Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well, it's the sitting federal government, not a football team. They do serve different roles. Like, you know, the Stamps don't get to make decisions on my family's healthcare, where my tax dollars go, and wars.

Anyway...

“Holder (of the confirmation of registration) is prohibited from transmitting or aiding in transmitting any description, account, picture or reproduction of the Event,”

That's an interesting touch. Did the Stamps lay out any rules about you talking about the game on the internet, or posting a photo of your hot dog on instagram?

The CFL/Stampeders are a for profit franchise who sell video rights, own trademarks, and so on.

Harper is the leader of a Country, a democracy, and he is silencing people from speaking in a democratic country about an election that is happening.

How at all are you comparing the two things together??? There is no comparison between gagging people at an election event in a democratic country, and posting some rules where you BUY the ticket on those conditions from a for-profit organization. And even then, I can go to a bar, or talk on twitter about the CFL game I am watching.. I wouldn't be able to do even that at the harper events.

Just one of the many things that Harper has done in his time that is far from democratic, for what is supposed to be a democratic country,

[flamesfan6]

In the next debate,

I want to see someone ask Harper about his trade deals - specifically the one with China that allows Chinese investors to sue the Canadian government (in secret) over law changes that hinder Chinese investors profits.


I want to see how Harper defends this (and also get this trade deal out in the public because Harper signed this deal in Russia, quietly, and secretly with practically no debate in the parliament), while they are at it lets also ask why he signed it in Russia, didn't publicize the treaty at all (because Harper is usually first at saying how good these trade deals are) .. Don't think many people know of this one.

Also would show how Harper just ignores process too

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/new...orce-october-1
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09...n_5836348.html
http://www.newsweek.com/new-treaty-a...ts-laws-270751

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The reason I don't like May is she hasn't been able to grow the brand at all in nearly 20 years. When the Greens first came out I thought they might build to something. I'm just tired of caring now. They're completely ineffectual. It doesn't matter if she makes any good points if she can't even achieve official party status.

That party either needs a complete shake up, or should just disband. There's no point for them.

That's not really fair or true. May has only been the party leader for the past ten years and the Greens have made a huge gains by their standards both federally and provincially. If this election weren't all about booting the Conservatives, they'd likely pick up 2-5 seats in BC alone.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's not really fair or true. May has only been the party leader for the past ten years and the Greens have made a huge gains by their standards both federally and provincially. If this election weren't all about booting the Conservatives, they'd likely pick up 2-5 seats in BC alone.

I don't understand what you mean here. If the point is booting the Cons than why can't the Greens win 2-5 seats? That doesn't seem like an either/or scenario?

[flamesfan6]

Oh great, Harper is going to make it illegal for Canadians to travel to places that the government (harper) declares are controlled by 'terrorist organizations'

Canadians have no right to travel to regions of the world controlled by terrorist groups, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday in promising a broader legal crackdown on what he called “terror tourism.”

“There is absolutely no right in this country to travel to an area under the governance of terrorists. That is not a human right,” Harper said.

not a human right? .. okay...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/na...250/story.html

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Slava

This probably aligns with a lot of thoughts on the campaign at this point http://natpo.st/1SYoG9Z

Thanks for that, it was a good read. It pretty much summarizes my feelings on this election.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Its typical conservative pandering . Whether its in Canada or the states . You can allows count on any conservative government to run up the debt after coming into office with a surplus .

No kidding and somehow they get the label of being fiscally conservative when it's quite the opposite. Maybe that was true decades ago, but now all conservative governments can be counted on to do is leave the balance sheet a complete and utter mess by the time they get voted out. Not that the other options are much better but they are not nearly as disingenuous about it. They are conservative in terms of their archaic social policies but that's about it.

