The Green Party is really a self serving movement, designed to get their leader
elected. They will sacrifice their entire agenda for one Member.
That's bizarre. I don't know where to begin. Are you saying the other party's don't do whatever they have to do in order to at least make sure their leader gets a seat in the house?
I'd be curious to hear specifically which agenda items you think they're sacrificing to get May elected.
I know someone who's running as a green candidate, and he never talks about her. He's just focused on his riding, trying to get the constituents to read the policy statements and vote by candidate and not leader. He's a graduate of the London school of Economics, and he's green because he's super-conservative, but he believes in sustainable economies... he hates "bubbles", and he tells me the greens are the only ones with an anti-bubble economic model.
The only "conservatives" who truly hate the green plan for the economy aren't really conservative - they just mask as conservative - which are the Wall-street gargoyles who feed off a system of first setting up the conditions to create a bubble, then they foment the conditions to inflate the bubble, then they bail just before it pops which they can know the timing of because it's their bubble, at which point they've scooped billions out of the economy without having done any real work while tens to hundreds of millions of others loose their homes and life savings.
Such meddling with the economy was enabled by the massive deregulation of the economy done under the auspices of Reagan and then Bush, and don't kid you're self if you think Clinton didn't played along in the interim, and it's actually quite a cute trick in a purely theoretical sense... it's just a little soft-shoe dance using primary-school arithmetic and high-school level equations for exponential expansion, but you can't do it if pesky regulations are in your way.
Someone should make a Facebook app in the form of a game for kids to play at being the one to take over all the money in the world using those techniques... call it Bubble Master or something. The kids will think it's just a game, and won't notice they're being taught how the goldmaniac-sackers created this recession, and how those gargoyles can still do it again as soon as things level out in about five years, because Obama is doing *nothing* to reverse those toxic deregulations.
If you think the Tory Government would be a disaster with a majority, think of the
Greens with a majority and an agenda they would ram down your throat.
Me-thinks you don't know what the green agenda is. In some respects it's far more conservative than anything you're going to find among reformists.
Nothing about the reformist agenda bugs me very much except the part where they'd let deregulation go even more extreme, and I don't think it's because they're in the back-pocket of the Wall-street gargoyles... I think it's because they simply do not know the details of how the economy can be twiddle with a bit of arithmetic, and an application of high-school exponential grown curves to toxic financial instruments.
In don't think the reformists are in the back-pocket of Wall-street gargoyles... I think they're being *played* by those gargoyles.
I have little or no use for a movement, who thinks we can feed the world with the
back yard garden in urban Canada.
It's not just that, but... since you bring it up...
Did you know that the largest per-square foot consumer of fertilizer is lawn grass?
Do you have any idea how much food we could grow with that much fertilizer if we converted our lawns into gardens?
Frankly I think it would make for more interesting neighborhoods. Lawns are boring, and nobody uses them for very much.
Everything would be designed for organics at the expense of the food industry.
Organics would hurt the food industry?!? Prithee how?
The only sector affected would be the pesticide manufacturers, and I know they wouldn't care, because it is the pesticide sector which is investing the most in genetically modified crops not needing pesticides.
I am of course speaking of Monsanto. In the beginning they sold pesticides. When they saw that people don't like spraying pesticides if they don't have to, they started developing crops capable of surviving without pesticides, such that they are now saying, "Fine, here's a crop that does not need pesticides, but you have to buy the seed from us".
Can you imagine the food shortages we would face?
Nope, because I know some things about north American climate and geography which evidently you do not, which is that yes, we're a net food exporter, but in fact we're still growing at less than 27% of capacity if things were tuned up a bit.
And in fact, in the future, the biggest food shortages are going to come from loss of topsoil and genetic variety as a byproduct of the way the corporate farms do things.
If we get back to growing food sustainably we'll be able to *keep* growing it, and it will be healthier.
The only catch is it's more labour-intensive to grow healthy organic food sustainably.
Aww gee, we sent all the manufacturing jobs to China... now what are the layed-off assembly-line workers going to do? Gosh China has a large population that needs to eat. Perish the thought any self-respecting assembly line-worker would debase himself so much as to consider working on a farm growing healthy food and selling to food-hungry China the surplus of what's left after he's fed his family.
The Greens have no concept of global reality,
What concept of "global reality" are the Greens unaware of? That the population is expanding and we're not growing enough food in a sustainable manner to feed everyone?
and they are arrogant enough to
think they can they can stop climate change.
No they're not. If you read their policies, you'd know they know we've lost control of that one, and so they're offering plans for how to manage relocation's of the mass population-movements north that are going to happen. Places like Fort Smith are going to boom.
The world has experienced climate
change since time began and it will go on for millions of years yet as long as we
don't get hit by space junk.
And as long as the world doesn't get hit with a bump in atmospheric CO2 and methane triggered by a new species with a fascination and technical propensity for burning up billions of years of accumulated hydrocarbons in a century.
No she does not meet the original rules, you must have elected members in the
House and if she does get a member or two next time round so be it. The rules
have been around for years and keeps the ding dong parties from taking up
space that can better be used by others.
Those "rules" didn't come from the House. In case you didn't notice, Harper has NO issue sharing the podium with her in a debate. Those "rules" came from an unelected committee of broadcasters.
Which *mean*... tum da da dumm... an enterprising independent media team could call up the leaders, tell them the people want a full leader's debate, set up some space, organize a time, record it, and put it on YouTube... and the broadcast-committee can blow itself.
