I know this is horrible to ask but ... who is our prime minister?

Originally Posted by ferreinm

I know this is horrible to ask but ... who is our prime minister?

stephen harper lol. and i am not a fan of him. he tried to reopen the gay marriage debate... and he failed. (YAY!!) besides.. he hasnt done much in regards to environmental issues... like the whole Kyoto Protocol situation.

Actually... he hasn't done much at all because I have no idea who he is. Haha!
As for gay marriage, people should just shut up and accept it. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.

Originally Posted by ferreinm

Actually... he hasn't done much at all because I have no idea who he is. Haha!
As for gay marriage, people should just shut up and accept it. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.

well said. =p

Though Im surprised you dont know who are prime minister is, i guess it speaks to his leadership style...he really doesn't have a "hey, im a nice guy...get to know me" type of attitude.

Harper is a partisan hack. He spends his entire time trying to introduce legislation that's only goal is to embaress the other parties. He's best friends with Bush, and as the leader of the Canadian Alliance he supported Canada helping the US invade Iraq.

Not to mention he has completely tarnished Canada's worldwide reputation as good environmentalists. Refusign to even try to meet the Kyoto targets.

Thank God he didn't win a majority in parliament, or else his goal of completely transformeing Canada into America Jr. might have actually happened :S

And a bit back on topic, his negligence led to an information leak that likely caused Obama to lose the Ohio primary...probably because he wants his conservative buddy John McCain to get elected instead...

I dislike Obama, because I know he will hurt the Canadian economy. He may be a good leader in the American perspective but to us, Canadians, he will be the inhibitor to our economic progress.

Wow. I just wanna say this is a very one sided thread!

lol. First of all, have any of you guys heard Obama off a teleprompter? He stutters and stumbles and "umm" "err" "uhh"'s just as much as everyone else. He has said he is running in 57 states (there are 50). He has said his uncle liberated Auschwitz in World War 2. Apparently, this uncle does not exist, and regardless; the Soviets liberated Auschwitz, not the Americans!

It's kind of funny actually, I did not interpret that pin to be an attack against Obama because of his skin. I interpreted it more as an attack against the "White House" having always been "White" and being PRO-Obama, by saying that its about time it wasn't the "White House" as we know it. I see that pin as a "pro-change" pin, but thats just me.

Also, while I am sure for some people, the race thing will play a role (unfortunately), I have been hearing a lot more about his skin colour from democrats and liberals talking about how it will play a role than from republicans or conservatives attacking him for it. I think for as many people who are going to vote against him because of his skin colour, there will be an equally large group of people voting FOR him purely because of his skin colour, to "prove" to themselves they are not racist. In my opinion, NOT voting for the old white veteran, just so you can vote for the "black" guy is equally as racist. Everyone should look purely at their platforms; of course, I know that is just not going to happen.

Obama really scares me for a variety of reasons. He has flip-flopped an AWFUL lot as well (such as a Jerusalem reference in a speech to AIPAC; and more seriously he promised to use public funding for his campaign if McCain did, and he has since backtracked and is now using private funds. This is a MAJOR backtrack!).

He has also had to dissociate himself publicly with farrrr too many people because they have turned out to be racist, bigoted, or corrupt: and he only does so after these associations become public. The phrase *so-and-so* "... just isn't the ..." *so-and-so* "... that I knew" is getting old. It reveals a serious lack of judgement on his part.

He is incredibly inexperienced relative to McCain, and even just looking at a recent McCain vs. Obama policy battle, we can easily see who has the better foresight. In 2006, they each served on seperate advisory committees to Bush regarding Iraq. Long story short, McCain recommended the surge, stated it would be a long tough fight, but said that it was the best hope. He then specifically stated what a "best-case" scenario would be based on the surge. Obama vouched for a complete pullout of troops, saying there was no way to militarily stop a civil war.

