I really like what the NDP is saying

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


We are on the verge of an environmental disaster.

On the verge? FFS this has been happening for at least a century.

And your NDP miracle is full of shit. Period.

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by Seth1968


As am I.

However this: "I want an opposition govt"

Are you suggesting that's all the NDP will ever amount to?

And as far as an opposition party goes. The WR is top notch. Again, the NDP and Liberals said shit for 40 years, while the new WR exposed the corruption, entitlement, and cronyism.

THAT'S the main reason I'm voting WR.

This is a landmark election, and I've yet to see 1 PC lawn sign.

I'm with you on this one Seth.

[oster]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


No reasonable person should be saying what is quoted above. We are on the verge of an environmental disaster. California will be out of water, that means few crops from that state. Which means one hell of on increase in produce at the very least.

If Climate models keep going as expected, our children are in serious trouble.

So many people fail to understand that Climate Change is like turning on a stove, and then not being able to turn it off for 1,000 years.

No edit! Good job.

Youre on climate change now? FYI these "climate models" are not going as expected.

http://www.isciencetimes.com/article...p-60-photo.htm

You want to talk about fear mongering...

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by oster


No edit! Good job.

Youre on climate change now? FYI these "climate models" are not going as expected.

http://www.isciencetimes.com/article...p-60-photo.htm

You want to talk about fear mongering...

Your link is dumb. I started another thread on climate change. If you wish to post in that thread, I will explain to you why your link is retarded.

[01RedDX]

.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Reading that article and the comments below it hurt my brain... how can some people be so dumb?

Who cares about sea ice? The melt rate of continental ice is what we should be worried about.

Yet these sorts of articles are enough to convince people of a false reality.

The article doesn't mention that the previous year was a record low year for the ice sheet. It doesn't mention the thickness of the ice. Nor does it mention that ice in water doesn't change sea levels, only salinity and reflectivity.

You cannot use fact, reason, or even pleading emotions to reach climate change deniers. They are not thinking, they are absorbing what is easy.

It will take a complete catastrophe to change the deniers minds, and of course they will be the first people to grab a gun and start shooting, when the shit hits the fan.

p.s. I tried to dedicate a new thread to the topic, but a dumbtard immediately derailed it.

[Thales of Miletus]

I have noticed that the PC's have been trying to generate fear for the last few days.

Commenting that the NDP takes their orders for union bosses and are anti-pipeline. Suggesting that the NDP would turn the province into a socialist utopia.

What the hell is wrong with a utopia?

In other news, the PC justice minister had to step down because of legal action brought against him by his estranged wife. Hmmmmmm?

Stay Classy PCs.

[whiteout]

Saying that the NDP is anti-pipeline is not fear mongering, it's her own comments. She's said that she'll stop advocating for KXL and that Northern Gateway would stop. And raising corporate tax rates is not the way you stimulate the economy or help it diversify.

Any "utopia" that would come around would only exist in the eyes of those who currently don't do well for themselves or those who don't want to put the effort in to get ahead. Being poorer and having less opportunity is not a utopia to me, or a lot of other people.

[Nitro5]

Also unless only PC's ever go to court over a civil family matters the last comment has no bearing.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Nitro5
Also unless only PC's ever go to court over a civil family matters the last comment has no bearing.

It is very common. Why would anyone have to resign because of it?

I heard his wife said to him "that their relationship was in trouble for financial reasons", and in response he told her to go look in a mirror.

Originally posted by whiteout
Saying that the NDP is anti-pipeline is not fear mongering, it's her own comments. She's said that she'll stop advocating for KXL and that Northern Gateway would stop.

Actually she that the pipeline Northern Gateway project through B.C. isn't likely to succeed in the face of stiff opposition along the route. But she supports the project.

Please show me where she stated she would not support the pipeline.

[Nitro5]

Maybe because his position makes him the boss of the judges so while he's in court it could be seen as a conflict of interest? He didn't resign his MLA position, he stepped down from Justice Minister and Solicitor General

You should be smarter than this

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Nitro5
Maybe because his position makes him the boss of the judges so while he's in court it could be seen as a conflict of interest? He didn't resign his MLA position, he stepped down from Justice Minister and Solicitor General

You should be smarter than this

I want the NDP elected for the overall benefit of our society.

Prentice is Hitler.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


I want the NDP elected for the overall benefit of our society.

Prentice is Hitler.

Hyperbole much?

You're no better than those you deride, you only care about your particular segment of society. Vested interest to the gills, hypocrisy to the nines.

[ffmf]

Originally posted by whiteout
Saying that the NDP is anti-pipeline is not fear mongering, it's her own comments. She's said that she'll stop advocating for KXL and that Northern Gateway would stop. .

The NDP platform definitely has its issues, but the way the PC's are portraying her comments is essentially fear mongering as they neglect to say that she is for a couple of pipeline projects.