[Canuck-Hater]

Just watched the Linda McQuaig interview and I'm not really sure what people are freaking out about. She never once suggested that all oilsands production should be shut down. Its about meeting carbon emission targets. Rempel twisted the hell out of her words, same with Rosemary Barton.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/third-oil-r...change-1482388

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Just watched the Linda McQuaig interview and I'm not really sure what people are freaking out about. She never once suggested that all oilsands production should be shut down. Its about meeting carbon emission targets. Rempel twisted the hell out of her words, same with Rosemary Barton.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/third-oil-r...change-1482388

But...that's not what her own party says about the oilsands...so which is it?

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But...that's not what her own party says about the oilsands...so which is it?

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/201.../#.Vceq9PnuosQ
From article:
"NDP leader Tom Mulcair has in the past enthusiastically called a west-to-east oil pipeline for pumping Alberta's oilsands crude to tidewater a "win-win" which will mean better prices for the producers, and therefore more royalties for the producing provinces.
He said it must include a rigorous, transparent environmental review process and legislation to force oil companies to pay for the pollution they create, including any increase in greenhouse gas emissions."
Hasn't it been the NDP's position all along?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/201.../#.Vceq9PnuosQ
From article:
"NDP leader Tom Mulcair has in the past enthusiastically called a west-to-east oil pipeline for pumping Alberta's oilsands crude to tidewater a "win-win" which will mean better prices for the producers, and therefore more royalties for the producing provinces.
He said it must include a rigorous, transparent environmental review process and legislation to force oil companies to pay for the pollution they create, including any increase in greenhouse gas emissions."
Hasn't it been the NDP's position all along?

To leave oil in the ground at the oilsands?

No, it hasn't.

Here is the direct quote:

"A lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we're going to meet our climate change targets," McQuaig said.


"We'll know that better once we properly put in place a climate change accountability system of some kind," she told host Rosemary Barton. "And… once we have a proper review process for our environmental projects like pipelines."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lind...ound-1.3183999

There is a reason both she and the federal party are backpedalling today.

And Rempels response which is appropriate in every way:

"For the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are dependent on Canada's energy sector, listen to what you just heard. Instead of standing up for the energy sector or Canada's economy, you're hearing 'I want to tax this, I want this oil to be left in the ground.'"

Beyond that though, I am curious as to what it is the NDP would do to cut emissions (read; a climate change accountability system of some kind). Also curious as to who it is that sets the emission "targets". I suspect it will be the old cap and trade, which has proven to make a lot of money for governments but does little if anything to cut emissions.

All the while there will be thousands and thousands of jobs lost throwing the entire country into a deep recession and costing taxpayers even more in supporting the social safety net needed to help those who wont be drawing paychecks.

Brilliant.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Beyond that though, I am curious as to what it is the NDP would do to cut emissions...

All the while there will be thousands and thousands of jobs lost throwing the entire country into a deep recession and costing taxpayers even more in supporting the social safety net needed to help those who wont be drawing paychecks.

Brilliant.

So you don't know what they are going to do, but you know it's going to be a disaster?

Thousands of jobs are being lost and the country is in a recession right now. Is it at all possible to blame this on the NDP before the election?

I know some people would buy it.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

Oh great, Harper is going to make it illegal for Canadians to travel to places that the government (harper) declares are controlled by 'terrorist organizations'


not a human right? .. okay...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/na...250/story.html

Such utter bull####.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by transplant99

To leave oil in the ground at the oilsands?

No, it hasn't.

Here is the direct quote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lind...ound-1.3183999

There is a reason both she and the federal party are backpedalling today.

And Rempels response which is appropriate in every way:

Beyond that though, I am curious as to what it is the NDP would do to cut emissions (read; a climate change accountability system of some kind). Also curious as to who it is that sets the emission "targets". I suspect it will be the old cap and trade, which has proven to make a lot of money for governments but does little if anything to cut emissions.

All the while there will be thousands and thousands of jobs lost throwing the entire country into a deep recession and costing taxpayers even more in supporting the social safety net needed to help those who wont be drawing paychecks.

Brilliant.

