marcus

How often do you see a white parent and a non-white parent with children? Does it bother you when you see that?

Canada would not be doing it alone. There are many European countries who are taking major steps in curbing their fossil fuel footprints and they are way ahead of Canada. Change doesn't happen suddenly and if you want to see change happen, then you should take the step, instead of waiting for everyone to do it first.

So you would want Canada to continue to use asbestos if other countries were? Why this follower mentality, instead of a leader mentality? Canada, under a Conservative government, took lead in major environmental steps in the late 80s. It was Canada that kickstarted the push to reduce aerosol use, which ended up fixing the ozone layer. A success story that is not talked about.

Not sure why the so-called free-market proponents are not speaking out against the corporate welfare system OR are flat out in denial. Here are some of the largest current subsidies in Canada: Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?* Flow-through shares** Canada Oil and gas companies CAD 265 million Direct spending & budgetary transfers*** Canada Oil and gas companies CAD 112 million Crown royalty reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies CAD 1.162 billion Tax exemptions for certain fuels & uses in industry Alberta Industry CAD 298 million Royalty reductions, including deep drilling and infrastructure credits† British Columbia Oil and gas companies CAD 631 million Reduced tax for aviation fuel Ontario Aviation Industry CAD 292 million Tax exemption for coloured fuels used in agriculture Ontario Agricultural industry CAD 248 million Fuel tax exemptions and reductions ‡ Quebec Industry and other consumers CAD 301 million

That's my hope. That technology will save us from what is obvious to me, which is the accelerated speed of change in our climate.

Listen Yzermandius19, You can use whatever definition of bigot you want in order to deflect my clear criticism of Argus, et al. The definition I am using for bigot is: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance I am not going to sit idle when I see someone dismissing, generalizing and demeaning a group or culture based on his/her ignorance towards them. I will continue to speak up when I see Argus call people "goat herders" or any other racist, demeaning, bigoted remark. I will speak up if I see this: Or this: Or: People like Argus who summarily dismiss the entire culture as nothing more than a bunch of backwards goat-herders. All said, I will defend the right for all of these racists to share their ignorant and hateful thoughts, even if I don't agree with them.

I am intolerant of hate towards my fellow humans and I will speak up whenever I see people trying to normalize their bigotry. Before you come running in with your tunnel vision, crying about how I'm some communist who wants to stop free speech; Even though I will speak up against bigots like Argus and taxme, I will defend their right to be able to express their bigotry and hatefulness.

You are not fooling anyone with your denial and the cherry picked data which does not back anything you say. You have been using "goat herder" as a way to show your contempt and to demean brown/Muslim people for years. You have used it for more than just the wave of Syrian refugees that came in. You're a bigot and a racist and it's easy to see how people like you are attracted to the PPC.

So what you're saying is that under the current system, there is more of a chance for a minority group to have power and control over the majority and that's why you're not a fan of having each vote count as one. Gotcha. So you were wrong. Take it like a champ, instead of the above. Here are my thoughts: The voting system and the dynamics we have now is dysfunctional. There is way too much power in Ontario/Quebec. I don't know why anyone defends it. We don't know what kind of dynamics will be created if PR comes into play. What we have now are stale, non-functioning bs parties who try to pander. How are the Cons different than the Libs? They're not. Real thoughts and innovative ideas are dead because of our system. I'm okay with seeing more 'extreme' parties like the Greens and PPC. If we want to live in a true democracy, then Proportional Representation is necessary. Each vote must have the same power. However, we would need to limit the power the federal government has. People in each province should have more say in what is best for them, in their province, and how they like to function. For example: The federal government should not be in the business of forcing things like carbon tax or creating 'national' housing policies. At the same time, the feds should not have the power to force any province to run pipelines through it. The feds should stick to making foreign policy decisions, protecting our borders, make sure the highways/railways function, with broadband internet reaching all corners, regulate our immigration policies, and to regulate our currency. If Alberta wants to squeeze every last drop of their shit oil, that's their business. But if they want to run the oil through B.C., then B.C. must agree to it. If they can't come to terms, then Alberta can start looking at negotiating with the territories up North or the States down south to get their pipelines. If that doesn't work, then you either find other ways of transporting or accept that it's bad business.

1984. But that's not the point. The point I made is that you assume that you know who will form a coalition. You don't know, but you want people to take your assumptions and predictions as facts. Under PR, parties outside of the big 2, which you lament regularly, will gain more power. I assume, since there is a better chance to win if you're not the big 2 (or 3), there will be more parties to choose from. Ideas outside of the usual will have more strength and more of a say. Like, for example, a party like PPC. Also, there would be less of a concentration on prioritizing what Quebec wants.

You have a lot of assumptions and predictions that you want everyone to accept as facts.

It's paranoia. Cons would have lost 4 seats and the libs would have lost 45. While the PPC would have gained 6 seats. So if the Cons and the PPC mostly represent the rural people, then there would have been a gain in seats for them.

I have never shown any support for Trudeau, never liked him and I have never voted for him.

That's an interesting thought.

It's not healthy to be so paranoid and negative. PR is a way to make each vote equal. What do you suggest we should have? Are you even in favour of voting? What makes you happy Dougie?

More

The only chance the Conservatives have is someone like Michael Chong. Many Canadians would not be able to stomach someone like Poilievre.

Bigot - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Argus is a bigot.

There is no factual basis in calling a group of people goat herders, you bigot.

How do you know what the percentage of 'extreme elements' are? Two of the most vocal supporters of PPC on this forum are racist and bigoted: Argus and taxme.

It's a response to:

Of course it's not. But calling people from certain countries and ethnic background goat herders, terrorist lovers, etc. is racist and bigoted.

You're reaching really hard. The PPC was a non-factor.

If you think racism and bigotry is correct, then I guess there is nothing wrong with your racism and bigotry from your perspective.

Like this? Or this?