It has now become clear that McCain's surge strategy was a success. His "best-case" scenario has come to pass. Death rates in Iraq last month were lower than the death rate in Chicago, and the Iraqi's are very much so on their own feet. While we will never really know what would have happened had Obama's plan gone through, but I think it is safe to say Iraq would have faded into the background; hundreds of thousands if not millions more innocent Iraqi's would have died in sectarian clashes, and the country would be either a terrorist breeding ground or an Iranian or Saudi Arabian proxy of some sort, and America's image would be forever tarnished in the world.

As for whoever talked about Harper not signing the Kyoto accord: THANK GOD he didn't!

The global warming debate is FAR from over.

While I fully support other environmental initiatives like reducing pollution and recycling. I am NOT convinced that Carbon Dioxide emmissions are something we need to reduce. There was a petition of something like 32,000 scientists in the US talking about the BENEFITS of Carbon Dioxide.

Kyoto would have harmed our already ailing economy incredibly (Ontario's manufacturing industry is taking a HUGE hit), but there is no way we would have met the requirements (no other country who has signed has managed yet). As stated above as well, I'm not convinced it would do anything anyway.

Originally Posted by rlevitin

As for whoever talked about Harper not signing the Kyoto accord: THANK GOD he didn't!

The global warming debate is FAR from over.

While I fully support other environmental initiatives like reducing pollution and recycling. I am NOT convinced that Carbon Dioxide emmissions are something we need to reduce. There was a petition of something like 32,000 scientists in the US talking about the BENEFITS of Carbon Dioxide.

Kyoto would have harmed our already ailing economy incredibly (Ontario's manufacturing industry is taking a HUGE hit), but there is no way we would have met the requirements (no other country who has signed has managed yet). As stated above as well, I'm not convinced it would do anything anyway.

For your information, the Kyoto Protocol HAS been signed by Canada. I don't know where you're getting your information! The fact of the matter is that we are obligated to reduce our CO2 emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 or else our country will be penalized. And what has Harper done to fufill our targets? Hmmmm?

Alrighty then, my bad, but I'm glad he hasn't done more, cause I am certain it would hit our economy pretty bad. We should not have signed it in the first place.

Every politician makes verbal gaffes every once and a while.

When Obama said 57 states, he was referring to the 57 states and territories in which democratic primaries and caucuses were taking place. Hardly a fault that should prevent him from being president.

Obama's uncle helped liberate Buchenwald, not Auschwitz...which Obama admitted and corrected himself. Again, simply a verbal gaffe, his intention was not an outright lie.

I really dont see why everyone is so worked up about him not accepting public funds. Instead of using 85 million dollars of taxpayers money like John McCain is doing, hes depending on many small donations from his loyal supporters. So what if its a "flip-flop" if someone changes there mind from doing the wrong thing to doing the right thing, is it really such a big deal?

John McCain is highly hyprocrital of accusing Obama of surpassing spending limits. Republicans are known for their PACs and "527s" which allow donors to donate well beyond the $2300 limit.

And if you want to accuse Obama of verbal gaffes, lets not exclude McCains numerous ones.

"Well, it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That's well known. And it's unfortunate." -before correcting himself by saying Iran was training " Wrong: Iran is Shiite, Al Queda is Sunni.

"I will conduct a respectful debate. Now, it will be dispirited -- it will be spirited -- because there are stark differences. I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica-- conservative Republican...Hello? Easy there." No one knows where this guy stands. Not even himself.

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Yes...lets give this guy control of the worlds most powerful nuclear arsenal. I would feel real safe then...

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." Nice.

And here's my personal favorite. When John McCain admitted that the war in Iraq was about oil. A war he supported wholeheartedly. A war that has killed, as of August 2007, over 1 000 000 iraqi citizens and 4 102 americans.

“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.” Isn't that great. This man is of such moral stature that even though he admits the war in iraq was about oil, not about "liberating" the Iraqi people, he still supports the war and Bush's lies.

