I love politics

EdtheTed

[unknown] I'm actually with you that it's a bit annoying - I hate the slogan style talking,

This is amusing because for the past 2 years Mr. P.P. has campaigned on the slogan "ax the tax". This would be the nefarious Carbon Tax that multiple independent economists have studied and shown it has contributed less than .5% to inflation over the past several years. These are folks with PhDs and teaching/research positions who understand how the economy works. But so many cannot turn down a good slogan, so Carney was [sadly] forced to 'ax the tax' himself.

"Canada is already super green". Per capita, Canadians have one of the highest carbon footprints in the world. Of course our climate requires more energy to get us through the winters, but we drive multiple SUVs and have little regard for energy efficiency. And the Oil Sands (or Tar Sands) production drives a lot of our carbon footprint. It's complex because of course we all benefit from the bitumen produced and sold. Canada is a world leader in renewable energy but also has extremely high Green House Gas emissions. We are 15th out of 17 OECD countries. And our economy is still tied to Fossil Fuels. So saying we are "super green" is another empty slogan.

Bfillmaff

Good Morning Ted,

No comment on your own chart showing the massive violent crime increase under the liberals? You swore up and down that it wasnt true. Just brushing that one off?

EdtheTed independent economists have studied and shown it has contributed less than .5% to inflation

Wow, so the Liberal consultants hired by the Liberals to evaluate the Liberal carbon tax used Liberal math to show that the Liberals didnt make things more expensive... shocking! By design, the effects of this tax were not measurable. They apply, indirectly, to every aspect of living. It literally made everything more expensive, not just the gas pumps. Also, (and I know the left doesn’t understand this concept, so sorry)... but any tax - applied at any point in the supply chain - is ultimately paid by the consumer. Yes CBC will tell you that the direct tax to consumers is balanced by the rebate, or that its negligible, and to pay no attention to the effect on economics... they are wrong. But anyway, yeah you are right, life is super affordable now, just like Crime rates are great too and our streets are safe. 👍

EdtheTed we drive multiple SUVs and have little regard for energy efficiency

If we completley shut down Canada, 100%, with not a single light bulb turned on... it would offset maybe a week of China's footprint. Now turn the lights back on but factor in the number of trees we have: we are net negative. Consider that every single ounce of carbon that was "reduced" by the carbon tax, since its introduction years ago, was the equivalent of 38 hours of running China.

To be clear, and I said this earlier in the thread - Im not opposed to protecting the environment. Im opposed to you telling me what I can and cant drive. What I can and cant do. And that everything you have done so far, at great cost, has done nothing to actually help. So we put this back down to the bottom of the priority list, make our country wealthy enough to care again, and in the meantime focus on high ROI clean energy exports instead of more government control.

Also, the memes will continue until you stop being unreasonable. Discussion, not argument.

EdtheTed

[unknown]

“ Wow, so the Liberal consultants hired by the Liberals to evaluate the Liberal carbon tax used Liberal math to show that it didnt make things more expensive... shocking! ”

Nope. One study was from two professors from the U of Calgary. I believe 70 economists signed a letter to this effect a couple of years ago. The government of Canada posts audited reports on effects on cities and regions across the country and these are posted on the government’s website. You can read through them (I have skimmed through a few sections to check out the variance across regions).

But yeah, non-economists love to pull out the old “everything is taxed and it builds” argument. Because of course economists must have missed all of that in their modeling. We need the guy on YouTube or FB or the poker forum to give us the -real- information.

Bfillmaff

EdtheTed We need the guy on YouTube or FB or the poker forum to give us the -real- information.

Painfully accurate.

Bfillmaff

Betting update: Conservatives now a 5.5 to 1 dog.

I'm obviously biased, but this still feels like more of a coin flip than a longshot. Besides manipulators (and maybe Ted?) ... who the hell is betting Carney at 12 cents on the dollar???

So,
Either 5.5 to 1 is accurate, we lose, and be poor anyway...
Or it's mis-priced, and the best deal in Vegas right now.

We will see!

thisORthat

Bfillmaff Or it's mis-priced, and the best deal in Vegas right now...

Bfillmaff

Also, I will try to stop picking on you Ted.

I think you were a bit out of line at times and that's why I keep going... but you are so misinformed (in my opinion) that triggering you like this with boomer memes is reaching the point of being mean.

We always got along well and I know you're a nice guy, so as a peace offering, I will admit that I actually hate that the "boomer" label is getting a negative connotation. Group labels in general are gross. I judge everyone as an individual, and on that, you do fit some of the stereotype... but that still doesnt mean I dislike you.

So... this is the last one I promise. Here's to discussion, not argument.

EdtheTed

[unknown] "but you are so misinformed (in my opinion) that triggering you like this with boomer memes is reaching the point of being mean."

