Western clout?

[fanforever1986]

If the green party were ever made of our government...our foreign affairs would be a gong show, our economy would nosedive, and the national unemployment rate would look like figures similar to that of Congo. No arguging.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

If you could provide proof rather than just propaganda, I would more than likely listen and agree, but the fact is, until I get proof of anything you say (and believe me, I've looked for it) your post is nothing more than party rhetoric that is PR related more than politically motivated. Environmentalism is my number one priority when it comes to picking a political party, and I would not just go blindly into a party just because their name implies environmentalism.

Here are a couple links that I found just on google that prove my point, I can find more if you want.

http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=10242

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki

Couldn't find what you were talking about in the second link...

Again this just seems like some NDP blogger spewing out what he believes without any pertinent fact-checking or research. If you check some of the responses to his column at the bottom of the page, he is in fact refuted by facts and statistics (especially Jim Harris' response).

I have no problem posting some of my own research once I get home and have time to find it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

If the green party were ever made of our government...our foreign affairs would be a gong show, our economy would nosedive, and the national unemployment rate would look like figures similar to that of Congo. No arguging.

Hippies were the reason the U.S. lost the Vietnam war...

See, I can make baseless statements too.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Hippies were the reason the U.S. lost the Vietnam war...

See, I can make baseless statements too.

And in fact, that's all you've done so far.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Couldn't find what you were talking about in the second link...

Again this just seems like some NDP blogger spewing out what he believes without any pertinent fact-checking or research. If you check some of the responses to his column at the bottom of the page, he is in fact refuted by facts and statistics (especially Jim Harris' response).

I have no problem posting some of my own research once I get home and have time to find it.

This was in the second link:

In 2004, David Suzuki was nominated as one of the top 10 "Greatest Canadians" by viewers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In the final vote he finished 5th. Suzuki said his own vote was for Tommy Douglas who was the eventual winner (aside from 1996 when he supported the Green Party, Suzuki has consistently endorsed the NDP, the party founded by Douglas, in provincial and federal elections).

And this was the author's rebuttle to the response by Jim Harris, also on the link provided:

Mr. Harris,
"Reacting" to an article by ignoring its contents is the kind of diversion tactic I don't fall for.
My article makes no claims about the Green Party's stance on the oil sands. I merely point out that the term "oil (tar) sands" is entirely absent from "Platform 2006". I'd like to know where you stand on the issue, but find myself no wiser after 30+ pages. I also indirectly express my surprise at that omission, a point as absent from your letter as the oil sands are from your platform.
Your policy may "speak directly to the tar sands", your platform doesn't. How about putting your policies in your platform? I need more research? How many more pages would I have to read before finding where the Green Party stands on Canada's no.1 green issue?
The rest of your letter focuses on the governments' and Conservatives' financial support for the oil industry. But what of it? That's not the topic of the article. Why ignore what I write, and go off in a different direction altogether? I'd almost get suspicious.
You ask why the Canadian government subsidizes its richest companies. Good question, but also not posed in your platform. Posing the question here is, again, a diversion tactic, and not a reaction to my article. You might prefer if I talked about that, but that's between me and my editor-in-chief.
One more thing: saying that I've "obviously" never heard of the Pembina Institute doesn't reflect very favorably on you, it's cheap, but suit yourself. Do you really need that? Did I get the spelling right?
If you'd like to try again, and this time actually react to what I've said, instead of going off on an unrelated rant, I look forward to that.
I question donations for Canada's "green" movements, and the link between that, your party, and its new leader. I'm sure I'm not the only person who would like an answer to these questions. From you: not a word on them. Not a word on Cizek either. Disappointing.
PS sorry I have no space to react to all

Roel Meijer



You sound like the stereotypical Green supporter that can neither provide any facts nor policies in relation to anything pertinent about the environment, nor Green policies in general.

All the links I have supplied, that took a two-second search on google, gave an analysis of Green policies by respectable writers; you will not find such respectable writers that will provide adequate opposition. The idea of a party that places environmental concerns as a priority is definately worth my time, that party is not the Green party. I would even place a bet that the majority of voters that support Green have absolutely no idea what their policies are - much like the party itself.

And by the way, I am a she, not a he.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I think BC and Alberta are too different, politically speaking, to get some kind of "western bloc" in the HOC. I think the agendas of the two provinces are completely different as well. I mean, go to downtown Vancouver and visit the weed cafes, I could never imagine Calgary being that liberal any time soon.

I've lived in both provinces and they have more in common then you think. They are both resource driven economies. They are both growing rapidly and they both have been getting the short end of the stick since confederation. BC is more left wing, but the aims are the same.

