cybercoma Posted December 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Political points can also be made by a coherent and rational argument. One they apparently lack the ability to make. How did coherent and rational arguments work for the amendments on C-10. Oh right... they were rejected until the CPC realized the messed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 I'll vote for the conservative party before I ever vote for a party that has that brat running for it Sounds pretty personal to me. Does she look like you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Our high emissions are a result of the tar sands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 the tarsands are Canada's largest source of projected new greenhouse gas pollution. A recent Environment Canada projection ('business as usual'), suggests the tarsands will rise to 12% of Canada's national emissions in 2020, accounting for 44% of the total increase in Canada's emissions over that period. Of course, if one were to accept any likelihood of meeting even the most modest Conservative announcements toward reducing emissions, to-date, (17% over 2005 levels by 2020), will the tarsands be exempted... and, accordingly, what other sectors will be asked to increase reductions to allow for said tarsands exemption? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilosopherKing Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Interesting... If the Free Marketeers have their way,we'll be doing just that out of economic necessity... I'm not sure why you bring in this term 'free marketers' with such dreary regularity. This discussion is with regard to a particular group of protestors at Durban. Disapproval of their actions and/or opinions does not automatically translate into unvarnished support of the corporate elites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilosopherKing Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 You appear to assume that, should we dare think of alternatives to the current "standard of living" the only course of action will lead us to "go out and live in the woods like the Chinese." As if this is some profane and inevitable dichotomy that is at the basic nature of humankind. Well, for one, most Chinese don't live in the woods and secondly they are an increasingly urban population. Comrade. 468 million Chinese live on less than $2 a day. If you can demonstrate how you intend to live on a similar amount anywhere but the deep woods I'm interested in listening. There, at least, you can get free firewood. Poverty in China So not only does your brutally inept attempt at analogy fail, you end up looking like a backwoods cretin because you don't even know the first thing about the living conditions of the country to which you are trying to draw some sort of inference. And the worse thing is - and this only adds to the appearance of cretinism - is that you have Google at your finger tips. Cretinism, is it? And yet, you've evidently not summoned up the necessary effort to consult the internet yourself. Had you done so you'd have been embarrassed (presuming you are capable of feeling embarrassment) at the way you rabidly attack others despite a seemingly total lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilosopherKing Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Our high emissions are a result of the tar sands. No in fact they are not. They make up only 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. And the oil industry is the driving force of our economy right now, and the reason why we had such a 'soft landing' in our recession. Without it our unemployment rate would be far higher, as would the rate of other social ills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilosopherKing Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 How did coherent and rational arguments work for the amendments on C-10. Oh right... they were rejected until the CPC realized the messed up. I don't believe the subject under discussion is the Tory crime bill. There are other threads for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 I don't believe the subject under discussion is the Tory crime bill. There are other threads for that. The topic I was replying to was about using rational arguments to make your point to this government. It doesn't work for people in parliament, let alone outsiders, as demonstrated by their handling of C-10. If you don't see how that relates to the line of conversation that's your problem, not mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 468 million Chinese live on less than $2 a day. If you can demonstrate how you intend to live on a similar amount anywhere but the deep woods I'm interested in listening. There, at least, you can get free firewood. Yes, cretinism, cause you still haven't taken a clue: You appear to assume that, should we dare think of alternatives to the current "standard of living" the only course of action will lead us to "go out and live in the woods like the Chinese." As if this is some profane and inevitable dichotomy that is at the basic nature of humankind. Cretinism, is it? And yet, you've evidently not summoned up the necessary effort to consult the internet yourself. Had you done so you'd have been embarrassed (presuming you are capable of feeling embarrassment) at the way you rabidly attack others despite a seemingly total lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion. Yes cretinism or, if you are over 50, perhaps Alzheimers? But whatever it is, you ought to have it checked out. And soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 I'm not sure why you bring in this term 'free marketers' with such dreary regularity. This discussion is with regard to a particular group of protestors at Durban. Disapproval of their actions and/or opinions does not automatically translate into unvarnished support of the corporate elites. Fair enough,but I've found that many of those opposed to any of the global warming science (I admit to being a skeptic myself) are also the most pro-free market types there are (of which,I am decidedly not one)... You mentioned that most Chinese live on less than $2 a day...This us what we are competing with,and,if the "Kevin O'Leary" types had there way,most of the civilized world would become a decidedly uncivilized $2 a day world... I agree that there is no point in entering into an agreement that has the Chinese/Indians essentially do next to nothing while we are left holding the environmental bag,as it were... