Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
August1991

Understanding the Greens

Recommended Posts

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-apparently-world-savers-dont-need-to-worry-about-the-little-people#comments-area

Rex Murphy wrote an article (linked above) vilifying Elizabeth May as a 21st century Stalinist/prohibitionist. IMV, he entirely missed the point.

====

Green voters view themselves as people (circa 1960) opposed to smoking/littering. Everyone now knows that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Littering is now frowned, it faces serious fines - and few people do it.

IOW, in the mind of Green voters, their progressive ideas were successful. Fewer people now smoke cigarettes and fewer people litter.

Greens wish to limit CO2 emissions in the same way that we now have fewer people smoking cigarettes and arguably less litter.

 

 

Edited by August1991
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the Green Party is just an illegitimate joke of a political party as long as they have E May at the helm. If it came down to her or Trudeau for PM again I'd vote for Trudeau in a heartbeat and Trudeau has already proven himself to be an utter failure at every level. He's getting about 25% on every test, but that's still better than straight zeros. 

May aside, the Greens seem to completely lack the foresight necessary for a major political party. Their naive, kindergarten-esque world view is the epitome of what you don't want in leadership. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he is bang on about his assessment, the greens lack any vision outside the environment and even then their direction is not anywhere in reach right now, with no tech available to replace fossil fuels in the near future...how does she intend to meet her goals, well she is going to do it on the backs of the little guy , as they price fossil fuels out of reach for most Canadians who depend on it...with no chioce but to grin and bear it....In case you guys forgot this is a global problem and Canada is not going to solve it alone....

If you really think that everyone quit smoking because it causes cancer ,your  not even close, people quit because they can't pay close to 20 bucks a pack for name brand.....thats why.......Littering is a joke should come down to the local beach one day, see how much shit you can pick up in a few minutes....when was the last time you or anybody you know got a littering fine...

Greens are popular because there is very little else to vote for, everyone is tired of liberals and conservatives....and who wants an NDP government....May will be just like the rest if she gets any power...money talks and fossil fuels boys have a lot of it.... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, August1991 said:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-apparently-world-savers-dont-need-to-worry-about-the-little-people#comments-area

Rex Murphy wrote an article (linked above) vilifying Elizabeth May as a 21st century Stalinist/prohibitionist. IMV, he entirely missed the point.

====

Green voters view themselves as people (circa 1960) opposed to smoking/littering. Everyone now knows that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Littering is now frowned, it faces serious fines - and few people do it.

IOW, in the mind of Green voters, their progressive ideas were successful. Fewer people now smoke cigarettes and fewer people litter.

Greens wish to limit CO2 emissions in the same way that we now have fewer people smoking cigarettes and arguably less litter.

 

 

So, just to make people feel a little better about themselves, but not make any difference?

I don't see that as a platform to get elected on.

But then, who the hell else is there?  Might as well vote for less litter.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cigarettes can be dumped if they get too expensive. You can't do without heating. And her lunatic idea to change every building in the country over to electric heat within a decade ought to cause even more mirth, not least for the cost, which is unimaginable. But also for the plain and obvious fact it isn't possible. It's going to take ten years just to renovate the centre block and she thinks every HVAC system in the country can be shifted over from natural gas, heating oil, and propane over to electricity in the same period of time? Phhht. That's on top of making electric cars mandatory.

And as Murphy asks, what's to become of all the workers who are now in the oil and gas industry? Not to mention the ones in the support and repair industry for cars. Electric cars need far less of that so most of those people will be out of a job too.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Argus said:

And as Murphy asks, what's to become of all the workers who are now in the oil and gas industry? Not to mention the ones in the support and repair industry for cars. Electric cars need far less of that so most of those people will be out of a job too.

 

They can all just roll up their sleeves and find jobs like the rest of us.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

They can all just roll up their sleeves and find jobs like the rest of us.

They already have jobs.  It would be awful to have them lose them for nothing but some misplaced self satisfaction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They already have jobs.  It would be awful to have them lose them for nothing but some misplaced self satisfaction.

I've lost two jobs to that in the past. All I recall hearing from Alberta and its supporters was quit whining, roll up my sleeves and find a new job. It's awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eyeball said:

I've lost two jobs to that in the past. All I recall hearing from Alberta and its supporters was quit whining, roll up my sleeves and find a new job. It's awful.

Who got the misplaced self satisfaction?

Let me know and I'll get them for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sport fishermen, Jimmy Pattison and environmentalists. They were defended by people and political parties preaching the end of hewing wood and packing  water in lieu of service, tourism and high tech industries.