I posted links to articles about Trump, I've mentioned economic studies and I listed the media I read and have had almost no feedback from you on any of that. Except "Liberal Economists"! So if reading the Globe and Mail etc makes me 'misinformed' so be it. None of those memes "triggers" me. They are like finger paintings for those who cannot manage a pencil or paintbrush and they amuse some folks. So whatever. I do get a kick out of all the conservatives and their whiny anti-Trudeau memes. I'll also get a kick out of Mr. P.P. losing his own riding. Sweet justice!

Bfillmaff

EdtheTed reading the Globe and Mail etc makes me 'misinformed' so be it

Well shit... we've got agreement there! 🤝

EdtheTed I do get a kick out of all the conservatives and their whiny anti-Trudeau memes.

I can deliver on that... have a whole reel full of great ones lol. Hey maybe we can all hate Trudeau together that's at least something.

EdtheTed I'll also get a kick out of Mr. P.P. losing his own riding. Sweet justice!

I'd take action on that.. what kind of odds ya got?

compuease

Why can't we all just get along... Can we agree, all governments are at least "mostly" in it for themselves. It's human nature to look after #1.. Elect King Jeff... I will look after all of you as #2. At least I'm being honest.

Bfillmaff

compuease Why can't we all just get along... Can we agree, all governments are at least "mostly" in it for themselves.

Amen to getting along. And yep, when the Conservatives do get in, I'll criticize the dumb shit they do along with you guys. They aren't a perfect solution, just what we need right now.

But I'll stay optimistic: even if Mr Carney wins... just look at this batch of great new leaders he has surrounded himself with. Looks like a team of winners to me and we will be heading in a whole new direction for sure. !! !

moose

Global Ranking:
The oil and gas sector, including the oil sands, contributes to around 15% of global energy-related emissions.
Canada itself is ranked among the top 12 global emitters.
Canadian Context:
In 2021, the oil and gas sector accounted for about 28% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest source.
Within the oil and gas sector, the oil sands subsector is a significant contributor to Canada's emissions, with the oil sands facilities currently emitting roughly 70 Megatonnes (Mt) per year.
One study found that oil sands facilities are charged a Specified Gas Emitter Regulation (SGER) levy based on each facility's historical emissions, irrespective of how intense or efficient the operation is.
The oil sands sector accounts for roughly one-quarter of Alberta's annual emissions.
Carbon Intensity:
Studies suggest that most oil sands crude is associated with 31% more emissions than the average North-American crude from extraction to end-use.
Oil sands production can be three to four times more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional oil production.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (OCI) notes that Canada's Athabasca DC SO in Alberta has the highest GHG emissions at 736 kg CO2 equivalent for every barrel extracted.

We have trees so it's not our problem? What?

Bfillmaff

moose We have trees so it's not our problem? What?

LOL. That chart is per capita.

We have 2.8% of China's population.
So yeah, we obviously use more per person.
And thats a retarded way to compare them.

And then, yes, those trees. Our trees clean more air than our people make dirty. Canada, as a whole, uses "fuck all", relative to others. Or at least nothing worth being poor over.

Icing on the cake: your whole chart is about c02... (c02... also known as: plant food).
Somewhat debatable that c02 is even a problem.

Come on moose thats 2 times now. You're supposed to be the smart one.

thisORthat

Hobbes

Bfillmaff
So per captia is ok for GDP but not emissions?
The r word is very offensive, but that's typical of PP supporters.

Question: What's your line in the sand for taking rights away?
Criminals?
LGTBQ+?
Transgender?

Remember, if you are willing to see a certain groups that you don't like lose their rights,, you will support losing your rights.

Bfillmaff

Canada’s 347 million hectares of forest, containing an estimated 318 billion trees, act as a massive carbon sink, absorbing far more CO₂ than the country emits. Using a conservative estimate of 10 kg of CO₂ absorbed per tree annually, Canada’s forests sequester approximately 3,180 Mt of CO₂ each year—nearly five times the nation’s 676 Mt emissions. Even with a higher absorption estimate of 22 kg per tree, the forests could absorb over 6,996 Mt, reinforcing the argument that Canada’s trees clean more air than its industries and citizens pollute.
However, complexities like wildfires, logging, and insect infestations mean Canada’s managed forests have recently been a net carbon source, emitting more than they absorb in some years. Despite this, the sheer scale of Canada’s forest cover, combined with its small population, supports the claim that its net contribution to global emissions is minimal. By protecting and expanding forests, Canada could further enhance its role as a global carbon sink, potentially offsetting its emissions entirely.

moose

Again so what? Because we have trees we are free to do whatever we want because they are 'our' trees or are they the planets trees?

That's like saying we can dump trash in the ocean because we have more miles of coastline than any other country so per mile of coastline we hardly dump trash in the ocean at all.

