On Guard for Thee Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 Even without the sale of GM stock, it would still be $2B more than this time last year. That's during a downturn in the economy, which apparently ended in a big way in June (stay tuned for Tuesday). Let's see, you have 1.8 from EI and about 2.7 from GM shares. So much for a 5 billion "surplus" I think we all know what will happen Tuesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 The NDP believe that everyone should be equal. However, very few socialists see themselves as an actual worker. They realize that the workers need a firm guiding hand, and who better to apply that hand, but the ones that created the system. And of course, to distinguish themselves from the others, maybe an extra perk or two. Scratch a 'progressive', they ooze loathing for the common man. And that screed has exactly what to do with a phony budget surplus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 And that screed has exactly what to do with a phony budget surplus?Absolutely nothing. Socialist's new schtick is to post inflammatory anti-NDP non sequiturs in every thread he can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 Let's see, you have 1.8 from EI and about 2.7 from GM shares. So much for a 5 billion "surplus" I think we all know what will happen Tuesday. EI ran a deficit for years. It's only fair that it now repay it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 EI ran a deficit for years. It's only fair that it now repay it. A desperate attempt to try and fill a failing political promise is hardly fair. It is however quite transparent so I doubt many are falling for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Let's see, you have 1.8 from EI and about 2.7 from GM shares. So much for a 5 billion "surplus" I think we all know what will happen Tuesday. I agree. Negative gdp numbers and mulcair is on easy street to 24 sussex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 I agree. Negative gdp numbers and mulcair is on easy street to 24 sussex. I guess eventually you run out of excuses for deficits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 I guess eventually you run out of excuses for deficits. Its not the deficits as much as negative gdp growth. Canadians hate the r word more than the d word. Harper in theory right now has the deficit part figured out. But if canada is in technical recession, its all over but the crying for the cpc. Harper is done after this election. Even if a majority cpc were to happen, harper would be served his walking papers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 It's the carbon reduction targets which are of importance. I believe that especially Mulcair is willing to set very high carbon reduction targets come the Paris meeting. That would mean that under such high target setting, the Oilsands may in fact be shut down, because Mulcair has said that the oilsands depend on what carbon reduction targets MUST be met. They should be shut down - in time. But your paranoia that any of the current crop will do anything close to it is utterly ridiculous. Nice fear mongering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Harper is done after this election. Even if a majority cpc were to happen, harper would be served his walking papers. Well, that would be worth celebrating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 They should be shut down - in time. But your paranoia that any of the current crop will do anything close to it is utterly ridiculous. Nice fear mongering. Why should they be shut down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Well, that would be worth celebrating. Would you rather a "nice" conservative a la Brad Wall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Why should they be shut down? Because the usage of fossil fuels is hugely damaging to the planet and should be gradually eliminated. There will still be need for oil but I would think that less dirty, conventional fuels would meet demand for non fuel use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Would you rather a "nice" conservative a la Brad Wall? I'm less fussed about how conservative he is than how honest he is. I don't think that Harper would be there if he conducted himself with honesty and integrity. Brad Wall may be hot stuff in Saskatchewan. See how well he plays in Ontario and Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Because the usage of fossil fuels is hugely damaging to the planet and should be gradually eliminated. There will still be need for oil but I would think that less dirty, conventional fuels would meet demand for non fuel use. Which is why oil companies also invest in alt energy. The last thing they want to do is milk a dry cow. Dont worry, some nee form of energy will be invented. Heck we've kicked whale oil and the whales thank us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 I'm less fussed about how conservative he is than how honest he is. I don't think that Harper would be there if he conducted himself with honesty and integrity. Brad Wall may be hot stuff in Saskatchewan. See how well he plays in Ontario and Quebec. All brad wall does is balance budgets and is far more likeable than harper is. Sk is still the best managed province in canada in spite if oil going in the toilet. All politicians are full of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Which is why oil companies also invest in alt energy. The last thing they want to do is milk a dry cow. Dont worry, some nee form of energy will be invented. Heck we've kicked whale oil and the whales thank us. There is no serious investment in alternative energy in this country. It's for show. Dinosaurs like Harper and Wall will ensure that fossil fuels are milked to the last drop, even if it destroys the environment and hurts us economically down the road as everyone else has moved on. It's a gold rush mentality. Meanwhile, China has gotten into solar in a big way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) There is no serious investment in alternative energy in this country.Maybe because only irrational idiots "invest" in technology that cannot provide the power we need. If CO2 is a problem we can build dams and nukes. If dams and nukes are not acceptable then I guess you don't care about CO2. Meanwhile, China has gotten into solar in a big way.China is big so it is big into every type of energy. But what matters is the percentage of the total: That little sliver marked 'other renewables' includes all of the expected contribution from PV solar to China's energy mix. That is because solar, in its current form, is next to useless as a source of power for a grid (with the possible exception of desert locations closer to the equator than Canada). Edited August 30, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 There is no serious investment in alternative energy in this country. It's for show. Dinosaurs like Harper and Wall will ensure that fossil fuels are milked to the last drop, even if it destroys the environment and hurts us economically down the road as everyone else has moved on. It's a gold rush mentality. Meanwhile, China has gotten into solar in a big way. It doesnt matter. Right now fossil fuels are the most efficient method of energy. The oil companies are developing new energy as they dont want to be left in the dark and the funding for that research comes from the oil in the ground. As for destroying the environment, the oul sands companies have to reclaim the land when done and which has been discussed ad nauseum is china and india burning tonnes of coal which is significantly worse. Also dont underestimate himans ingenuity and