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Fair enough,but I've found that many of those opposed to any of the global warming science (I admit to being a skeptic myself) are also the most pro-free market types there are (of which,I am decidedly not one)... You mentioned that most Chinese live on less than $2 a day...This us what we are competing with,and,if the "Kevin O'Leary" types had there way,most of the civilized world would become a decidedly uncivilized $2 a day world... I agree that there is no point in entering into an agreement that has the Chinese/Indians essentially do next to nothing while we are left holding the environmental bag,as it were... And what the non-free marketers always ignore is that it was 700-800 million Chinese living on that type of income until freeing the market lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty. The world is a poor place and we live in a bubble that funnelled the wealth from billions to Europe and the Americas.. Free marketers want to end that oppression and allow all workers to compete for the scarce resources in the world. If you want to survive in this world you should have to work your ass off, not get a government job and surf the internet for half the day while getting guaranteed pensions and raises and inflation protection and reach arounds. When everyone in the world works as hard as an african would work for a meal a day, then the world will be a much better place. When there is enough wealth for 7 billion people to work, live, and prosper, then we can start talking about guaranteed pensions and all that other crap that we borrow to pay for right now. Edited December 10, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 And what the non-free marketers always ignore is that it was 700-800 million Chinese living on that type of income until freeing the market lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty. The world is a poor place and we live in a bubble that funnelled the wealth from billions to Europe and the Americas.. Free marketers want to end that oppression and allow all workers to compete for the scarce resources in the world. If you want to survive in this world you should have to work your ass off, not get a government job and surf the internet for half the day while getting guaranteed pensions and raises and inflation protection and reach arounds. When everyone in the world works as hard as an african would work for a meal a day, then the world will be a much better place. So.... The Free Marketeers as the New Global Humanitarians because,if they had their way,most would be working really hard just for food?? European Mercantilism just called...They need you back at headquarters!!! The rest is silly Koch Bros. induced talking points...The NAM thanks you for the free info,though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) So.... The Free Marketeers as the New Global Humanitarians because,if they had their way,most would be working really hard just for food?? European Mercantilism just called...They need you back at headquarters!!! The rest is silly Koch Bros. induced talking points...The NAM thanks you for the free info,though... Nope.. We've already seen the effects of globalization and free markets in redistributing wealth. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians who have clawed there way out of poverty while the entitled Europeans riot because their pensions won't be large enough to eat caviar in their seaside villas anymore. Poor guys. Free marketers just want to level the playing field. Edited December 10, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 (I admit to being a skeptic myself) A self proclaimed skeptic! Which prompts me to ask the irresistible question- "Where's Waldo?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grogy Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Well I for one am glad that we have entitled young Canadians enjoying the fruits of our nations labors and freedoms, giving them the ability to criticize the establishment. Im even happier knowing that they will be ignored by the majority, perhaps they ought to live in the same fashion as so many of the worlds poor do, this would be a more convincing sign of their dedication to the cause, and they may even learn why humans strive to improve their lives. It's easy to see that a lot of people in this thread have never been poor, or are poor and decided to be above all that hard work business and let everyone else take care of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Nope.. We've already seen the effects of globalization and free markets in redistributing wealth. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians who have clawed there way out of poverty while the entitled Europeans riot because their pensions won't be large enough to eat caviar in their seaside villas anymore. Poor guys. Free marketers just want to level the playing field. That's all very nice for the developing world, but the income gap that it's creating at home is pushing us down the path of destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) First ... Kent kept a low profile and did not immediately make himself available to answer questions on Wednesday after delivering a speech to the conference that was interrupted by a silent protest of Canadian youth. [email protected] Then ... Canada Changes Tone at Durban, Pushes for Climate Deal Peter Kent wants a Kyoto replacement by 2015. Environment Minister Peter Kent appears to have had a change of heart at the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, as he is now pushing for a binding international climate accord to replace the Kyoto protocol. Kent says the planned three-year break in climate negotiations should be put on hold and be replaced by efforts to have a treaty ready to go by 2015. Kent, who's faced the scorn of international climate change activists and developing world governments from across the planet, almost sounds like a veritable Liberal cabinet minister in these quotes, compliments of The Globe and Mail. Shamed into it by the youth. Edited December 10, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilosopherKing Posted December 11, 2011 Report Share Posted December 11, 2011 Fair enough,but I've found that many of those opposed to any of the global warming science (I admit to being a skeptic myself) are also the most pro-free market types there are (of which,I am decidedly not one)... Have I stated I am against global warming science? That I am offended by some pampered children who go to an international forum to insult Canada does not mean I am entirely opposed to the theories regarding global warming. However, I am realistic enough to recognize that there is nothing Canada could do at this point in time to meet its obligations under Kyoto other than pay billions of dollars to "buy" credits from third world countries. I am opposed to this. Most Canadians, I believe, would be, too. The only thing that accomplishes is to make some third world dictators rich. I am also realistic enough to recognize that trying to cut back global emissions while exempting the Chinese and Indians, and ignoring the Americans is idiotic. And people who rant at us while doing so are, in my books, not worthy of being taken seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilosopherKing Posted December 11, 2011 Report Share Posted December 11, 2011 Shamed into it by the youth. Don't be silly. It's nothing but a change in tactics. Since he knows the Chinese will never agree to emissions cutbacks, that is, to cutbacks outsiders can actually verify, he's safe in pushing for that as the basis for Canada joining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2011 Don't be silly. It's nothing but a change in tactics.... That's exactly what she said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.