On September 26, when Dion came out of the Quebec Caucus meeting that has caused him such trouble since (hello Jamie Carroll!), he clearly and without reservation laid out FOUR conditions that had to be met for the Liberals to vote against the Throne Speech.

He told reporters:

"We have four priorities...They are known, and we've declared and communicated more than a month ago those things.
The first of them is that the Bill C-30 on climate change stay alive...
We need also the second priority to fight against poverty, to fight for families. This government has done nothing and it’s unacceptable.
The third priority being that we need to have a plan for the economy...
And also, we need as the fourth priority, we need clarity towards Afghanistan. What's this thing of asking extra time for allies before, you know, sending our plan for Afghanistan? We need to announce clearly to our allies what we're going to do, that our mission will change in 2009. That's what we ask. That's the minimum we're asking from the Speech from the Throne."

Quebec MP Marlene Jennings backed Dion up, saying that the party has to stand on its values and principles and vote as a group, even if it meant a quick election.

"Our leader, Mr. Dion, has laid out what we want in the Speech from the Throne. If it's not there, it's clear that we vote against it.”

And here we are with a Throne Speech that dumps Kyoto and guts C-30, does nothing to close the prosperity gap, whose only "economic plan" is a regressive competition with the Liberals for yet more corporate tax cuts, and, best of all, telegraphs to Canadians that our fight in Afghanistan will continue until 2011, well beyond the current 2009 deadline.

With the political vacuum caused by an indecisive and unprincipled Liberal Party, reporters are increasingly seeing Jack Layton as the only opposition leader consistently standing up to the Harper Agenda.

This has not gone unnoticed by Liberals. In recent days they have switched gears to disingenuously tell anyone who'll listen that they are only supporting the Throne Speech so…wait for it…Canadian avoid an election.

"Dion’s torn between the passion and the responsibility," one typically anonymous MP told the Globe today.

"He said, 'What should be part of our calculation is, is there something that can justify to Canadians why we're going to an election, is there something that can expose Harper and how we can defeat him?"

Last month Liberal MP Bryon Wilfert offered a more honest assessment to Canadians. The Liberals, he said, do not have “the winning conditions” for an election victory.

“You need three things to win an election: money, organization and money. We're doing better with money after that lengthy leadership process, but if anybody tells you we have all of those things, they are obviously deluding themselves.”

Wilfret is right. As much as Dion and his entourage want us to believe their capitulation on allegedly sacred political values is about avoiding an election for Canadians, in reality it’s about something less altrustic: saving Liberals from political oblivion.

Liberals are in unprecedented disarray. They have no national director following Carroll’s meltdown. Yesterday Dion “encouraged” Marcel Proulx to resign as his Quebec Lieutenant, then got a pass from potential successors, Denis Coderre and Pablo Rodriguez. Still smarting from three by-election losses, Dion’s popularity in Quebec is half of Jack Layton’s. “Star” candidates from Halifax to Quebec are deciding to sit the next election out. Despite McGuinty’s win, Dion is not him. Ridings that narrowly went Liberal—from Northern Ontario to urban Toronto—would easily go Orange.

So to recap: Liberals = weak, ineffective, still in the penalty box trying to understand what they believe, ready to sell out Canadians if it buys them a bit of time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyRiddle:
The Liberal Party used to boast that it stood for something. No longer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BitWhys:
amendments
amendments
amendments

This party is just getting started.

---

Dion is going to give him a blank cheque and let Harper's agenda pass.

So much for Liberal values -- just like election night in 2006, Liberals are back to wondering what they are doing in Ottawa. Well, at least in that they aren't alone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fellowtraveller:

Wait until the Bloc and NDP, who both want an election, start churning out more and more amendments -confidence votes all-that the Liberals will be obliged to oppose, thereby supporting the Tories again and again.

---

The sheer malicious glee of it! I like.

quote:

---

They call laughter the kiss of death in politics – and the smooches rained down upon Stephane Dion from the Conservative benches today.

By the time he finished a 45-minute speech in which he declared he would not bring down the government, the Liberal leader was deluged with derisive guffaws.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined in as his troops chuckled openly at Dion. The laughter first erupted when Dion declared that the Liberal party was tough on crime.

The mockery grew louder as Dion launched into a lengthy defence of his record on climate change while lambasting the Tories' abandonment of the Kyoto accord.

Dion persisted without acknowledging his opponents, who by this time were gobsmacked by a case of the mass giggles. It was so widespread at one point that even Michael Ignatieff – the Liberals' deputy leader who sits right next to Dion – cupped his face to stifle a laugh.

But Dion plodded ahead.

