Did you walk to work this morning, Canada? A politician without a mandate needs the carbon credits;
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says he will travel to Bali, Indonesia, next month for the United Nations climate change summit to ensure that the Harper government doesn’t push the world in the wrong direction in the fight against global warming.
“I will do everything possible to make sure this conference works well,” Dion said. “I don’t have a mandate to negotiate, but I know a lot of people [from other foreign delegations] and I take the cause of climate change to heart.”
For what is a man profited, if he gain the Liberal leadership, and lose the world?
“We are speaking about the worst ecological threat that humanity is facing, and I will do my best.”
Did you work an extra few minutes today, Canada? A politiican without a mandate needs your tax dollars.
He did not say, however, how he would pay for his trip if the government refuses.
Because planet saving ends at the wallet’s edge.
Uncommon Sense;
These opposition media whores are making this country a complete laughingstock internationally. You do not see Condolezza Rice berated in Israel by Hillary Clinton who followed here there to state the Democratic platform. You don’t see Gary Kasperov waiting in the hallways of the UN building in the hopes that he can grasp the coat-tails of some NBC news crew so he can deride his governments position on the state of Georgia. If Dion, or any other member of the opposition, Liberal, NDP, Greens or Bloc want to spend their own personal money and travel as John Q Public to whatever, meeting wherever, then fine, there is no way to stop them but it should be crystal clear that these people do not speak for Canada and do not speak for Canadians.
Dion: Harper can take a page from Clinton. When Clinton went to China, GOP speaker Neut G insisted on going. Clinton put him in the “back” of the Plane. Nuet was so furious he spent the whole trip complaining to the Press. Neut’s sulking followed his career.
Harper could go one step better and “bump” Dion from his ROOM for some minor (NDP) player.
California problem (National Post)
[quote]What kind of tracking systems can measure greenhouse gas emissions, how can businesses determine what their emissions were in 1990 and how can the state verify emission cuts are happening?[/quote]
What have they been doing in California for the last 40+ years. I remember reading a (1995 Harvard Bus Review) study that reported that Enviormental Initiatives lacked both valid science & results tracking.The only benifit was jobs for the Green folk. I guess when they gave the little dwarfs a blank check they should have at least “suggested” Scientific measured results.
The Connection between BIG OIL & these Canadian Enviormental Jobs, like “Pembina institute” and Aldyen Donnelly, must have been the result of previous & ongoing GOV funding & regulations
Every Gallon of Gas you burn these GREEN Dwarfs
& Big Oil profit.
GYM, as I said in another post here today I really think using terminology like “liebrals”, “KKKlinton”, “Bushitler”, “Hellary”, “leftards”, “Rightwingnuts”, etc. really demeans an argument. “Gorebull” is a new one for me, but equally pathetic and childish.
There are people on both the right and left who do this and I can’t for the life of me shake the image of a 5 year old typing this stuff when I see it.
But I guess to address your comments, I don’t have any particular affection for the Liberal party or any party for that matter. How you guys can be so blatantly partisan and assume all of the good guys miraculously landed in a grouping of infallible greatness called the Conservative Party of Canada, is beyond me. But hey, if being a partisan hack (aka blissful ignorance) happens to be your fancy, why should I go on judging?
As for someone else (“Zip”) who concluded that my opposition to Harper airing Canada’s political laundry while on official state business abroad was tantamount to supporting the status quo in the senate: Oh how wrong you could be. I actually support an elected senate. Proportional representation in the upper house would be even better!
Just because I want my prime minister to grow up and act like a statesman doesn’t mean I don’t agree with what he’s espousing from time to time.
Hey, they are giving this human deformity a place at the table.
But male circumcision is routine, accepted and defended usually as a “cleanliness” issue.
That’s a good argument if one wears a robe-type garment without SpongeBob UnderPants in a sandy environment, eh?
With adequate H2O and soap in the western world the original purpose for this surgery may no longer be required, from a hygenic and health perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike's_Wee_Wee
steve, PM Harper was commending the Australians on their elected senate.
pendant.
