12 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I think it would surprise many here to learn that Justin Trudeau is working actively to over-turn the Genetic Protection law here in Canada, that was brought in by a Liberal senator, and supported by Harper and the Conservatives.  So essentially, from what I am reading, Justin Trudeau is on the same side as the Republicans in the USA.  Let that blow your minds for awhile.

 http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/canada-s-new-genetic-privacy-law-causing-huge-headaches-justin-trudeau

It amazes me that it got to a free vote.  I am no Canadian political scientist, but from what I remember you wouldn't see the caucus defying the leadership like that in a Harper or Chretien government.

Yeah, this looks pretty evil. Good on the MPs who voted for it.

Edited March 14, 20178 yr by johnzo

Nonpartisan analysts.

This label intrigues me. Just came across it in reading the latest in US health reforms and comments attributed to people who are labelled this way.

Can it be done? I think some of us try to do it (aspire?) hoping our batting average in accomplishing it is above average but knowing it won't be 1,000.

 

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

LOL - then you must be having amnesia and totally forget the Bill Clinton administration...

No, just that this particular administration has been piling up so much BS, in such a short period of time......

BTW, re: Dems......the Carter administration was a epic disaster...

 

59 minutes ago, do or die said:

BTW, re: Dems......the Carter administration was a epic disaster...

 

On this we will agree completely!

7 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Also, KBF why is your response always to push some of the same fake news stuff that Trump does or to point out bad acts by others as if that makes it ok?  You seem very much a supporter of Trump's, is that the case?

I think the case is, he will support anything and anyone (no matter how odius) that is the opposite of the progressive left. And, that is his right absolutely.

Well, the very target groups that came out in big numbers for Tumpelstiltskin .....white seniors, blue collar, poverty liners. etc......are the ones who are going to pay, in the end.    

Surely not bankers, big oil, big pharma, military contractors and many other corporate entities, because Trump is a man of the people - well, at least those kind of people....

31 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I think the case is, he will support anything and anyone (no matter how odius) that is the opposite of the progressive left. And, that is his right absolutely.

You are correct.  I will support most who are in opposition to the odious regressive left.  That I can't deny.  And thank you for allowing me that right.  I watched the NDP leadership speeches this weekend, and I had to disagree vehemently with pretty much everything the candidates had to say, in spades.  If what they believe is "progressive", then count me out.  They don't live in the real world.

Edited March 14, 20178 yr by kelownabomberfan

21 minutes ago, do or die said:

Well, the very target groups that came out in big numbers for Tumpelstiltskin .....white seniors, blue collar, poverty liners. etc......are the ones who are going to pay, in the end.    

Surely not bankers, big oil, big pharma, military contractors and many other corporate entities, because Trump is a man of the people - well, at least those kind of people....

and yet it wasn't just the "white seniors and blue collar" that came out for Trump.  It was a broad spectrum of the US electorate.  They may "pay" in the end, but they had enough of the status quo.  And that's what the DNC needs to accept and figure out how to change about themselves.  Or just keep losing.

17 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

and yet it wasn't just the "white seniors and blue collar" that came out for Trump.  It was a broad spectrum of the US electorate.  They may "pay" in the end, but they had enough of the status quo.  And that's what the DNC needs to accept and figure out how to change about themselves.  Or just keep losing.

Yes the DNC need to clean out some ole time hacks, right at the top (do have some new ones now) and Clinton ran a lousy campaign and plenty of the Sanders people sat it out.......

 

But while the Dems fiddle..... you have the carpetbagger and the tea baggers, as well as Bannon, with a cabinet of billionaires hand picked to "deconstruct regulation and agencies"  A potent and dangerous brew, indeed ....to say nothing of healthcare ( or the upcoming push back on it)

 

Scott Pruit, head of EPA.... challenged its regulations in more than a dozen suits.  Also  thinks global warming is a hoax.