---

Good to see journos seeing Dion's impotent and immoral stand against Harper's "Republican Bush values" for what it is. It has nothing to do with protecting Canadians from an election, but everything to do with saving the sorry asses of Liberal MPs.

"Liberal leader Stephane Dion looked out over his brooding caucus yesterday morning and saw dead people--dozens of MP's bracing for their forced march into an electoral Jonestown where tombstones would be their final result.

That's when he knew there could be no retreat with honour, only the indignity of Mr. Dion's unconditional surrender to a 'hyper-Conservative platform' that may yet form the basis of his bitter rival's next campaign."

For shame.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: JimmyRiddle ]

By doing that they would of probably went up in the polls and did good. That they didn't cause an election is just going to prove the point that the Neo-Cons and the Liberals are the same party and are just paving the road for each other using every trick, con and manipulation they have learned in the last 100's of years to trick Canadians into thinking they are the opposite or different from each other when they are really the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddy Kat:
They proved to me they have no values other than selfishly motivated ones. If they would of voted against the throne speech and caused an election, that would of shown Canadians that they do give a damn and party politics plays second fiddle to moral and social values and they have some integrity.

By doing that they would of probably went up in the polls and did good. That they didn't cause an election is just going to prove the point that the Neo-Cons and the Liberals are the same party and are just paving the road for each other using every trick, con and manipulation they have learned in the last 100's of years to trick Canadians into thinking they are the opposite or different from each other when they are really the same.

Good cop - bad cop the oldest effective trick in the book....now watch them pave the road for the crime bill for each other. One thing is for sure they are paranoid weasels...but I hate to tell them there jig is up ...I for one can see right thru them. Can you?????

---

Would HAVE, would HAVE, would HAVE!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

Would HAVE, would HAVE, would HAVE!

Jesus, did they build a nuclear power plant at the end of your street?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

Would HAVE, would HAVE, would HAVE!

Jesus, did they build a nuclear power plant at the end of your street?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandy47:

Maybe so, but get a grip. Would've, would've, would've. Many say it. See where the possibility of a written error lies in that? Whassamatter - you never make mistakes? Moderator!!!

---

No, you get the grippe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Yes, our Liberals in Ontario are planning to spend an estimated $40 - $70 billion dollars of our taxpayers money on nuclear power mega-expansion. They've changed our environmental laws to pave the way for another Darlington nuclear power megafiasco and without any public consultation either. The bozos have handed McGuinty 22% of the eligible vote and 100% of power for four more years. They can do whatever they want because they will enjoy zero political opposition with their renewed phony majority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:
Phony majority it may be, but what else is there that can provide as much power as nuclear without producing CFCs like coal-fired plants?

---

Do you even know what a CFC is? Here's a hint: they are not a by-product of either coal or nuclear power generation.

quote:

---

But Dion plodded ahead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Do you even know what a CFC is? Here's a hint: they are not a by-product of either coal or nuclear power generation.

As for the Faustian choice between nuclear and coal, I don't think that we should have to choose between nuclear waste and smog / global warming (actual byproducts of nuclear and coal generation).

---

Chlorofluorocarbons. I meant to say 'greenhouse gases'.

Nuclear waste isn't a big deal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

Phony majority it may be, but what else is there that can provide as much power as nuclear without producing CFCs like coal-fired plants?

---

well, i've suggested it before, and will again. we dome Queen's park, put turbines on the top and capture all the hot air. that could easily displace any nuclear option, and likely generate a surplus!

...the nuke industry doesn't make any money. in fact it loses it by the fistful. so governments subsidize it to the tune of billions, essentially making even privately owned ones publicly paid for. and they are proven unreliable. so since the "market" for nuclear is essentially a capitalist fiction and we pay for it anyway....

imagine if the Ontario Government spent 40-70 BILLLION on developing an alternative energy industry in ontario. we have the manufacturing base and technical knowlege. turbines, solar panels, deep water cooling, geothermal etc. etc. we could very quickly become an exporter of the technology and create a mixed green generation system, with each component backing the other up in the case of shortfalls. imagine the revolution if that kind of money was put into developing industrial battery technology like flow batteries that can store wind and solar generated power during peak conditions, then distribute it in off peak times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:
...Nuclear waste isn't a big deal.

But whether you think you should have to choose one or the other or not, you do. There's no other option. And nuclear isn't a bad one. We've had thirty years of people demonizing it, but they were wrong.

---

oh, no. no big deal. it just sits around on site for thousands of years being toxic to all life because there is no way to dispose of it.

oh, reprocessing you say? sure, lets reprocess it to end up with weapons grade plutonium and depleted uranium we can sell to the U.S. military industry. wheeee!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:
Chlorofluorocarbons. I meant to say 'greenhouse gases'.