Like I said,  I've heard it all before and now it's my turn. 

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sport fishermen, Jimmy Pattison and environmentalists. They were defended by people and political parties preaching the end of hewing wood and packing  water in lieu of service, tourism and high tech industries.

Like I said,  I've heard it all before and now it's my turn. 

Well,  I certainly support you over them.  Environmentalists are usually misguided by emotion, as they are in the case of AGW, but sport fishermen and Jimmy Pattison?  They can all **** off as far as I'm concerned.

I can't get them as they're not in Alberta.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well,  I certainly support you over them.  Environmentalists are usually misguided by emotion, as they are in the case of AGW, but sport fishermen and Jimmy Pattison?  They can all **** off as far as I'm concerned.

I can't get them as they're not in Alberta.

 

A lot of sporties come from Alberta. Imagine that eh, Albertans getting Ottawa to chase British Columbians off the water... like it was their fish or something.  Imagine if Canadians developed the sense Alberta's oil was ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

A lot of sporties come from Alberta. Imagine that eh, Albertans getting Ottawa to chase British Columbians off the water... like it was their fish or something.  Imagine if Canadians developed the sense Alberta's oil was ours.

If I see one, I'll trip them up or something. 

Alberta's oil is yours.  How's your car gonna move?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If I see one, I'll trip them up or something. 

Alberta's oil is yours.  How's your car gonna move?

Burnaby's gasoline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Army Guy said:

No, he is bang on about his assessment, the greens lack any vision outside the environment and even then their direction is not anywhere in reach right now, with no tech available to replace fossil fuels in the near future...how does she intend to meet her goals, well she is going to do it on the backs of the little guy , as they price fossil fuels out of reach for most Canadians who depend on it...with no chioce but to grin and bear it....In case you guys forgot this is a global problem and Canada is not going to solve it alone....

If you really think that everyone quit smoking because it causes cancer ,your  not even close, people quit because they can't pay close to 20 bucks a pack for name brand.....thats why.......Littering is a joke should come down to the local beach one day, see how much shit you can pick up in a few minutes....when was the last time you or anybody you know got a littering fine...

Greens are popular because there is very little else to vote for, everyone is tired of liberals and conservatives....and who wants an NDP government....May will be just like the rest if she gets any power...money talks and fossil fuels boys have a lot of it.... 

Why isn't AOC in some Green Party instead of being in the democratic party. AOC and May could then become great buddies and they both can just sit around all day long together and talk about how are they going to try and convince people to give up their vehicles and their air conditioners. 

If worse came to worse I would have to vote for the progressive conservative party rather than May. What a disaster that woman would do to Canada. She would probably try and make a law where vehicles will not be allowed to be built in Canada. Hey, you never know when one is dealing with a no mind loonie woman like May. She is so far environmentally left that I am surprised that she has not fallen over yet on her green butt. May is just a one issue environmental wonder. I wonder how she would deal with our immigration crisis? Forget it, the thought scares the hell out of me. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Environmentalists are usually misguided by emotion, as they are in the case of AGW

A lot of us are also guided by reality, science and yes good old fashioned conservatism. I've often wondered what it is that conservatives don't get about conservation but...you've got me thinking now it must be must be their emotions misguiding them.  

Quote

 

but sport fishermen and Jimmy Pattison?  They can all **** off as far as I'm concerned.

I can't get them as they're not in Alberta.

 

Here's the interesting thing though, Albertans can get BC's salmon because they're not really BC's fish at all they're actually Canada's. Alberta can threaten to withhold its oil from us but we can't tell Alberta's sporties to go piss up a rope. Now if you go down to Washington State, Washington's fish belong to Washingtonians. This probably explains why Canadian sport-fishermen are forbidden from taking their boats into the US to fish but US sporties can come up to Canada and fill their boots here before topping them up back home (it needs to be said fish they catch here comes off Canada's total allowable catch not the US's).  Ottawa also allows any number of US tuna boats to fish in Canada while the few Canadian boats still allowed to fish off the US coast are being phased out even faster than Ottawa negotiated for us.

The dust is still settling on our commercial fisheries but thousands of British Columbians and hundreds of business' have been thrown out of work up and down the coast due to Ottawa being in charge of everything.  Except Jimmy or course, he wound up controlling some 40% of the coastwide quota but that's no surprise given how Ottawa's management of Fisheries and Oceans has always rolled in the direction of wealth and power's influence.

When you try to piece everything together for people who don't live on the coast it probably starts looking like some conspiratards wall with maps, drawings, post-it-notes, news-paper clippings and push pins and string tying it all together, but it also seems so quintessentially Canadian.