resoursefulness. Carbon levels have fluctuated throughout the course of history of the earth and have seen much higher levels than now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 It doesnt matter. Right now fossil fuels are the most efficient method of energy. The oil companies are developing new energy as they dont want to be left in the dark and the funding for that research comes from the oil in the ground. As for destroying the environment, the oul sands companies have to reclaim the land when done and which has been discussed ad nauseum is china and india burning tonnes of coal which is significantly worse. Also dont underestimate himans ingenuity and resoursefulness. Carbon levels have fluctuated throughout the course of history of the earth and have seen much higher levels than now. What does reclaiming land have to do with the damage done by CO2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) The NDP has always advocated balanced budgets and the NDP has delivered on more balanced/surplus budgets for each year in power than any other party federally and provincially combined. Can't say "always" because as a young NDP member in the late 70's I recall attending a non-election season event where Ed Broadbent was the keynote speaker. Ed advocated something similar to a Keynsian New Deal solution to get Canada out of its economic recession at the time, by increasing public spending on a full employment strategy. The deficit (which was already growing under Trudeau) would take care of itself as increased employment and economic growth would eliminate the deficit in coming years. So, if the NDP is the land of the deficit hawks, this must be a fairly recent development. Was Jack Layton arguing for balanced budgets.....I wasn't paying close attention at the time. The women's issue debate is another thing altogether. If Harper doesn't show up, Mulcair has absolutely no reason to tear apart the left by debating with Trudeau and May. It makes no sense to hold a debate with the prime minister sitting at home, eating popcorn, and watching the other leaders take shots at each other. The NDP offered an alternative to the group organizing the women's debate. They suggested 1 on 1 interviews, so the leaders could discuss the issue and get their platforms out or some other method to discuss the issues. The group organizing the debate never got back to them. The NDP currently has one of the largest female caucuses we've ever seen in Canada and 42% of the candidates in the next election are women. Those numbers are unprecedented. There is no other party that even comes close to the NDP's dedication and work on women's issues. Mulcair refusing to fall victim to Harper's game of having the left tear itself down speak nothing to the NDP's demonstrable commitment to women's issues. Looks like there was a little spin on that pitch! Mulcair agreed "in principle" to the debate, and it shouldn't matter whether or not Harper would be there anyway. As Elizabeth May said:'the organizers could have left an empty chair for Harper and that would have spoke volumes about the Prime Minister's attitude on women's issues.' But Mulcair & advisers just made a cold political calculation that they didn't need the debate as much as Justin Trudeau or Elizabeth May. Edited August 30, 2015 by WIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 I didn't flipped. I started looking at things from an objective point of view. Socialism was hammered into me for a long time. I made a conversion to become an independent. There was a time when I blindly believed the things guys like you spewed, News flash, buddy....that happens no more. Sorry that upsets you. The revival of an old thread presenting you as a socialist, featured you making extremist statements that went far beyond what any liberal or anyone further left here would have said. And your posts were just declarative statements providing no reasons or supporting evidence for your beliefs at the time. If you hadn't thought out your socialist positions at the time, is there anything showing that you have thought through a switch to rightwing conservatism now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Also dont underestimate himans ingenuity and resoursefulness. With a little correcting on spelling and grammer, that statement could make the perfect epitaph on our collective tombstone in the not-too-distant future. Carbon levels have fluctuated throughout the course of history of the earth and have seen much higher levels than now. Off topic and totally false oil industry funded propaganda! The real story on history of life on Earth has been that...as the Sun has slowly increased energy output over time, Earth's atmosphere has been decreasing the concentration of greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration. Photosynthesizing plants creating oxygen and putting carbon into the soil caused some dramatic cooling events that caused many ice ages over 500 million years ago. As the Sun increased in intensity, so did carbon sequestration. The exceptions where CO2 rose during periods of high volcanism were also the times of mass extinctions of life! In recent Earth history, CO2 levels haven't exceeded 400 ppm for between 2.5 and 16 million years...depending on who's rock analysis you want to accept....still a pretty damn long time! More recently, during the Pleistocene Era, Earth has spent the bulk of it's time in ice ages separated by short interglacial periods averaging about 10,000 years where CO2 would go as high as 300 ppm. And this last interglacial was the perfect time for us to discover agriculture and burning forests.....and Earth has been working overtime just to keep CO2 under that 300 ppm cap.....and then we came up with the Industrial Revolution! And for more than a century carbon sequestration hasn't been able to keep up with us, and we've climbed above 300 and steadily rose to 400 and we're still raising CO2 levels at ever increasing annual rates, which is an indicator that we have busted the cycle this time and CO2 will keep on rising or we'll go extinct! Because it will take decades for partial effects of what we're doing to show their impacts, and many centuries before the full results of anthropegenic climate change land on this world. Most of the heat is still trapped in deep ocean layers that will slowly warm the upper ocean layers and atmosphere and acidify the oceans. So, thanks oil industry fans! We may already be past the point of no return and not be able to do a damn thing about the crisis, and yet we have the right wing suicide squads who want to kill off life on Earth a little faster. Why stop now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Because the usage of fossil fuels is hugely damaging to the planet and should be gradually eliminated. There will still be need for oil but I would think that less dirty, conventional fuels would meet demand for non fuel use. Speaking of fear mongering...^ The planet is and will be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 The revival of an old thread presenting you as a socialist, featured you making extremist statements that went far beyond what any liberal or anyone further left here would have said. And your posts were just declarative statements providing no reasons or supporting evidence for your beliefs at the time. If you hadn't thought out your socialist positions at the time, is there anything showing that you have thought through a switch to rightwing conservatism now? I haven't switched to right wing conservatism. I'm simply mpore weary of hard core socialists like you and the damaging principals you stand for. 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.