Andrew Puzder nominee for Labor Secretary....., operated companies that low balled on wages and faced allegations of labor abuse. However the undocumented immigrant domestic worker in his basement, put the kibosh on his nomination

Trump’s FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is known for being an outspoken critic of the net neutrality rules.  Of course the FCC has the authority to block major media mergers, revoke broadcast licenses and regulate Internet providers.

Rick Perry, Trump’s pick for energy secretary, proposed to eliminate the department,  while running for President in 2011.

National Security General Flynn.....Russiaphobe - between his junkets and covert meetings with the Russians on Ukraine and lobbing efforts with Turkey (which the WH lied about - big surprise)....was wondering when he might of spent some time on actual US security

Overall, a lot of ths is not a new Republican strategy (see: Bush administration), but never implemented to this extent.   In the end we know who profits (key word) from that.  And no, not working class Americans.

 

15 hours ago, do or die said:

Obama had my "wires tapped"

Reminds me of   "We can have filters on Internets where public money is spent."

 

Final definitive proof that a stupid person can accumulate large amounts of money.

He's the final decision maker for nuclear launch/ attack.

Edited March 14, 20178 yr by Mark F

2 hours ago, Mark F said:

Final definitive proof that a stupid person can accumulate large amounts of money.

 

Mark Cuban was all I needed as proof.

9 hours ago, do or die said:

Scott Pruit, head of EPA.... challenged its regulations in more than a dozen suits.  Also  thinks global warming is a hoax.

 

 

I am not happy if the EPA is rolled back to stop protecting rivers and eco-systems as that is important stuff, however, I am happy to see the EPA's over-reach on regulating CO2 etc pulled back.  The EPA was allowed under Obama to become far too strong for an unelected body.  Just getting their power relaxed on various regulations could provide a $1.8 trillion boost to the US economy.

https://cei.org/content/federal-regulation-cost-reaches-1885-trillion

To me the argument about whether man-made climate change is real is moot and irrelevant.  Obama handicapped the US economy and spent mega-billions over 8 years "fighting" it, and apparently didn't really make a dent.  Is spending trillions on this "problem" the answer?  I don't think so.  There have to be better and cheaper ways to deal with this issue, other than funneling billions of dollars into Al Gore and George Soros' pocket.

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

To me the argument about whether man-made climate change is real is moot and irrelevant. 

Interesting... can you elaborate- I would like to understand your stance.

Another enlightened Republican on the Hill:   Iowa Rep. Steve King

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/kfile-steve-king-prediction/index.html

 

4 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Interesting... can you elaborate- I would like to understand your stance.

basically the world would not be any different right now in terms of climate whether Obama had blown all of that money and made those punitive regulatory changes that cost the American economy trillions of dollars.  That's my view.

4 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

basically the world would not be any different right now in terms of climate whether Obama had blown all of that money and made those punitive regulatory changes that cost the American economy trillions of dollars.  That's my view.

Ok, your view- I respect that. Why do you take this stance? I am curious- if you have evidence or studies (peer reviewed preferably and from a reputable source would be even better) I would like to see this, as I know there are two sides to this.

Man made climate change is very real and global warming is a fact of life.   There is 3% of scientists that disagree, which doesn't mean anything.   97% agree it's true.

someone needs to make real changes to stop global warming and Obama lead the charge. Was it the most affective? Probably not, but you now have china moving to greener forms of hydro generation and will now be leading the charge.   This is a huge development over the past few years.

doing nothing is not an option anymore, and changes and having to adapt are going to be costly but green technology costs are falling and if the US funds and promotes green technologies they will be well positioned to profit from it.

 

 

10 hours ago, Adrenaline_x said:

Man made climate change is very real and global warming is a fact of life.   There is 3% of scientists that disagree, which doesn't mean anything.   97% agree it's true.

 

 

One of the biggest scams pulled by the AGT crowd is getting 97% lie to be accepted as truth.  This comment just isn't true.

