“Higher food, energy costs are deliberate??”

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
22,098
3,206
113
B.C.
Yeah a sitting senator makes $197,000 a year.. they all leave worth millions of dollars

Nothing shady there whatsoever 😉

Nothing worse than a crooked politician than an ambulance chasing lawyer with his office in a shitty strip mall 😂


That little guy dat spoke outta da side of the mouth made out alright .
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
18,407
4,158
113
Twin Moose Creek
The OP seemed to suggest it was all a Great Big Communist UN Conspiraceeeee!
Handing out Trillions world wide under the COVID restriction banner undermining industry and the GDP the power to balance out the payouts and then coming out with the statement that the US currency should not be the world's base, because it is under valued due to inflation, anymore and the IMF will be setting the world's currency isn't really a conspiracy when it's out in the open
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave and petros

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
3,710
1,485
113
Edmonton
A world of escalating prices for energy and food isn’t just a temporary aberration caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s the deliberate, global policy of those who tell us their goal is to defeat catastrophic climate change.

Only twice in the modern era have global greenhouse gas emissions plummeted anywhere close to the levels the United Nations says will be necessary to avoid disaster.


The first time was the 2008-09 global recession triggered by the subprime mortgage derivatives scandal in the U.S..

The second time was the global recession caused by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

In global recessions national economies contract.

Uncertainty about the future causes people to buy fewer goods and services — almost all made using fossil fuel energy — and therefore emissions decline.

To achieve reductions of the magnitude the UN says are needed to prevent a global temperature rise of more than 1.5C by the end of this century will require annual reductions in emissions approximately equivalent to those caused by the 2020 pandemic recession, from now until 2030.

The only way to achieve that will be to dramatically increase the cost of using fossil fuels, which in turn raises the cost of almost everything, including food, as we replace cheaper forms of energy with more expensive ones.

In the context of global energy policy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s call at the recent Glasgow climate summit for a global carbon tax comparable to Canada’s — currently $40 per tonne of emissions rising to $170 per tonne in 2030 — is consistent with the UN’s advocacy of global central planning to address climate change.

If, for example, Canadian industries have to compete with those in foreign countries that do not have carbon taxes, there will be a tendency for them to defect to those countries.

This is called carbon leakage and in order to combat it what it will inevitably lead to is Canada imposing tariffs on goods and services we import from countries that do not have carbon taxes, so that Canadian industries can compete.

That, in turn, will raise the prices of those imported goods and services, just as the price of domestic goods will rise because of carbon taxes.

Is this the future our government is planning for us?
Covid has taught various governments throughout the world how to "control" their populations so this is what is happening. They're rubbing their hands with glee stating to themselves knowing that success will line their pockets while leaving everyone else poorer - and the climate will continue as it has for a millenia. No change to be had because it's not about climate at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
15,788
1,199
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Capitalizing "trillions" makes it seem extra-communist and scary.
Found something that alludes towards Communism (well, Marxism anyway):

“The ghastly charade in Glasgow and the West's self-flagellation over the climate”
(By Conrad Black)

Last week in this space, as the Glasgow climate change conference (COP26) was wrapping up, I pointed out once again what a colossal scam most of the climate fear campaign is. A 1°C increase in very approximately estimated world temperature in 120 years does not remotely justify the widespread hysteria on this subject in Western Europe and North America.

Countless predictions of imminent climate disaster over the last 50 years have proved to be utter piffle. Yet the frenzy does not abate. Organized groups of schoolchildren march about accusing the world’s adults of inflicting ecological strangulation upon them. (We should bring back corporal punishment before we shut down the oil industry.) The Glasgow conference ended in a more ghastly charade than even I had imagined.

The eminent American historian Walter Russell Mead, writing for the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 17, referred to the 19th-century British historian Thomas Carlyle’s reference to an “Age of Shams” in France before the revolution of 1789, when the noble and clerical elites had a perception of current realities in France that were soon exposed as having absolutely no basis in fact.

Mead wrote: “If there is one thing the world should take away from the Glasgow COP26 summit, it’s that the most dangerous greenhouse-gas emissions come from the front ends of politicians, not the back ends of cows. Pandering is much more dangerous to human civilization than methane, strategic incompetence a graver threat than CO2; and dysfunctional establishment groupthink will likely kill more polar bears than all the hydrofluorocarbons in the world.”

Anyway, Blah-Blah-Blah-etc…& lots of interesting stuff at the above like leading eventually to the following:

The chief impetus for climate change hysteria is the international Marxist (Ta-Dah!!) left responding nimbly to their defeat in the Cold War and loudly cheered on, in this case, by the thoroughly self-interested, economically under-performing nations of the world, who sanctimoniously demand reparations for their own comparative penury, as if the West were responsible for the vagaries of geography and societal progress.