Steve,
Define political laundry.
Is it that he did not kow-tow to the Liberal Doctrine of “Bend Over” on foreign policy?
Harper IMHO did well.
Lorraine, Dion’s trip does border on Treason, it’s all about going against the government of this country. It’s all about getting attention for himself and his desperate beyond reason Liberals and of course their hacks and hounds in the MSM who will report his every move.
Watch for it,front page for Dion, page four for Harper and the Official delegation of the duly elected government.
He’ll have nothing to say officially while there,so who’s padding the Liberal wallet to send him there?
So, the headline should read, Mr. Dion spews jet fuel to go to Bali to say “HI” and save the Earth from certain ruin by Harper and Baird.
God in Heaven, how have we come to this in the Canada of 2007?
Steve: Your desperation is showing.
FYI we have the smartest, Straightest Arrow Prime Minister in memory. I shudder to think what we’d look like globally with the likes of marble mouth Dion representing us. Give your head a shake.
It’s time to put the country ahead of inane political ambition, something the Liberals are not capable of doing. They’ve proved it over the past decade.
Right on Liz!!
When ever I think what’s wrong with this country, two words come to mind: f***in Liberals.
Since Liz and LEDA failed to read all of my comments I’ll quote from above.
Steve said:
“As for someone else (“Zip”) who concluded that my opposition to Harper airing Canada’s political laundry while on official state business abroad was tantamount to supporting the status quo in the senate: Oh how wrong you could be. I actually support an elected senate. Proportional representation in the upper house would be even better!
Just because I want my prime minister to grow up and act like a statesman doesn’t mean I don’t agree with what he’s espousing from time to time.”
and
“I don’t have any particular affection for the Liberal party or any party for that matter. How you guys can be so blatantly partisan and assume all of the good guys miraculously landed in a grouping of infallible greatness called the Conservative Party of Canada, is beyond me. But hey, if being a partisan hack (aka blissful ignorance) happens to be your fancy, why should I go on judging?”
God forbid criticizing Prophet Harper who by the sounds of things is entirely incapable of making any mistakes for which he should be held accountable.
Today’s ignorance is brought to you by Partisan hackery and populism; dumbing down the argument with simple diametric sides composed of good guys and bad guys: Partisan hackery and populism, get yours today!
Steve; Yeah, right, whatever.
Liz, are you having trouble comprehending the idea that someone can have political opinions and convictions without being blindly tied to a particular party? If you are, I highly recommend you try it. It’s quite liberating when you can critique a political decision on its merit rather than the stripe from which it was born.
Steve, I have no problem deciding what I deem to be right. At this point in time I believe the Harper Conservative party is on the right track for the common good of this Country.
That is my right and my opinion. You are on a different track and agenda. You will not change my opinion. I wager I’ve been around much longer than you and know a peck about what constitutes good public policy, good government.
There is a difference between Conservatives and Liberals that isn’t mentioned often. Liberals will stick with rot and corruption, defend and deny and do anything to get and retain power.
Harken back to the Mulroney years, when he was decimated to two seats in Parliament. Do you think it was ONLY Liberals who voted against him? Absolutely not, we do not reward anything we think is bad behavior.
Liz, my primary goal or “agenda” at smalldeadanimals.com has not been to change anyone’s opinion. I’m more concerned with detaching people from treating political parties like sports teams; for which an allegiance often exists independent of the track record of the party or its people. It’s great to support the Rider’s when they’re down or they make mistakes, I’m not so sure that the public should do it for politicians.
Political parties are more than capable of engaging in PR and promotional tactics, and shouldn’t rely on citizens to stick up for them. Rather they should be held accountable by even those who voted for them.
I’m also trying to get people here to move beyond broad based generalizations like,
“Liberals will stick with rot and corruption, defend and deny and do anything to get and retain power.”