Notley said, however, that the NDP is interested in both the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain line to Vancouver and the proposed Energy East pipeline to Atlantic Canada.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ty-issues-loom

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Hyperbole much?

You're no better than those you deride, you only care about your particular segment of society. Vested interest to the gills, hypocrisy to the nines.

Go eat some GMO cupcakes.

You support the plutocracy and betray those who have given their lives in the effort to alleviate human suffering.

You are worse than Hitler, but about even with Prentice.

p.s. Eat any kittens lately?

[whiteout]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

Actually she that the pipeline Northern Gateway project through B.C. isn't likely to succeed in the face of stiff opposition along the route. But she supports the project.

Please show me where she stated she would not support the pipeline.

PC premiers have also been pushing for the completion of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, but Notley said that would stop on her watch.

“Gateway is not the right decision. I think that there’s just too much environmental sensitivity there and I think there’s a genuine concern by the indigenous communities,” she said. “It’s not going to go ahead. I think most people know that.”

Notley said, however, that the NDP is interested in both the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain line to Vancouver and the proposed Energy East pipeline to Atlantic Canada.


There you go, in the Calgary Herald yesterday. She doesn't support it and pushing to complete it would stop on her watch. She's made it clear she would just kill it outright, even if there is a chance it goes ahead.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ty-issues-loom

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by whiteout


PC premiers have also been pushing for the completion of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, but Notley said that would stop on her watch.

“Gateway is not the right decision. I think that there’s just too much environmental sensitivity there and I think there’s a genuine concern by the indigenous communities,” she said. “It’s not going to go ahead. I think most people know that.”

Notley said, however, that the NDP is interested in both the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain line to Vancouver and the proposed Energy East pipeline to Atlantic Canada.


There you go, in the Calgary Herald yesterday. She doesn't support it and pushing to complete it would stop on her watch. She's made it clear she would just kill it outright, even if there is a chance it goes ahead.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ty-issues-loom

Context my friend. The entire article paint the picture of a person who is carefully going to review policy to maximize return on our resources. That would be a good thing.

Her objection to the Gateway pipeline seems to be based on the idea that indigenous communities have a valid argument against it's construction.

I am a very conservative person BTW. But my issue is about whom the government serves. I do not believe the conservatives, while sharing my ideology, support the community and are to easily moved by corporate influence.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by whiteout
Saying that the NDP is anti-pipeline is not fear mongering, it's her own comments. She's said that she'll stop advocating for KXL and that Northern Gateway would stop. And raising corporate tax rates is not the way you stimulate the economy or help it diversify.

Any "utopia" that would come around would only exist in the eyes of those who currently don't do well for themselves or those who don't want to put the effort in to get ahead. Being poorer and having less opportunity is not a utopia to me, or a lot of other people.

You can take her comments however you want.

At the end of the day, it sounds like she is picking and choosing her battles. We need more pipelines, focus on the ones that will get through. Keystone and northern gateway are too much of a political hot potato, especially when you have Obama weighing in and/or delaying it.

Also, somebody mentioned stimulating the economy. Last time I checked, we don't need "economic stimulus" at 5.5% unemployment and $10k average higher salaries compared to other provinces We're doing pretty f&%king good, even in this oil downturn, NOW is the time to capitalize on public will to make the hard changes to support a better future for our province.

[EM2FTL]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Raising taxes isn't meant to fill the revenue hole. We shouldn't be filling a revenue hole to begin with. We should suffer with deficits until the economy improves because THAT IS THE POINT OF A DEFICIT.

And we should pay back that money when the times are good.

Our spending shouldn't fluctuate, it should always be the same, indexed to inflation. Our costs shouldn't go UP (per capita) as more people come in, based on efficiency advantages, if anything, they should go down (to a certain point of course).

It costs a certain amount of money to provide a proper service baseline. It shouldn't fluctuate.

You'll note that this is essentially what the current government is doing - instead of running a deficit, they are using up their savings account to cover the hole. During the transition period, the plan is to drive towards overall sustainability without cutting service levels.

I have serious concerns with statements like "pay it back when times are good". There are a number of trends (environmental, technological, health and social) converging in the near future that I think will negatively impact our ability to extract every last drop of non-renewables, and will significantly re-adjust the economic reality in this province. If we don't start actual (not just paying lip service to it) diversification now, we are fucked in decades to come. Running up deficits to pay for front-line programs and services is not the way to go.

Re: costs, population, and economies of scale - I don't think you understand how statutory social assistance programs work.

[HiTempguy1]

I understand perfectly well, as stated, I am behind tax increases and I completely agree with your assessment.

However, oh learnded one :p, why not educate us poor uneducated plebs rather than trying to tell me these concepts are outside my intelligence?

Please expand on why my ideas/thoughts do not cover "statutory social assistance programs"? Are you trying to say that societal costs go up exponentially vs population growth?