Election!

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

So why not vote Green if the Liberal crash dummy has no hope...

Maybe. I'll have to get a better feel for things before the election.

The funny thing is that my riding's Liberal candidate's name is David Mulroney.

Good luck pal.



And the Green leader is Jim Harris.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I'm voting Green in this election, and will continue to until someone else steps up and gives me a real reason to vote for them or their party. Right now it's all about what the other guys will do that is bad or have done that was bad, as opposed to what they can do that is good.

Out of curiosity, are you, and everyone else who has stated they are voting green, voting green because you support their platform and ideals, or like their candidate in your riding, or is it merely a protest vote because you dont like the three main parties?

[Delthefunky]

I would laugh pretty hard if we woke up to a Green Majority on Jan. 24th... Kind of like what Eddie Murphy talks about with Redd Foxx running for President in Delirious.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Out of curiosity, are you, and everyone else who has stated they are voting green, voting green because you support their platform and ideals, or like their candidate in your riding, or is it merely a protest vote because you dont like the three main parties?

I'll be voting Green for a combination of both those reasons (except the candidate one, doesn't matter so much to me in this Party-Dominant system). I support moderate-leftist type initiatives, and from the Green literature I've read (Cradle to Cradle, Natural Capitalism) it sounds like they've got some progressive economic ideas. I'm not sure how realistic of a Party they are to actually rule anything, but I doubt they'll get more than a handful of seats over the next decade. I'm hoping after that they start to gear up a bit, as the issues that seem to favour them (environment) become more of a voting topic.

I also think Conservatives/Liberals are basically cut from the same cloth, and that if you switched their positions, the Con's would look just as bad as the Lib's do now. I don't have anything against the NDP per se, but as a party, they seem sooo marginlized by their opponents that they seem 'unelectable', no matter how much of a massive lead they have over the Green Party.

Even if I didn't dislike the 2 main parties, I'd still vote Green. I don't think it's a protest vote. If I couldn't vote Green, I'd probably vote NDP... though I never have, and hopefully will never have to.

[transplant99]

The funny thing about the Green party is what they once stood for, and used to grow from a grassroots party that had a wonderful idea behind them, is that they have turned into nothing more than what the Libs/NDP/Conservatives are accused of being now.

Great edeitorial in the Herald today that makes those same points.

The current grand Pooh-Bah, David Suzuki, perpetually preaches a vindictive Mother Goddess Earth. Even our very breathing produces "toxic" greenhouse CO2, so by implication, we are all personally responsible for these horrific events and future tragedies.

Following along behind the high priests is a bevy of professional neo-green prophets blessing editorial pages all across Canada. The themes are always the same: doom, gloom, tragedy, impending disaster, followed by a prescription involving governments imposing command-and-control solutions on our sinful actions.

Of course governments love this development. Since everyone is now converted, green politicians are heroes, regardless of whether their policies have valid empirical foundation or not.

All of which forms the backdrop to this week's Montreal sequel "Kyoto 2 . . . More Hot Air." It is just not clear if this is a horror flick or a comedy. The Pembina Institute has weighed-in predicting the extinction of one-third of all animal life (Herald, Nov. 24) and surprise, surprise, they are advocating even "deeper reductions" in greenhouse emissions. True to the neo-green motto the Pembina article contradicts the Institute's position in a same-day story in the business section. The guest-column editorial urges us to believe in the junk science of human-caused climate change because a group of extraction company CEOs appear to have got religion.

However, Pembina then slags this same group in the business section for not having high enough carbon emission standards in oilsands extraction. Which leaves us wondering: which is it, boys? Some advice to Pembina -- if it walks like duck and it talks like a duck . . .

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...5-ecd92b9a7868

[troutman]

http://www.npd.ca/

http://www.conservative.ca/

http://www.liberal.ca/

http://green.ca/

http://www.communist-party.ca/

http://www.voteoutanders.com/

http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/default.asp

http://home.ican.net/~alexng/can.html

Great edeitorial in the Herald today

There is an oxymoron. I'm leaning towards Green for the first time.