Instead of dissenting from this foolishness, Canada proudly proclaims itself (falsely) to be a leader of it. It is of a piece with our continuing official self-castigation for outlandishly exaggerated past mistreatment of our Indigenous people and a ludicrous and jejune preoccupation with gender issues.

We are, as usual, following the Americans, who are wallowing and floundering in wokeness, national self-dislike and official incompetence and venality. But these trends are already despised by the majority of Americans and the United States is already beginning its return to world leadership after a unique and peculiar crisis of self-consciousness. At least that country deeply resents being a laughing-stock and making an ass of itself before the whole world.

Canada, insofar as can be seen, has no such regrets. It bumbles on losing ground by most competitive economic indicators, complacent in its narcissistic and false morality, slowly disintegrating in its regionalism, with an incompetent federal government and ineffectual opposition. Never in Canada’s history has it so under-performed its potential and been so indifferently served by its elites. This will surely change, but the agent of change is not now visible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
22,098
3,206
113
B.C.
Found something that alludes towards Communism (well, Marxism anyway):

“The ghastly charade in Glasgow and the West's self-flagellation over the climate”
(By Conrad Black)

Last week in this space, as the Glasgow climate change conference (COP26) was wrapping up, I pointed out once again what a colossal scam most of the climate fear campaign is. A 1°C increase in very approximately estimated world temperature in 120 years does not remotely justify the widespread hysteria on this subject in Western Europe and North America.

Countless predictions of imminent climate disaster over the last 50 years have proved to be utter piffle. Yet the frenzy does not abate. Organized groups of schoolchildren march about accusing the world’s adults of inflicting ecological strangulation upon them. (We should bring back corporal punishment before we shut down the oil industry.) The Glasgow conference ended in a more ghastly charade than even I had imagined.

The eminent American historian Walter Russell Mead, writing for the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 17, referred to the 19th-century British historian Thomas Carlyle’s reference to an “Age of Shams” in France before the revolution of 1789, when the noble and clerical elites had a perception of current realities in France that were soon exposed as having absolutely no basis in fact.

Mead wrote: “If there is one thing the world should take away from the Glasgow COP26 summit, it’s that the most dangerous greenhouse-gas emissions come from the front ends of politicians, not the back ends of cows. Pandering is much more dangerous to human civilization than methane, strategic incompetence a graver threat than CO2; and dysfunctional establishment groupthink will likely kill more polar bears than all the hydrofluorocarbons in the world.”

Anyway, Blah-Blah-Blah-etc…& lots of interesting stuff at the above like leading eventually to the following:

The chief impetus for climate change hysteria is the international Marxist (Ta-Dah!!) left responding nimbly to their defeat in the Cold War and loudly cheered on, in this case, by the thoroughly self-interested, economically under-performing nations of the world, who sanctimoniously demand reparations for their own comparative penury, as if the West were responsible for the vagaries of geography and societal progress.

Instead of dissenting from this foolishness, Canada proudly proclaims itself (falsely) to be a leader of it. It is of a piece with our continuing official self-castigation for outlandishly exaggerated past mistreatment of our Indigenous people and a ludicrous and jejune preoccupation with gender issues.

We are, as usual, following the Americans, who are wallowing and floundering in wokeness, national self-dislike and official incompetence and venality. But these trends are already despised by the majority of Americans and the United States is already beginning its return to world leadership after a unique and peculiar crisis of self-consciousness. At least that country deeply resents being a laughing-stock and making an ass of itself before the whole world.

Canada, insofar as can be seen, has no such regrets. It bumbles on losing ground by most competitive economic indicators, complacent in its narcissistic and false morality, slowly disintegrating in its regionalism, with an incompetent federal government and ineffectual opposition. Never in Canada’s history has it so under-performed its potential and been so indifferently served by its elites. This will surely change, but the agent of change is not now visible.
Sure it is visible in the rise of western sea ration .
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
Found something that alludes towards Communism (well, Marxism anyway):

“The ghastly charade in Glasgow and the West's self-flagellation over the climate”
(By Conrad Black)

Last week in this space, as the Glasgow climate change conference (COP26) was wrapping up, I pointed out once again what a colossal scam most of the climate fear campaign is. A 1°C increase in very approximately estimated world temperature in 120 years does not remotely justify the widespread hysteria on this subject in Western Europe and North America.