Also:

In 2021, Canada was the 12th largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting country/region globally, with a share of 1.40% of global emissions. Canada's per capita emissions are among the highest globally, ranking second highest in the top 10 emitting countries and regions. This means that if Canada's total emissions were divided equally among its population, each person would emit 17.7 t CO2 equivalent per year, which is three times the global rate.

Also:

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal-elections/mark-carneys-liberals-set-to-win-a-majority-as-poll-analysis-says-pierre-poilievres-conservatives/article_5da1313d-f8e1-4c89-833f-8fc5094ed624.html

compuease

moose Again so what? Because we have trees we are free to do whatever we want because they are 'our' trees or are they the planets trees?

That's like saying we can dump trash in the ocean because we have more miles of coastline than any other country so per mile of coastline we hardly dump trash in the ocean at all.

This is a great analogy and is fair comparison.

Bfillmaff

moose Also: <link to the Toronto Star saying that Carney is going to win>

Yep. Polls say he will win. Just like they said Kamala will.
That said, I wouldn't put it past us to elect the Liberals a 4th time...
As I said plenty of times: we are asleep at the wheel.
Again: Doesn't mean you're right, it means we are complacent.

Also, this post may explain it. Looks like the younger folks are going to have to wait you guys out. Hopefully they make it.

(Not my post don't kill the messenger!)

Liberal boomers want to maintain Canada in the decrepit state it's currently in because they've benefited greatly from inflation and astronomical housing prices. They've proven to be the most selfish and disgusting members of our society.

Millenials and Gen Xrs have been expected to carry the financial burden for these people, and we've reached a point where we're being pushed into bankruptcy for the sake of a fantasy world liberal boomers want to live in. Most of us are at the edge of insolvency. We're being crushed under the weight of taxes and an unsustainable cost of living.

Yet our generations aren't motivated to actually fix this country because we understand how cumbersome that job will be and none of us have the time or energy to do it. We're too busy gasping for air as we slowly drown in destitution.

For the record:
Aside from stirring the pot with spicy memes... I'm sitting out the whole Millennial vs Boomer situation. I am from the "People who want to be left alone" generation (and already have a house)... but will side with the Millennials if you guys fuck this up any worse.

compuease

Hobbes The r word is very offensive, but that's typical of PP supporters.

I don't think he's meaning it that way knowing him and if he was directing at someone I would agree with you but he wasn't. The rest of you post seems logical though.

Bfillmaff

Holy... must be the weekend. Tough being the outsider... I may have a hard time keeping up LOL.

Hobbes The r word is very offensive, but that's typical of PP supporters.

Sorry for the excessive use of the word "Retard". I was actually trying to see how many times i could post it before someone mentioned it, and got pretty far it seems. So congrats on being the one... and also hey!... Long time!

PS Comp is absolutley correct on intent. I consider Michael Scott's policy on its use to strictly apply: you would never call a retarded person a retard, that would be mean. You call your friends retards, when they are acting retarded.

Criminals?
LGTBQ+?
Transgender?

Line in the sand re: taking rights away is a loaded question so I approach with caution.

Do I have anything against LGBT people or think they deserve less rights? Of course not.

Is anyone trying to take their rights? Of course not. PP's stated position is that peoples sex lives are none of the governments business - exactly as it should be. You will have to explain what rights you think are being taken away if you want to discuss, because I dont see any and that includes the scary orange man down south... if that's what you mean.

That said: do I think my daughter should have the right to her own womens spaces, or to compete in womens sports without men taking advantage? Damn right.

Do I think that prescribing puberty blockers and sterilization drugs to confused children is literally child abuse? Yes I do.

Criminals? Not sure on the question, but I think there is some consensus that the catch and release policies are not working.

Moose / climate

I can write back in better detail if we do want to discuss it... but yes my point stands. Of course maintaining our trees reduces our carbon footprint, in the same way that planting more of them would help other countries meet theirs. But its barely relevant because of the 2 bigger points:

-penalizing people for heating their homes and driving up the cost of food, etc... creates (and is already creating) a worse problem than climate change.

-whether Canada doubles our emissions from here, or literally ceased to exist tomorrow: total world emissions would remain basically the same. With or without Tree Math™.

Bfillmaff

compuease That's like saying we can dump trash in the ocean because we have more miles of coastline than any other country so per mile of coastline we hardly dump trash in the ocean at all.

This is a great analogy and is fair comparison.

I think that analogy sucks. Better would be:

"We poured 50 tons of trash into the ocean, as a by-product of running a first world country in which our citizens can prosper. Luckily though, our massive built-in garbage catcher thing has removed 5000 tons of garbage from that same ocean just this year! ... so least we dont have to feel as guilty... and now maybe we dont HAVE to fuck over poor people who can barely afford to live and maybe we can let the free market and incentives lead the way instead of letting the elites tell us what kind of car we're allowed to drive while flying around in their private jets.

Or something like that.

compuease

Funny how this has moved away from politics to the environment...

« Previous Page Next Page »