Harper already alienating social liberals:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...329069-cp.html

The Tories would restore the traditional definition of marriage - between one man and one woman

[Delthefunky]

How do you all feel about David Suzuki? I read "From Naked Ape to Super Species" and it was quite enlightening. He's working hard to raise awareness not just for the Environment but for our Social Values. Many people just have negative views for anyone on the left (especially the extreme) and choose to ignore they're point of views no matter how important they may be. I think that a degree in Biology is just as important as a degree in Economics for politicians. Who else has read this book?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The funny thing about the Green party is what they once stood for, and used to grow from a grassroots party that had a wonderful idea behind them, is that they have turned into nothing more than what the Libs/NDP/Conservatives are accused of being now.

Great edeitorial in the Herald today that makes those same points.



http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...5-ecd92b9a7868

Well... the Green Party is a political party. Did you expect it to be apolitical or non-political? Did you expect them to be right all the time about everything? Human-caused global warming is 'junk science' now? I'll have to get that linked to me, I was unaware that the issue had finally been conclusively settled (mind blowing!).

Political parties engage in politics to win political elections. Politics, by modern definition and practise, is a pretty sleazy, underhanded game, where most participants are, by our conservative standards, 'corrupt'. I'm not sure there are loud voices across the country ringing out that the Greens are holier-than-thou in every respect. To expect as much is to invite disappointment. Though, I'm not sure how accepting the obvious and inevitble makes the Greens as institutionally corrupt as, say, the Liberal Party.

I think it's time for political change. Maybe 10-15 Green MP's can put a little pressure on the government from a new, non-NDP angle. I think the chances of this happening over the next decade are great, and I intend on being a part of it. Should be interesting.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

How do you all feel about David Suzuki? I read "From Naked Ape to Super Species" and it was quite enlightening. He's working hard to raise awareness not just for the Environment but for our Social Values. Many people just have negative views for anyone on the left (especially the extreme) and choose to ignore they're point of views no matter how important they may be. I think that a degree in Biology is just as important as a degree in Economics for politicians. Who else has read this book?

I think Suzuki is rated here around one peg above Chomsky, and 10 pegs below credible, unfortunately. I think he's great, and question that if he's a 'liar' or 'wrong', then what the heck is his motivation? He's a smart guy, I'm sure he could have made boatloads in the private sector, but apparently choosing to be a crusader immediately de-legitimizes him to the moderate/extreme Right.

[Burninator]

All you people who are talking about voting for the Green Party (which I will be) you should be interested to know that smaller parties like them actually get money for getting votes. So if you think you are throwing your vote, your not.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The funny thing about the Green party is what they once stood for, and used to grow from a grassroots party that had a wonderful idea behind them, is that they have turned into nothing more than what the Libs/NDP/Conservatives are accused of being now.

Great edeitorial in the Herald today that makes those same points.



http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...5-ecd92b9a7868

Laugh. At the end of that piece it says "Bill Marriot is a professional economist who still worships one of the old fashioned gods".

Good for him.

He does make a good point though. One being that even with all the bluster, Canada hasn't done a thing to actually implement the Kyoto accord. I don't know how that means the enviromental movement has clearly lost it's way. He then goes on to the tried and true "Canada is a cold country, we have to pump out all this crap into the air or we would die". That doesn't even qualify as junk science. It's old fashioned stupidity.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Burninator

All you people who are talking about voting for the Green Party (which I will be) you should be interested to know that smaller parties like them actually get money for getting votes. So if you think you are throwing your vote, your not.

Something like $1.75 per vote if they cross a certain threshold...?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think Suzuki is rated here around one peg above Chomsky, and 10 pegs below credible, unfortunately. I think he's great, and question that if he's a 'liar' or 'wrong', then what the heck is his motivation? He's a smart guy, I'm sure he could have made boatloads in the private sector, but apparently choosing to be a crusader immediately de-legitimizes him to the moderate/extreme Right.