 

As for the thread topic, the Greens have said they'll try to do something about interfering in the all-too cozy relationship that exists between power and wealth - a relationship that I increasingly hold responsible for many of the socio-economic and environmental ills piling up around us.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

A lot of us are also guided by reality, science and yes good old fashioned conservatism. I've often wondered what it is that conservatives don't get about conservation but...you've got me thinking now it must be must be their emotions misguiding them.  

Here's the interesting thing though, Albertans can get BC's salmon because they're not really BC's fish at all they're actually Canada's. Alberta can threaten to withhold its oil from us but we can't tell Alberta's sporties to go piss up a rope. Now if you go down to Washington State, Washington's fish belong to Washingtonians. This probably explains why Canadian sport-fishermen are forbidden from taking their boats into the US to fish but US sporties can come up to Canada and fill their boots here before topping them up back home (it needs to be said fish they catch here comes off Canada's total allowable catch not the US's).  Ottawa also allows any number of US tuna boats to fish in Canada while the few Canadian boats still allowed to fish off the US coast are being phased out even faster than Ottawa negotiated for us.

The dust is still settling on our commercial fisheries but thousands of British Columbians and hundreds of business' have been thrown out of work up and down the coast due to Ottawa being in charge of everything.  Except Jimmy or course, he wound up controlling some 40% of the coastwide quota but that's no surprise given how Ottawa's management of Fisheries and Oceans has always rolled in the direction of wealth and power's influence.

When you try to piece everything together for people who don't live on the coast it probably starts looking like some conspiratards wall with maps, drawings, post-it-notes, news-paper clippings and push pins and string tying it all together, but it also seems so quintessentially Canadian.

 

As for the thread topic, the Greens have said they'll try to do something about interfering in the all-too cozy relationship that exists between power and wealth - a relationship that I increasingly hold responsible for many of the socio-economic and environmental ills piling up around us.

Conservation usually fails to take into account population growth.  I'm a conservative, I guess, (although I'm probably not voting for Scheer. Pillock), but I realise that if you allow the population to grow by almost billion a decade, as it has since the nineteen fifties, you're going to need more stuff.

As for your complaint about Canada, I can't really relate.  I was quite surprised by the federal/provincial relationship when I moved here.  To BC, as it happens.  I don't think provinces should have any rights, and no more obligations than fixing potholes in the roads.  But I suppose that's because I come from a small country.

Good luck with the power and wealth thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth May is bat sh.t crazy, it's that kind of crazy that turns people off.  Fortunately Canada is doing okay  - no carbon or meat taxes needed thank you. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/climate-change-moody-s-1.5199652

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Elizabeth May is bat sh.t crazy, it's that kind of crazy that turns people off.

You people will say that and worse about anyone or thing that isn't a right-wing conservative. It's a bit of a tiresome little shtick don't you think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eyeball said:

You people will say that and worse about anyone or thing that isn't a right-wing conservative. It's a bit of a tiresome little shtick don't you think? 

No more tiresome then your people's left wing shtick don't you think? 

IMO the balance of evidence suggests future climate change will be driven by forces mainly beyond Canadians' control, nothing we do will change anything.

 

Developing countries are following a process of industrialization similar what the west went through and naturally they want the same economic/social benefits.  Should we try to stop them, if so how?

 Certainly we should keep our commitment to curb pollution etc.  but not at the cost of losing the economic advantage we will need (domestically) in the years ahead needed  to weather any climate changes (pun intended) that are emerging as developing  countries are industrializing. 

 

Good one

https://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/6852536-global-warming-is-beyond-our-control/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/Facepalm...From the article...

"But are we the cause?"

Talk about a tiresome shtick. 

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

/Facepalm...From the article...

"But are we the cause?"

Talk about a tiresome shtick. 

Your free to believe that, as much as am free to believe your schtick is tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 10:37 AM, Argus said:

Cigarettes can be dumped if they get too expensive.

Precisely.

=====

It's not about personal value - it's about control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 7:56 PM, eyeball said:

A lot of us are also guided by reality, science and yes good old fashioned conservatism. I've often wondered what it is that conservatives don't get about conservation but...you've got me thinking now it must be must be their emotions misguiding them. 

....

The sharp decline in cigarette smoking occurred in the late 1950s when numerous reliable studies were first published. (Watch any Hollywood movie made in the 1940s compared to a movie  made in, say, the 1990s or so. And they say society follows culture.... )

=====

Eyeball,

You make a very good point. The issue is about the scientific method.

Smoking cigarettes is potential harm to one person.  Issuing CO2 is potential harm to our planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...