Liz, we’ve seen corruption and scandals in the right and the left, pinkos and capitalists alike. Glen Clark’s NDP in BC had elements of corruption, as did Divine’s conservatives, as did Chretien and Martin’s liberals. Corruption is not endemic to any particular party, rather its more often a systemic result of being in power (most often).
Perhaps you are older than me, but I am well versed in issues that are politics, both out of personal interest and formal education, with a specific focus in political studies and public policy analysis. I don’t like to volunteer that information, because I don’t contend it makes me an expert or that my opinion is more valuable than anyone else’s here. At the end of the day any viewpoint has those capable of presenting a well articulated argument. So I only say it to suggest that we both may know a thing or two about what we are talking about.
I can fully appreciate that you may be happy with the general direction of the Harper government, but is your pleasure with their governance a result of relative comparison or absolute results? I’m guessing its mainly not the latter in which case there is room for critical review. Democracy benefits when we continue to up the bar rather than becoming complacent cheerleaders for our favourite political parties (not suggesting you necessarily were doing that).
Steve, at this point I’ve deducted your full of the old stuff.
If the Liberals were in power, you sure as hell would not be on this sight and you know it.
Maybe you should go visit Garth Turner’s Brag.
It’s how corruption is dealt with that matters and we know cover-ups and denials are the last refuge.
It was not well dealt with over the past decade by one specific administration.
At this point they’re still trying to sling the muck with the Schreiber/Mulroney dealings over two decades ago.
That’s the worst kind of desperation when they’re willing to make a mockery of our country and it’s government, which had no part in it, to score points.
Liz wrote:
“If the Liberals were in power, you sure as hell would not be on this sight and you know it.”
Not true at all, prior to spending my time here I was highly active on American conservative message boards and still am to an extent. Quite honestly, I’m from Saskatchewan, but I hadn’t heard of SDA until about three or four months ago. I like having my views challenged and trying to understand where people with different political convictions than myself are coming from. Left, right or whatever, I think there’s some common desires in humans, at least those of common or similar cultures. The disagreement is on how to get there. I realize that the less adversarial nature of my political beliefs and tone may make it less enticing and/or exciting to follow. After all, some people seem to need answers of what’s right and wrong, who’s good, who’s bad. Religion is a case in point. Unknowns are undesirable for many. To some its probably therapeutic to get reved up and point fingers a the antithesis of their ideal and then turn to the hero/heroine who can deliver their desires, but usually life just isn’t that simple. There are some objective truths amidst it all, but often not on the plain of what most partisans espouse. You can find merits and drawbacks in most political ideologies/belief systems and in practice its usually the same thing.
So I’m in no way sticking up for the Liberals and the sponsorship scandal. An inability to control some bad apples in their ranks lead to their downfall and they got what they deserved. Making a generalization though, about them or any other party is tantamount to positing conspiracy theories. I would surmise that if Harper’s government manages to stick around for a decade or more, scandals will begin to be unearthed. Government’s and political parties are big bloated entities. Even if Harper were Stalin he wouldn’t and won’t be able to prevent someone from screwing up eventually. It’s just the nature of the system and the odds are greater that it will happen the longer a party is in office.
And as for the Mulroney thing. Yeah, I agree with you. I’m totally convinced that it has everything to do with the NDP and the Liberals playing partisan politics in an effort to embarrass the Harper government. That’s obvious. Maybe there’s an announce of merit in it, but that’s not their motivation at all. That said, I’m not so blind as to not acknowledge that the conservative party would be doing something of a similar nature if they were in the same circumstances. These things are the nature of politics. Perhaps I’m younger than you, but I learnt a long time ago that its futile for political parties to claim a moral high ground. Politicians are not inherently corrupt. Most are hard working people who have a sincere desire to create better government, but each party has its exceptions and this tends to surface in a party with time.
I can tell you don’t really like what I have to say, but I think its fairly spot on in terms of my general thesis which suggests that party behaviour from an ethics stand point is usually just the same sh *t in a different pile from one place to the other. It’s the nature of the system. There are exceptions, but overall it happens everywhere.