Green Party of Canada!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Hahahahahahahahaha **gasps for air** Hahahahahahahahaha Some of the adults are trying to have a conversation... if you have a rebuttal, or something to add, please do so... You look very immature with this kind of nonsense post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 I do agree with you about the environment WIP, but I'm not in total agreement regarding the media. With $1.9 million in 2010 alone, there should be SOMETHING from the Greens... I don't know how far 2 million dollars goes, but I do know that the pro-oil lobbyists have a number of forums that provide publicity for them free of charge: Sun newspapers, National Post, Corus Radio Network, CanWest Global etc. I support the Green Party as a matter of principal to get as much attention as possible on environment issues. When it comes time for an election, my riding is a safe NDP-held seat in Parliament. If Dave Christopherson was in any real jeopardy of losing Hamilton Centre, that's when I'd have to vote NDP and lobby on their behalf. What do the Greens even mean when they say they are releasing "attack ads"? Is any criticism in an ad considered an "attack"? I would think not... attacks in advertising are the ones that take things out of context or attack someone personally (making fun of Chretien's face whan he talked was a classic example). Or like the new Con ads attempting to scare people with the whole "Bloc coalition" nonsense.... But criticism of policies is NOT an attack ad. I guess we'll have to wait and see on Monday! I don't know what's in the ads, but I suspect that if there is a change in tone, it's a simple matter of issue-oriented ads get ignored....especially when they are buried by news organizations that work in the interests of the oil companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Some interesting survey results were shown on CBC yesterday with regards to how various supporters of parties viewed continuing stimulous spending as opposed to working on the deficit.....spending vs. not spending. Liberals were about 50/50. Bloc was a little more on the spending side. NDP was way over on the spending side - about 65/35. The interesting part was that the Greens and Conservatives were just about equal at 32/68. It's only a small smaple but it serves notice that just because someone leans towards Green - does not automatically make them a Left winger when it comes to econimic and social issues. Oh....and I can't help but say....Elizabeth May is a Blabbermouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 We may have passed beyond a point of no return with the environment. The logical plan given the reality of the previous statement is to adapt, and do it with all possible speed. Canada has some unique concerns with climate change, vast amounts of this nation will be transformed, and for the better I might add. The north will open up, rich in mineral wealth it will become the newest economic engine in the nation. This is where the Greens should step in with a positive slant to the entire equation. Forget selling off AECL, start planning to use it to our advantage. Push for methane ice extraction, form a crown corporation to do it and acquire all the leases available. The north is the future, and the Greens have a key to unlock the wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 We may have passed beyond a point of no return with the environment. The logical plan given the reality of the previous statement is to adapt, and do it with all possible speed. Canada has some unique concerns with climate change, vast amounts of this nation will be transformed, and for the better I might add. The north will open up, rich in mineral wealth it will become the newest economic engine in the nation. This is where the Greens should step in with a positive slant to the entire equation. Forget selling off AECL, start planning to use it to our advantage. Push for methane ice extraction, form a crown corporation to do it and acquire all the leases available. The north is the future, and the Greens have a key to unlock the wealth. no - see climate change positive feedback mechanisms; i.e., released methane into the atmosphere; re: melting permafrost & ocean release of methane hydrate (or methane clathrate) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 no - see climate change positive feedback mechanisms; i.e., released methane into the atmosphere; re: melting permafrost & ocean release of methane hydrate (or methane clathrate) Why no? I have looked into some bits and pieces, mining the ice out of the arctic sea floor looks damned feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 no - see climate change positive feedback mechanisms; i.e., released methane into the atmosphere; re: melting permafrost & ocean release of methane hydrate (or methane clathrate)Why no? I have looked into some bits and pieces, mining the ice out of the arctic sea floor looks damned feasible. presently... methane, in relation to existing and ever increasing CO2 atmospheric levels, is not a/the principal GHG contributor to global warming... to climate change. However, methane is significantly more potent (more effective) in trapping heat in the atmosphere... approaching 30 times as more potent than CO2. A timely article: Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 I think the Green Party should join the NDP or the Liberals. The Bloc shouldn`t be in the House of Common because they don`t stand for Canada. I like to see the First Nation have a party in the House, its only fair since the Bloc is there. Then the FN can speak for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 presently... methane, in relation to existing and ever increasing CO2 atmospheric levels, is not a/the principal GHG contributor to global warming... to climate change. However, methane is significantly more potent (more effective) in trapping heat in the atmosphere... approaching 30 times as more potent than CO2. A timely article: Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated Which is one of the reasons to adapt and prosper is it not? The entire north is changing, you must know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Which is one of the reasons to adapt and prosper is it not? The entire north is changing, you must know that. and on certain levels there will be 'some' advantages for Canada... however, your adaptation in a context of "prosper" needs to be expanded upon, if you might... an aspect of simply adapting to the specifics of permafrost melt, includes recognizing impacts like sediment transport in