I dont care how many years he's spent in elected office. This man is quite obviously senile, disgruntled, and has very limited morals. Who cares if the surge is working. What would have worked better is if the US had never gone there in the first place. Thats the real difference between McCain and Obama.

Oh, about about Kyoto, 17 countries were below there Kyoto targets in 2003....its not impossible:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/cli..._Targets .pdf

And about those 32 000 scientists who have signed the petition: The only thing required for you to sign that thing is a degree in "physical science" Physical science is the any science that deals with non-living things...this includes Cosmology, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Stellar astronomy, almost all forms of Chemistry, Geology, Hydrology, Meteorology, Oceanography, Classical mechanics, Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics, Quantum mechanics, Particle physics, and Condensed matter physics among MANY others. Check it out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_science).

Im sure someone with a degree in extragalactic astronomy or condensed matter physics has a lot of credibily when judging issues relating to global warming....

My point with the verbal gaffes wasn't that only Obama makes them. My point was made in response to someone saying "At least we know we won't have series of books devoted to dumb quotes that Obama will say unlike Bush." Everyone makes silly verbal mistakes from time to time. It has just been one of those things that have been used to villify Bush and make him seem like a moron.

I could just as easily find hand-picked quotes from Obama and tear them apart the way you just did for McCain. I simply cannot be bothered right now (I might at some later date).

As for your "Bush's Lies" comment. The Rockefeller report: the very one most often cited by Democrats to "prove" Bush lied, states after every claim Bush made in going to war, while some turned out to be wrong, that the claim was substantiated by intelligence reports. If someone is to be painted as evil for getting going into Iraq, it should be the intelligence communities on the one hand, and Saddam on the other, for preventing inspectors from clarifying the issues at the time.

As for McCain. He would definitely not be one of my top choices for Republicans. He has been known for reaching out to moderate & liberal causes, and in doing so he has managed to alienate his own base at a variety of points throughout his campaign. However, he is still better than Obama. To me, Obama is an empty suit running on "Hope" and "Change" with no clear policies of his own.

This tendency to glorify Obama as the last great hope for change is what really gets to me. As mentioned above, the real concern for me is the sheer quantity of people he has to dissociate himself with. It really causes concern regarding his judgement, and is not someone I want as President of the United States.


I will admit that I do not know details on Kyoto or the policy-battles raging about Global Warming. What I have been following is the debate as to whether it is happening, and whether is anthropogenic. You mentioned that the requirements to sign the petition are low. I wonder how many of those who argue for Global Warming are actual scientists dealing specifically with that issue?

What degree does Gore have?

The issue over the campaign funding is that by going through the public funding system, you are limiting yourself to using that amount. By first announcing that he was going to use the public funding system if McCain did, and then backtracking and going to private funding, he locked McCain into a roof on spending. That he is now expected to make significantly more than the public fund would have provided him with, makes it quite a dirty trick in my books.

Besides, if you look at the campaign spending on both sides, in the last few months, Obama has spent nearly all of his hundreds of millions of record-breaking fundraising, while McCain has a neat little surplus of $30 to 40 million remaining. Is this the kind of spending we can expect of him as President?

Originally Posted by rlevitin

Alrighty then, my bad, but I'm glad he hasn't done more, cause I am certain it would hit our economy pretty bad. We should not have signed it in the first place.

We are penalized if we do not meet our targets by 2012. As in, we have to make up the difference + a penalty of 30% on all emissions we fail to meet during the commitment period. Our ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended. This will hit our economy worse in the long run. We've signed the treaty and its time to pull through.

Originally Posted by rlevitin

Iam NOT convinced that Carbon Dioxide emmissions are something we need to reduce. There was a petition of something like 32,000 scientists in the US talking about the BENEFITS of Carbon Dioxide.

Beneficial? Pollution is killing people! I hate to put this in an economic sense, but because it seems like the economy is whats most important for you.... people = workers = capital for our economy. Also, hospitalized people = -$$$ for our government (they need to pay for healthcare).

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/08060..._smog_deaths_9
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/...mog050606.html