Countless predictions of imminent climate disaster over the last 50 years have proved to be utter piffle. Yet the frenzy does not abate. Organized groups of schoolchildren march about accusing the world’s adults of inflicting ecological strangulation upon them. (We should bring back corporal punishment before we shut down the oil industry.) The Glasgow conference ended in a more ghastly charade than even I had imagined.

The eminent American historian Walter Russell Mead, writing for the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 17, referred to the 19th-century British historian Thomas Carlyle’s reference to an “Age of Shams” in France before the revolution of 1789, when the noble and clerical elites had a perception of current realities in France that were soon exposed as having absolutely no basis in fact.

Mead wrote: “If there is one thing the world should take away from the Glasgow COP26 summit, it’s that the most dangerous greenhouse-gas emissions come from the front ends of politicians, not the back ends of cows. Pandering is much more dangerous to human civilization than methane, strategic incompetence a graver threat than CO2; and dysfunctional establishment groupthink will likely kill more polar bears than all the hydrofluorocarbons in the world.”

Anyway, Blah-Blah-Blah-etc…& lots of interesting stuff at the above like leading eventually to the following:

The chief impetus for climate change hysteria is the international Marxist (Ta-Dah!!) left responding nimbly to their defeat in the Cold War and loudly cheered on, in this case, by the thoroughly self-interested, economically under-performing nations of the world, who sanctimoniously demand reparations for their own comparative penury, as if the West were responsible for the vagaries of geography and societal progress.

Instead of dissenting from this foolishness, Canada proudly proclaims itself (falsely) to be a leader of it. It is of a piece with our continuing official self-castigation for outlandishly exaggerated past mistreatment of our Indigenous people and a ludicrous and jejune preoccupation with gender issues.

We are, as usual, following the Americans, who are wallowing and floundering in wokeness, national self-dislike and official incompetence and venality. But these trends are already despised by the majority of Americans and the United States is already beginning its return to world leadership after a unique and peculiar crisis of self-consciousness. At least that country deeply resents being a laughing-stock and making an ass of itself before the whole world.

Canada, insofar as can be seen, has no such regrets. It bumbles on losing ground by most competitive economic indicators, complacent in its narcissistic and false morality, slowly disintegrating in its regionalism, with an incompetent federal government and ineffectual opposition. Never in Canada’s history has it so under-performed its potential and been so indifferently served by its elites. This will surely change, but the agent of change is not now visible.
Yep. And sadly, people take all of these complex, difficult issues, and rather than working and arguing to figure out "does this make sense?" they tag it with some bullshit label like "Communism!" and proceed to panic, not even knowing what they really want. (I know, but that's because I don't care).

In all honesty, bro, you're a borderline case. I like you, and I think you're pretty sensible. Enjoy jawing with you. But I worry that you may slip over into the "reds under the bed" lunacy as you age.

And I will accept and seriously consider (from you) a similarly direct analysis.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
15,788
1,199
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
….& Dr Davis Suzuki enters the game, planting the seeds of ideas for others to follow:

David Suzuki, the godfather of the Canadian environmental movement, warned over the weekend that if politicians don’t act to reverse climate change, there could be attacks against oil and gas infrastructure.


“We’re in deep, deep doo-doo,” said Suzuki Saturday, speaking at an Extinction Rebellion protest on Vancouver island. “This what we’re come to, the next stage after this, there are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don’t pay attention to what’s going on.”

Suzuki warned again he feels that, with protesters engaging in civil disobedience, there are few other options for those who feel government isn’t moving rapidly enough to tackle climate change. What else is there but violence, he wondered.

“I think it’s going to be threatened by groups that feel government isn’t going anything,” Suzuki said, etc….more at the above Link….

….& at the below Link is some background on the Doctor issuing this “warning.”
 
Last edited:

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
15,788
1,199
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I call open season on protestors.
Peaceful protest is one thing, but once that line is crossed, it’s a tough call, & what is or isn’t a “peaceful” protest??? Where is that line & does “peaceful” only end once violence is involved?

Is obstructing traffic & impeding another from pursuing their livelihood a peaceful protest?

Is chaining themselves to a piece of equipment which stops another person from (again) pursuing their livelihood a peaceful protest? (Yeah, I know, I’ve got a theme going)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich and petros

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
Peaceful protest is one thing, but once that line is crossed, it’s a tough call, & what is or isn’t a “peaceful” protest??? Where is that line & does “peaceful” only end once violence is involved?

Is obstructing traffic & impeding another from pursuing their livelihood a peaceful protest?

Is chaining themselves to a piece of equipment which stops another person from (again) pursuing their livelihood a peaceful protest? (Yeah, I know, I’ve got a theme going)
Peaceful means "not harming, or attempting to harm, people or property." So yes, your two examples are "peaceful."