I voted for the STV but don't remember exactly how it worked now except to say that a number of ridings would be put together and your vote would be determined by rating the candidates. It made sense but was a little complicated. I like to follow the KISS doctrine. I believe it's been successful in Ireland and a few other countries.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That article is a joke and quotes no credible sources. I already knew the Greens were to the right but their environmental policies are a lot more realistically implementable than the NDPs. The Greens actually provide incentives for corporations to stop polluting as opposed to the NDPs thought process of "tax them anyway we can."

Quoted for truth.
With the new leadership, there are fears that they will be going the NDP route however.

[Cheese]

Greens new policies....

The Green party says it would cut personal income and payroll taxes and create a carbon tax to discourage the use of fossil fuels. The party's so-called green plan would also end tax subsidies for the oil sands, which it says would save the public about $1.3 billion a year.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Greens new policies....

The Green party says it would cut personal income and payroll taxes and create a carbon tax to discourage the use of fossil fuels. The party's so-called green plan would also end tax subsidies for the oil sands, which it says would save the public about $1.3 billion a year.

I like that!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

And in fact, that's all you've done so far.

I know that's all I've done so far. Like I said, work is generally not the easiest place to go around conducting research. I volunteered for the Green Party durign the last election, so I did my research ahead of time. Now I can what the policies are but I'm not going to waste both mine and your time debating policy without putting up the facts supporting them.

This was in the second link:

In 2004, David Suzuki was nominated as one of the top 10 "Greatest Canadians" by viewers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In the final vote he finished 5th. Suzuki said his own vote was for Tommy Douglas who was the eventual winner (aside from 1996 when he supported the Green Party, Suzuki has consistently endorsed the NDP, the party founded by Douglas, in provincial and federal elections).

Nothing really substantial worth arguing about there.

And this was the author's rebuttle to the response by Jim Harris, also on the link provided:

Mr. Harris,
"Reacting" to an article by ignoring its contents is the kind of diversion tactic I don't fall for.
My article makes no claims about the Green Party's stance on the oil sands. I merely point out that the term "oil (tar) sands" is entirely absent from "Platform 2006". I'd like to know where you stand on the issue, but find myself no wiser after 30+ pages. I also indirectly express my surprise at that omission, a point as absent from your letter as the oil sands are from your platform.
Your policy may "speak directly to the tar sands", your platform doesn't. How about putting your policies in your platform? I need more research? How many more pages would I have to read before finding where the Green Party stands on Canada's no.1 green issue?
The rest of your letter focuses on the governments' and Conservatives' financial support for the oil industry. But what of it? That's not the topic of the article. Why ignore what I write, and go off in a different direction altogether? I'd almost get suspicious.
You ask why the Canadian government subsidizes its richest companies. Good question, but also not posed in your platform. Posing the question here is, again, a diversion tactic, and not a reaction to my article. You might prefer if I talked about that, but that's between me and my editor-in-chief.
One more thing: saying that I've "obviously" never heard of the Pembina Institute doesn't reflect very favorably on you, it's cheap, but suit yourself. Do you really need that? Did I get the spelling right?
If you'd like to try again, and this time actually react to what I've said, instead of going off on an unrelated rant, I look forward to that.
I question donations for Canada's "green" movements, and the link between that, your party, and its new leader. I'm sure I'm not the only person who would like an answer to these questions. From you: not a word on them. Not a word on Cizek either. Disappointing.
PS sorry I have no space to react to all

Roel Meijer

I like how the author asks for the position on the oil sands and then blasts Mr. Harris for providing it. Should it be listed in the platform? Absolutely, but the fact is Harris did provide the answer for it.

You sound like the stereotypical Green supporter that can neither provide any facts nor policies in relation to anything pertinent about the environment, nor Green policies in general.

If you want a point by point breakdown of everything I agree and disagree with in the Green's platform and why, I can give it to you.

All the links I have supplied, that took a two-second search on google, gave an analysis of Green policies by respectable writers; you will not find such respectable writers that will provide adequate opposition. The idea of a party that places environmental concerns as a priority is definately worth my time, that party is not the Green party. I would even place a bet that the majority of voters that support Green have absolutely no idea what their policies are - much like the party itself.

All the links you have provided are done by people who are known leftists and NDP supporters. If that's all you consider respectable then fine, but the first article you provided was a drive-by and the second one was called out for lack of research and misquotes.

And by the way, I am a she, not a he.

I already knew that. You are also the poster who called me out for TREASON because I cheered against the Oilers in the playoffs.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I like that!

Yes but the last thing the NDP wants to see is a socially-progressive party that believes in tax cuts. That's why we have the current hatchet-job being performed by them

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes but the last thing the NDP wants to see is a socially-progressive party that believes in tax cuts. That's why we have the current hatchet-job being performed by them

Yep... NDP is concerned that their semi-obsolete policies are going to be replaced by the more economiclly-progressive Greens. Of course, the NDP has waaaay more numbers and actual political clout, so far I think their 'hatchet-job' is working pretty well.