But besides the point about whether man-made climate change is real, there is a whole other argument here as to what should be done about it.  Obama may have "lead the charge" but according to the alarmists, all of that money spent has done absolutely nothing.  So what should be done?  What money should be spent?  I suggest those here interested in reading about this subject should read Bjorn Lomborg's stuff.  He actually crunched the numbers, and is "leading the charge" in terms of questioning the costs and showing how all of that spending is doing no good.  I don't even want to get into the discussion of who is "reputable" etc as it just detracts from the discussion as we argue over what is considered "reputable" and who is not considered "reputable" because they GASP don't parrot the accepted narratives.

Trump set to roll back U.S. fuel-economy requirements on cars, more regression, more destruction. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-fuel-economy-1.4025816

They could have altered the "car culture" permanently after the 70's energy crisis when the price of gas first spiked, instead we've made little progress in almost 50 years thanks to the oil companies and the major car manufacturers pushing their agenda.  Perhaps we'll cruise on for another 50 years in our F-350's before North Americans begin to take responsibility for ouir actions.

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 20178 yr by Throw Long Bannatyne

11 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Trump set to roll back U.S. fuel-economy requirements on cars, more regression, more destruction. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-fuel-economy-1.4025816

They could have altered the "car culture" permanently after the 70's energy crisis when the price of gas first spiked, instead we've made little progress in almost 50 years thanks to the oil companies and the major car manufacturers pushing their agenda.  Perhaps we'll cruise on for another 50 years in our F-350's before North Americans begin to take responsibility for ouir actions.

 

 

 

a few years ago, there were bigger rebates for cars that weighed more, had bigger motors, and guzzled the most gas. Pickup trucks, big SUV.

But electric cars are coming, and nothing can stop them. ditto renewable energy. even the oil companies admit it and are finally getting off their butts and getting into that field.

I know that most i.c.e. lovers can't accept this, but it's a fact.

Trump can't stop it.  Neither can Alberta or Saudi Arabia. 

big changes  in energy are coming. Exponential rate of change.

I am looking at buying a new car this year.  I usually drive my vehicles for at least 10 years.  I am hoping this is the last gas-powered vehicle I ever buy.  There are a few electric options now but none really appeal to me.  I am hopeful that there will be a lot more options when I go to buy a car again in 2027.

Edited March 15, 20178 yr by kelownabomberfan

29 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I am looking at buying a new car this year.  I usually drive my vehicles for at least 10 years.  I am hoping this is the last gas-powered vehicle I ever buy.  There are a few electric options now but none really appeal to me.  I am hopeful that there will be a lot more options when I go to buy a car again in 2027.

No denying it KBF, you'd look pretty spiffy in a Tesla Roadster.  Charging stations are here, I hope to make the move in the next 4-5 years as prices come down for electric vehicles.  Technologically this should have happened 50 years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/wiretapping-congressional-investigation/index.html

(CNN)President Donald Trump's claim that former President Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping of his phones ran into headwinds on several fronts Wednesday, as three top Republicans said they'd seen no evidence of the assertion.

***Oh, looks like Trump lied.  Big surprise.  And wait, along came the "tax return" to distract from the lie.  Nice one Trump, releasing your own tax return from a year most attractive to you.  As unpredictable as Trump started, he's going to get very predictable very fast.

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I am looking at buying a new car this year.  I usually drive my vehicles for at least 10 years.  I am hoping this is the last gas-powered vehicle I ever buy.  There are a few electric options now but none really appeal to me.  I am hopeful that there will be a lot more options when I go to buy a car again in 2027.

I'm sure you know that government interventions -- mileage requirements, subsidies, tax credits, emission regulations/targets -- are a major driver in electric vehicle development. The EPA is the agency that designs and enforces a lot of those interventions.

Also, George Soros is a Tesla investor, and the US government is helping to prop up Tesla right now, giving their buyers a $7500 tax credit. More tax money funneled into his pockets! Tho I don't know how Al Gore gets his cut.

Edited March 15, 20178 yr by johnzo

Im the farthest thing from an expert in electric cars, but isnt part of the issue the chicken & egg thing - you need X amount of cars on the road to justify investment in charging stations but no one wants to invest in stations if no one is using them.

Also, has the technology advanced to where we can have an electric vehicle in Manitoba?