Didn't say they're LEGAL, mind. Just peaceful. Martin Luther King, and other advocates of non-violent civil disobedience before him, always maintained that willingness to peacefully break the law, and accept the consequences, was an essential element of NVCD.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
15,788
1,199
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Peaceful means "not harming, or attempting to harm, people or property." So yes, your two examples are "peaceful."

Didn't say they're LEGAL, mind. Just peaceful. Martin Luther King, and other advocates of non-violent civil disobedience before him, always maintained that willingness to peacefully break the law, and accept the consequences, was an essential element of NVCD.
I hear what you’re saying, but the above examples I used have a wrong ‘feel’ to them for me.

If someone is protesting a Government decision in Ottawa by blocking traffic on the other side of the country, are they harming that Government (?) or are they harming the people that they’re obstructing who have nothing to do with the Governments decision? That’s where it feels wrong to me.

Then, do they obstruct traffic in front of a government building (?) or do they pick the busiest intersection they can find at the busiest time of day to obstruct it to affect the greatest number of people but I have nothing to do with whatever they are protesting? In the situation above that I’m describing protesting in front of the government building feels right but protesting in the busy intersection feels wrong.

I understand that ‘feels’ & a legal definition are two very different things…. But like Art, I may not know what it is but I (usually) know it when I see it.

when a busy intersection is obstructed for a protest that has nothing to do with that busy intersection or the rush-hour choice of times to obstruct it….. what is the reaction that the protesters are looking for? Is it a “peaceful” reaction they’re attempting to provoke (?) or something else less than “peaceful” that wouldn’t have happened if the Government building was the focal point instead of the largest number of non-participants to be negatively affected?

The protesters choice is affecting The life liberty and pursuit of happiness of the non-directly involved (not even peripherally involved), seems to cross a line for me that’s difficult to define but sure seems ‘wrong’ to me. Intentionally preventing somebody from earning their living does not seem peaceful to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
I see it as a "wrong for wrong" situation. In your example, you could argue that the people who are being harmed (in the economic/peace of mind sense) are not the ones "harming" the protesters or the people for whom they're protesting.

My counter-argument would be that the "innocent" people being harmed do have some (admittedly limited) ability to effect change in Ottawa.

Let us take the classic case of the lunch-counter sit-ins in the American south in the 1950s and 1960s. Surely some of the people inconvenienced had nothing to do with the Jim Crow laws (probably ALL of the people inconvenienced, because the people who had passed the Jim Crow laws were long since dead). But awareness was being raised, not only in the south, but all over the country and the world.

You seem to be suggesting that, morally, a protest can only harm those directly responsible for a piece of harmful legislation. But what about the people who put that SOB in office? And how does one block a roadway only for those who voted for the SOB? And is there no value in giving people who have never really thought about the issue a reason to give it some consideration?

I'm not a big fan of protests. I think they were never terribly effective to begin with, and I have known legislative assistants who say "One original letter is worth a hundred signatures on a petition or a thousand protesters." I also think their prevalence has caused a decline in their impact over the last 60 years or so.

But that's the theory.

To be frank, the cops don't help any by "rounding up" protesters for minor technical violations (or for merely being present). I think they could be far more effective by doing the hard work of identifying the worst of the bunch and arresting them. That would encourage protesters to lean toward protesting in ways that are not only peaceful, but legal as well, to the benefit of all.

They have a practice here (and maybe there, I don't know) called "kettling." It means the cops surround an entire group and arrest them all, leaving it to the prosecutors and the courts to sort out who's actually guilty of a crime. And then they wonder why some honest, law-abiding people hate cops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
15,788
1,199
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
You seem to be suggesting that, morally, a protest can only harm those directly responsible for a piece of harmful legislation. But what about the people who put that SOB in office? And how does one block a roadway only for those who voted for the SOB? And is there no value in giving people who have never really thought about the issue a reason to give it some consideration?
You make some very valid points above. An awareness could be generated from the sidewalk (or a portion there of) without obstruction traffic though to create an awareness of whatever the protest is about, without taking away other peoples ability to get to where they’re going (to work, or home, or to pick up their children from daycare, or what have you).

Picking a busy intersection at rushhour (just for an example) seems like an intentional provocation towards a non peaceful reaction. How are the people trapped by the protestor suppose to react?
This behaviour doesn’t win hearts & minds so I can’t see any other reasoning for it towards deliberate provocation where the finger can be pointed that someone reacted to their Shenanigans?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
You make some very valid points above. An awareness could be generated from the sidewalk (or a portion there of) without obstruction traffic though to create an awareness of whatever the protest is about, without taking away other peoples ability to get to where they’re going (to work, or home, or to pick up their children from daycare, or what have you).