rivers, slope failure, and ground soil subsidence... all of which, as instabilities, have implications to infrastructure and ecosystems. Perhaps you might advise on how one might prosper and utilize melted permfrost soil/land? from a recent report from the OAG - from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Melting permafrost destabilizes northern infrastructureAbundant mineral, oil, and gas resources position Canada's North for economic expansion. Natural Resources Canada estimates the value of diamond production in 2005 at $1.7 billion. But development of northern natural resources is challenged by inadequate transportation infrastructure, a challenge that grows more difficult as northern temperatures rise and permafrost melts. Temperature increases of 4 to 5oC predicted for the Western Arctic by 2080 are likely to affect a large portion of the total permafrost area. Melting of permafrost reduces the load-bearing strength of the land, causes the ground surface to sink, and threatens the stability of roads, airport runways, pipelines, water supplies, waste-water disposal structures, and older buildings. A temperature rise could cause structural damage to infrastructure foundations. An "ice road" is a temporary highway using the surface of frozen rivers and lakes. The "ice road" season could be shortened substantially. Stabilizing existing infrastructure and developing new construction methods to adapt to changing conditions are critical to maintaining ground access in Canada's North. Changes in ground surface due to melting permafrost can affect the stability of structures such as railway tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 I think the Green Party should join the NDP or the Liberals. The Bloc shouldn`t be in the House of Common because they don`t stand for Canada. I like to see the First Nation have a party in the House, its only fair since the Bloc is there. Then the FN can speak for themselves. The FN could have a party and it would suffer the same fate as the Greens and to a lesser extent the NDP. FN voters are spread across the country, rather than being concentrated like the BQ's base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Is it wrong for me to judge May on her slob appearance? Who wants that leading their country? Yes, yes it is. Using that logic, Ignatief is a better leader because he's trim and dresses better than Harper (and that haircut of his)does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 I think the Green Party should join the NDP or the Liberals. The Bloc shouldn`t be in the House of Common because they don`t stand for Canada. I like to see the First Nation have a party in the House, its only fair since the Bloc is there. Then the FN can speak for themselves. First, the Bloc is in Parliament because they were elected by the people to be there. So, if you try to ban them from the House, you do not believe in real democratic principles. The Green Party had some sort of informal alliance with the Liberals when Stephan Dion was the leader, and he was a strong advocate for carbon taxation. Since then, he got dumped in favour of Iggy, who has no strong principles, other than becoming Prime Minister. Many, if not most Greens are closer to the NDP on most issues than the Libs or the Cons, but the problem is how low the NDP ranks environment issues on their list of priorities. They promoted cap and trade in the last federal election, likely because of B.C. politics, where the NDP is against the carbon tax for no good reasons other than it's a B.C. Liberal policy, and has high negatives that make opposing it politically advantageous. That may work for political strategizing, but they lost the support and the confidence of most environment groups for their political maneuvering with this issue: Top environmental groups denounce BC's New Democratic Party It also needs to be noted that political parties should serve higher purposes than getting candidates elected. If carbon taxation is a hard sell (no thanks to oil industry propaganda here) then candidates with principles need to work harder to promote it; rather than trying to tell people what they want to hear. It's time for a lot of people to hear a wake up call on environment issues; and just trying to do what's politically expedient, will leave us in the same mess we're stuck in now. When election time comes, then we can do the business of choosing the lesser of two evils if it's going to be a close election in our local riding...which it won't be in mine anyway. In the meantime we should be trying to advance the causes and issues we believe in, rather than worrying about which mediocre leader gets elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Some of the adults are trying to have a conversation... if you have a rebuttal, or something to add, please do so... You look very immature with this kind of nonsense post. Wait was I supposed to take WIP's post seriously? That environmental issues are the #1 most important issue in all of Canadian politics, surpassing health care, taxes, the economy etc etc etc? How do you respond to that other than with laughter? Dumb posts get dumb answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 It also needs to be noted that political parties should serve higher purposes than getting candidates elected. If carbon taxation is a hard sell (no thanks to oil industry propaganda here) then candidates with principles need to work harder to promote it; rather than trying to tell people what they want to hear. Carbon taxation is a dumb sell, not a hard sell. That's why it's not flying. It's almost impossible to justify imposing taxes and increased costs to manufacturers in Canada when they account for barely a fraction of the world's emissions, when the world's largest emitters have no similar restrictions. All you'd be doing is moving your manufacturers to China/India, where with the cost of labour they don't exactly need any other competitive advantages. Sounds like a great idea to me!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 All you'd be doing is moving your manufacturers to China/India, where with the cost of labour they don't exactly need any other competitive advantages. already done/happening... Developed countries outsource emissions - "Developed countries are "outsourcing" more than a third of their carbon emissions associated with products and services to other countries..... some countries in Western Europe have more than half of their total carbon dioxide emissions occurring elsewhere, especially in developing countries such as China". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.