All fair and good but it just annoys me that when a political figure suggests ANY kind climate change strategy or environmental regulations the right jumps on them like hyenas and takes it to the extreme. It is possible to balance the environment with sustainable development.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So you don't know what they are going to do, but you know it's going to be a disaster?

Thousands of jobs are being lost and the country is in a recession right now. Is it at all possible to blame this on the NDP before the election?

I know some people would buy it.

I cant blame the NDP for the price of oil...but since that isn't what we are talking about why even bring it up?


Am I not allowed, as has been practice of the lefties on here forever, to question what would happen if the party not in control was to start calling the shots? Which, if you re-read what I wrote, is what I said...I suspect the cap and trade is their agenda. If that's the case, then my conclusions are fact based as that is whats happened where ever they have been implemented.

Pretty simple stuff.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

All fair and good but it just annoys me that when a political figure suggests ANY kind climate change strategy or environmental regulations the right jumps on them like hyenas and takes it to the extreme. It is possible to balance the environment with sustainable development.

don't twist this away from the facts.

Is the position of the NDP that which their leader has previously espoused or that which their star Ontario, Toronto candidate expressed in the interview?

There are too many jobs and too many families who depend upon the oilsands to let the NDP talk out of both sides of their mouth on this.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

don't twist this away from the facts.

Is the position of the NDP that which their leader has previously espoused or that which their star Ontario, Toronto candidate expressed in the interview?

There are too many jobs and too many families who depend upon the oilsands to let the NDP talk out of both sides of their mouth on this.

And this is why I simply can't and don't believe Mulcair when it comes to energy and his plans if elected PM. McQuaig isn't just some backbencher hoping for a seat in parliament. She is very likely going to be a cabinet minister in any Mulcair government and as such would have very likely been part of policy formation.

Combine that with Mulcair himself who has openly lobbied in other countries against what would be a boon for Canadian oil exports, and you start to see a very clear agenda. One that is not good for the industry that drives the economy of this country more than any other. This guy flew to Washington to lobby against something that wasn't even going to be in this country...a pipeline. Betraying Canadians from coast to coast and I suspect will be the subject of some PC attack ads in the not so distant future and rightfully so.


This editorial piece put all that in perspective and McQuaig just reinforced it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...when-he-doesnt

[killer_carlson]

What I dont get though is that the NDP is tied to big labour and this anti-oilsands message threatens into the hundreds of thousands of skilled trade jobs.

If Mulclair doesn't clear this up unequivocally and makes McQuaig publicly apologize, then it suggests to me that Mulclair doesn't have his own house in order. In that case you can expect a whole bunch of bozo eruptions from NDP candidates.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

don't twist this away from the facts.

Is the position of the NDP that which their leader has previously espoused or that which their star Ontario, Toronto candidate expressed in the interview?

There are too many jobs and too many families who depend upon the oilsands to let the NDP talk out of both sides of their mouth on this.

This particular issue terrifies me about the NDP. They are far too radical for me, and have this attitude that seems to be 'let them eat cake' rather than anything approaching common sense.

The reason I quoted you though is because I think the NDP are talking out of both sides of their mouth on a few issues. The oil sands is one, but on Quebec separatism as well and I think we'll see more because this is a party that won seats without even trying last time and they are hoping to maintain them. It's tricky to balance Quebec and expand into the West. Historically we saw Mulroney piece a coalition together which splintered and resulted in the BQ. It's a tenuous partnership basically.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

What I dont get though is that the NDP is tied to big labour and this anti-oilsands message threatens into the hundreds of thousands of skilled trade jobs.

If Mulclair doesn't clear this up unequivocally and makes McQuaig publicly apologize, then it suggests to me that Mulclair doesn't have his own house in order. In that case you can expect a whole bunch of bozo eruptions from NDP candidates.

Most of their biggest voters and supporters are in the public sector unions, or the manufacturing unions out east, so the Oil field means very little to them voter wise.