Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

apollo19

Members
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About apollo19

  • Rank
    Full Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto
  1. I think Ignatieff does see the issue properly, but he cannot stake out the position of supporting a combat role while being Dion's deputy leader (though I think it is quite clear he does support it, based on his voting last year for the extension). The report generally has it right, in that Canada does need support in Kandahar. The easy way out of this issue would have been the Americans adding more troops to help Canada, but (thankfully) the pressure has been applied to other NATO nations. So many people hope for involvement in Darfur, yet they are quick to advocate changing what Canada doe
  2. If the tax was on consumption and not production, then it would not be nearly as effective because the origin of production would not have any incentive to produce less (or more efficiently), other than a questionable shift in demand. Also, if you put the tax on production, the cost will be passed on all the way to the point of consumption, whereas a tax on consumption leaves the producers free from any cost whatsoever. I disagree with the fact that there would need to be a few years time before the tax could be implemented -- it could likely be implemented immediately with little effect as lo
  3. I tend to agree with the idea, but I think the revenues should be directed towards a cut in the corporate tax rate. I don't think this idea would ever fly though, mostly because people in Alberta who are die-hard oil defenders will frame this as a NEP-2 trying to steal Albertan's money. Ideally, an international carbon-trading scheme like Kyoto would work, but it does not because there is no international government which can implement such a system. Thus, the next best measure would be the carbon tax -- not more regulation.
  4. It is interesting in the world now that China is demanding so much resources -- the world is now awakened to what can happen when we have a finite supply of things and ever-increasing demand for them. I wouldn't say we will lose our high standard of living, but in the future things will become increasingly more expensive, forcing us to seek more sustainable substitutes. About the "threat" of China: I don't think China will ever target anyone militarily first (aside from possibly Taiwan, although that would be provoked). What is interesting about China is the fact that it is a dictatorship now
  5. Sorry, but I don't see the meaning in any of this. Why are you calling Harper fat? What does that possibly have to do with anything? I guess in your world, he should be a polar opposite of Bush, since apparently Bush jogs everyday. Since I haven't seen you post here before, I would suggest that you stop being so partisan and insulting people based on their physical appearance. About the "focus groups" and public money being spent on them -- I disagree with that. Why would the government spend money to craft a communications strategy for a political move?
  6. Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 2.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85 Compared to last time, I moved down a bit and stayed about the same economically.
  7. I think there is zero chance that Clinton or Obama will win the White House. Obama won't even win the Democratic nominaton, Hillary will make sure of that. Both of their positions are too far out there, and while Clinton has maybe too much recognition (which makes her a divider), Obama doesn't have enough (which means people don't trust him). Whoever the GOP nomination is will have a very good chance just in the starting gate, without any campaigning.
  8. I don't really think this is understood too well in Canada. We have governments that "keep a reign on spending", yet which have these generous social programs. The two combined effectively creates starved programs which do not do what they were designed to, creating a cycle of mediocrity. For people on the left, government should put more funding into these starved programs. For people on the right, these starving programs should be cut and put out of their misery. But taking a position "in the middle" and being proud of the fact that the government starves programs in an attempt to appease bo
  9. I think I'm going to have to go to McGuinty at this point. The election is only what, 8 months away? Yet I still haven't heard anything decent from Tory. He hasn't announced positions on anything, except that he would be "different". Although I won't be joining any parties, I'll probably get a Liberal sign for my lawn (which is something I don't really do.. shows how bad I think Tory really is). Pretty much I think you can expect the Liberals to ease back into power with a reduced majority, with the NDP remaining unimportant. Unless Tory can start a fire beneath him, McGuinty will cruise in f
  10. Although I wasn't really old enough for the Mulroney years, the way I see this is as follows: a friend gave him some money in exchange for consulting on his business, which was seen by some as a bribe in order to help Airbus get a contract over Boeing. Nobody has any evidence of this being illegal, and when the Libs tried to bring the issue back, he sued the government and won. Which means they really didn't have any evidence. I say it's all good. From people's experiences who I know, Mulroney was one of the better PM's Canada ever had (looking back on it all). Yet some people absolutely hat
  11. I generally think that the article is right on. Dion isn't exactly a well-set person in the political arena, and seems like if he gets roasted in a debate he will run off stage and cry, like he nearly did when Ignatieff debated him. He brings out these "waste disposal" arguments about no nuclear power, yet he likely has no idea whatsoever about the issue and how more nuclear power would help Canada reach it's emissions targets. He has no fire on any issues, and isn't really knowledgable or articulate about any of them (in French as well for that matter). I think its a pretty sad state with F
  12. Any ideas about what the parties will run on? Will Charest go for the same style as last campaign where he was for public cuts, or will he go happy-happy? From what I can gather about Boisclair, he isn't too well liked by the unions, which could mean trouble in the PQ's base. Will Bouchard make any pitches for anyone?
  13. I think if anyone looks at Kyoto from a non-partisan standpoint, they will see that it is flawed and a do-nothing agreement. Yes, I'm sure through buying credits from other countries pollution will fall. It seems the only good way to get any significant movement on global warming is if every country individually works to reduce their GHG's, without any international framework. You can't have an international agreement like Kyoto without having an international government of sorts which could implement it... globalization isn't there yet.
  14. I forced myself to watch the whole show, to see what all the fuss was about. What I saw was disgusting. Stereotyping white people, stereotyping Toronto people, stereotyping rural people. I have to wonder why the CBC would allow such a sub-par production to be allowed. Also, I don't see why many Muslims feel the need to overrepresent themselves in the world. Why did the CBC, a public broadcaster, allow a show about Muslims and their "hardships"? They are a smaller minority than others, yet they get disproportionately larger attention. The show is a slap in the face, although I guess it was gre
  15. I think they should enter our food supply. To those complaining about the "little farmer", the day of the independent farmer is over and eventually they will disappear except for niches like organic food. If cloned food allows for cheaper food, then good. If it's more expensive, then I wouldn't expect to see the market accept it.
×
×
  • Create New...