Meeting with “the man”
Posted in Politics on September 9th, 2008 by Sacha PeterThis will be as blatantly partisan as it gets on this site, but go vote Conservative this time around – it’s clear that Stephen Harper is immensely qualified to be running this country, much more so than any of the other leaders’ offerings out there.
Posting will continue to be slow over the next few weeks.
I have my doubts about a leader who is afraid to debate Elizabeth May.
Yes, I said it: afraid. Is there any other reasonable explanation?
Do you mean you are afraid of Jack Layton and Duceppe as well?
Huh? Context?
I said Harper is afraid of Elizabeth May (since he said if she shows up at the debate, he will go home and hide under the covers).
I expected this type of spinelessness from Jack (flying low in my 737 for a better view even though it east more gas, while complaining about the Tar Sands) Layton or Gilles (a vote for my separatist party isn’t a vote for my separatist party) Duceppe.
I guess it depends on what you see on the country’s main challenges. To my mind our main challenges going forward are fighting climate change and reducing our dependence on non-renewable sources of energy.
So from my point of view, the Conservatives, a party that doesn’t even really believe that Climate Change is happening, a party that wants to *increase* our dependence on non-renewable energy sources (by lowering taxes on them) is clearly the worst choice.
Of course, if you also don’t believe that climate change is happening (or that it is a problem, or that it is caused by Co2/methane/etc. emissions) and don’t foresee a future of rising prices for oil, gas and coal then the Conservatives might be an option (at that point you could consider other factors).
To be honest, I’m not really sure what ‘qualified to run the country’ means or how it is relevant to the choice of who to vote for. The question for me is what vote leads to the best policies for the country. How you could recommend a choice of who to vote for without making reference to what the policy impact will be doesn’t really make sense to me, but perhaps we are coming at the question from very different perspectives / frames.
Well, on Global Warming, the Cons are all over the place. Here is their “Northern Agenda”
1) Develop northern resources
2)Take action to protect our sovereignty
3)Give northerners more local control
4)Deal with climate change in the north
5)Protect the northern environment
So “1″ obviously means oil and gas (although minerals will play a distant second fiddle), so this plan sees us putting more fossil carbon in the atmosphere.
“2″ and “3″ are admittedly laudable goals.
“4″ they want to deal with it, as opposed to taking any measures to prevent it, well, actually according to “1″ they want ot make it worse, so “4″ is inevitable.
“5″ is a f***ng joke…as it is a complete contradiction to “1″ and “4″ . The ‘northern environment’ is completely dependant on current climatic normals, it is an ecosystem that has developed in the stable environment of the last 2 million years (essentially it has been an arctic tundra environment since the beginning of the Pleistocene ice age).