Picking a busy intersection at rushhour (just for an example) seems like an intentional provocation towards a non peaceful reaction. How are the people trapped by the protestor suppose to react?
This behaviour doesn’t win hearts & minds so I can’t see any other reasoning for it towards deliberate provocation where the finger can be pointed that someone reacted to their Shenanigans?
We're pretty much in agreement. If you're going to do something peaceful but illegal, it's best to aim it directly at the highest-profile and closely-related-to-the-harm target. Block the MP's driveway, or the MPs' entrance to Parliament. You'll get all the attention you could possibly crave, and you'll be inconveniencing the ones most directly responsible for your problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
15,788
1,199
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Last week, the RCMP issued a statement about blockades at a workers’ camp near Houston, B.C. A group of protesters opposing the Coastal GasLink pipeline were stealing or vandalizing heavy machinery and other equipment and causing major destruction to forestry roads. This was to prevent industry and police from moving through.
Then, over the weekend, environmentalist David Suzuki, a supporter of anti-pipeline protests, made some extreme comments. “The next stage after this, there are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don’t pay attention to what’s going on,” he said at an Extinction Rebellion protest on Vancouver Island.

This language and the thefts and vandalism by so-called protesters should be condemned, not celebrated.

Up to 500 workers had been trapped by the blockade in the remote camp location before the RCMP removed the protesters, allowing the workers access to food and water. This is alarming because there is limited access to these sites and if a road is destroyed, it has to be rebuilt in order for it to be safe to use again.

Who are these protesters? While some are no doubt from the community, many others are non-Indigenous and from out of province or out of country.

As for support for the protests among the Wet’suwet’en, it has as much to do with deeper divisions in the community as with the pipeline itself. Coastal GasLink acquired the rights and entered into community benefit agreements with the 20 reserves along the pipeline route. Wet’suwet’en First Nation was one of these communities. The elected chief and council and the majority of their community members agreed to this pipeline. On the reserve, these voices matter. The rest at the above LINK.
——————————————————————

The American president, in his deep wisdom, would not oblige. His press secretary, Jen Psaki, noted this $12,000 would “incentivize the purchasing of electric vehicles” and poignantly added the observation, “that’s good for our climate.” For the planet. For the globe itself. A goal so co-incident with Trudeau’s own prime concern as to be perfectly indistinguishable.

This is a good read at the above LINK.

Ontario auto workers may relax. It will be but days before Trudeau and his famed abseiler, Steven Guilbeault, come up with a plan, identical to the one already in place for Alberta oil workers. It will outline “transitioning” for Ontario — a vast retraining program to take imperilled auto workers and place them in the same staggering lineup as imperilled oil workers, also about to be eliminated in pursuit of the great “build back better” new green economy.

Thank God for Joe Biden. It is only his so clear a mind, so progressive a spirit, that has the courage to follow global warming logic to its inevitable conclusion. He and Trudeau are really as one, even as the younger of the two may take a little time to realize that killing the Ontario auto industry — which is Biden’s goal – is a perfect reflection of the prime minister’s clear-sighted and brave determination to kill the oil industry of Alberta.
——————————————————————
The federal government delivered a stark warning about the decades ahead as Governor-General Mary Simon opened the 44th Parliament, describing a world “in danger” from climate change and urging legislators to turn “talk into action.”
Ms. Simon delivered the minority Liberal government’s road map in the Senate Tuesday and emphasized that limiting the greenhouse-gas emissions causing climate change and adapting to the changes already brought on by warming temperatures are among the top priorities.

The speech contained no new promises from the Liberals, who instead highlighted key priorities from their long list of campaign promises.

The late launch to the fall Parliamentary sitting means the Liberals have just a four-week window to shepherd key government bills through the House of Commons – a short time frame, made more difficult because the opposition has more power to influence the agenda in a minority Parliament. The Liberals waited more than two months to recall MPs to the House after the September federal election.

“There is nothing in the Throne Speech that deals with inflation, the cost of living crisis, the national unity crisis, there’s no plan to get people working,” Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole said.

Ms. Simon reiterated the Prime Minister’s position that the government “must go further, faster” to take “real action” on climate change. She said the government would focus its efforts on capping and then lowering emissions from the oil and gas sector; accelerating work to reach a 100 per cent net-zero electricity grid; investing in public transit and mandating the sale of zero emissions vehicles; and steadily increasing the price on carbon.

Anyway, the rest of these Sunny Ways at the above LINK
—————————————————————-