If we agree he's a "crusader" who gives speech after speech on topics and positions most commonly identified with a left wing agenda, why would you ask a question like: "What is his motivation?" Wouldn't it be self-evident?

And if he's a scientist with a left wing agenda, why wouldn't you question the results of his science? Wouldn't that be as much common sense as questioning the science put out by those employed by a chemical company?

I would feel free to apply those same questions to anyone on the far right you might want to put in front of us.

Suzuki has said Canadians should drop the labels of "left" and "right wing.

Conversely, he claims to be a conservative and has said the Green Party represent the only true "Conservatives" in Canada according to his speech to the Green Party before the last federal election.

While he isn't a member of any party, Suzuki said the Greens are the only group in the national arena that recognize the environment isn't just a political issue -- "it's what keeps us alive."

Suzuki told those gathered that he, along with Green Party members, were the true "conservatives" -- interested in conserving forests and waters, rather than ruin them for the sake of harvesting trees or damming a river.

"I am a conservative ... let's take back the language," he said. "We're against those who want to destroy the world for our children."

And no, I don't compare him to Chomsky.

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Well, Harper will apparently live and die on his beliefs . . . . probably die in fact.

Interestingly, in that vein, the Globe & Mail today with a survey that found 33% of Canadians feel the Liberals are most likely hiding an agenda versus 25% for the Conservatives. Obviously that's counter to commonly held belief.

Also, Fotze, hasn't a moderator recently asked you to stop using cuss words in every single post?

Cowperson

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by fotze

And Harper in grand style, chooses to lose the election in his first day. In 30 years this **** will be looked upon the same way as those who opposed the abolition of black rights.

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would try to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supported the move in a free vote.
Harper says he would not rein in cabinet ministers as Paul Martin did last summer when Parliament legalized same-sex weddings.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...329069-cp.html

Also, I used to like Suzuki until his piece on coalbed methane which contained outright lies and fearmongering, coupled with some serious lack of research.

Notice how it was the Fib-biased JOURNALIST that wrote the first line? Harper said nothing about trying to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage, he merely said he would put it through a free vote in the House, which is how democracy is supposed to work anyways instead of Paul Martin telling all his backbenchers to vote whatever the hell he's pushing through.

Although I agree Harper probably should've STFU'd on the subject until he wins the damn election. Now it's too late.

[flames_1987]

First time I'll get to vote which is pretty anti-climatic to say the least. Why even bother with these candidates...

[Frank the Tank]

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would try to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supported the move in a free vote.


.....and Frank just decided to vote for anybody but him......

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Also, Fotze, hasn't a moderator recently asked you to stop using cuss words in every single post?

Cowperson

ha ha

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

Notice how it was the Fib-biased JOURNALIST that wrote the first line?

Ah yes, the dreaded left wing Fiberal bias over at The Sun. They'll do anything to keep the Liberal party in power.

[ernie]

Once again the anti-conservative media starts up. I'll never understand that on this subject of the traditional definition of marriage why it shouldn't go to a free vote. I may not give one toss one way or the other but i'd imagine this is the way the process is supposed to work.

Harper has never ever said he will take away equal rights and what not for homosexuals. He wants to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

Buried in the article away from the inflammatory headline is this:

Harper made a point of raising the thorny issue even after his handlers had cut off questions from reporters. He believes same-sex couples should be recognized through civil unions that set out economic rights but don't infringe on traditional marriage.

To be perfectly honest I think all it is is a headline grabbing issue in most peoples view it is pretty low on the list of priorities after economy, healthcare, education, immigration, military etc... in fact in the CBC briefing list on the parties they list 13 issues and don't even mention this. It's a hot potatoe topic that garners headlines nothing more. And while someone may decide not to vote for them on this issue if you polled the population I can pretty much guarantee that there are large numbers of people and perhaps the majority that agree with his viewpoint of preserving that definition.