---

Among their other faults, CFCs (and their substitute, HCFCs) are greenhouse gases as well. My point was that they have nothing to do with the production of electricity through the burning of coal.

quote:

---

Nuclear waste isn't a big deal.

---

PM me your address and I'll see if I can arrange for some to be buried in your backyard. You might want to check with your neighbours, though.

quote:

---

But whether you think you should have to choose one or the other or not, you do. There's no other option. And nuclear isn't a bad one. We've had thirty years of people demonizing it, but they were wrong.

---

I hate to contribute to thread drift, but please do tell us precisely how critics of nuclear power have been wrong? Specifically, I'd love to see you refuit their accusations that nuclear is:

• massively expensive
• notoriously unreliable
• completely lacking in options for safe disposal of waste

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:

well, i've suggested it before, and will again. we dome Queen's park, put turbines on the top and capture all the hot air. that could easily displace any nuclear option, and likely generate a surplus!

...the nuke industry doesn't make any money. in fact it loses it by the fistful. so governments subsidize it to the tune of billions, essentially making even privately owned ones publicly paid for. and they are proven unreliable. so since the "market" for nuclear is essentially a capitalist fiction and we pay for it anyway....

imagine if the Ontario Government spent 40-70 BILLLION on developing an alternative energy industry in ontario. we have the manufacturing base and technical knowlege. turbines, solar panels, deep water cooling, geothermal etc. etc. we could very quickly become an exporter of the technology and create a mixed green generation system, with each component backing the other up in the case of shortfalls. imagine the revolution if that kind of money was put into developing industrial battery technology like flow batteries that can store wind and solar generated power during peak conditions, then distribute it in off peak times.

the nuke industry wouldn't exist without massive govt. subsidy. why do we expect the renewable side of things to magically appear on it's own?

---

I didn't say it would make money, necessarily. I am just telling you that for all people go on about "alternative energy sources" not ONE could meet the world's power generation needs or even get close.

I guess something to remember is that nuclear power was invested in because the theory behind it correctly predicted great returns in both weaponry and power generation. It wasn't as if people in 1930 were completely unsure it would work if they tried it. In short, money was invested because they were damn sure it could be done and would be effective. Not money was invested to find a way to maybe get it done so it might be effective which is what people seem to be proposing with so-called green energy sources.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:

oh, no. no big deal. it just sits around on site for thousands of years being toxic to all life because there is no way to dispose of it.

oh, reprocessing you say? sure, lets reprocess it to end up with weapons grade plutonium and depleted uranium we can sell to the U.S. military industry. wheeee!

sorry about the drift folks, but i cannot abide the "greenwashing" of the most toxic form of power generation ever invented.

---

Some nuclear waste can have half-lives that long, yes. Low-level waste is not a problem, however.

As for high-level waste, there's not that much of it, and there are options.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

I didn't say it would make money, necessarily. I am just telling you that for all people go on about "alternative energy sources" not ONE could meet the world's power generation needs or even get close.

I guess something to remember is that nuclear power was invested in because the theory behind it correctly predicted great returns in both weaponry and power generation. It wasn't as if people in 1930 were completely unsure it would work if they tried it. In short, money was invested because they were damn sure it could be done and would be effective. Not money was invested to find a way to maybe get it done so it might be effective which is what people seem to be proposing with so-called green energy sources.

All that said, I haven't a problem with public money being used to research and improve power generation sources. But we must careful not to expect something to come out of thin air if we throw money at it.

---

nuclear power and weaponry did come out of thin air. with massive military funding that had nothing to do with providing power for the public. the initial research and development was specifically invested to figure out a way to kill people...humans...on a massive scale. and it worked! yay! then in peace time something had to be done to justify continued funding. ergo, power.

as for ONE source...this is the dumbest thing pro nukers say. most coincidentally are also capitalist free marketers. not sure if you are, but it doesn't matter. why must the doomsayers insist on single source technology? when you create a financial portfolio, or your business grows to a large size, you make sure your investments are diversified, so if there is a shortfall somewhere, something else makes it up.

for 40-70 billion you could retrofit virtually every house in the country with a small solar setup and turbine on the roof, passively supplying power, eliminating all the hysteria of brownouts and rolling blackouts that make nuclear "necessary". this is so bloody obvious it's infuriating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

I hate to contribute to thread drift, but please do tell us precisely how critics of nuclear power have been wrong? Specifically, I'd love to see you refuit their accusations that nuclear is:

• massively expensive
• notoriously unreliable
• completely lacking in options for safe disposal of waste

---

Yes, CFCs are greenhouse gases too.

Living in an apartment, I don't have a backyard. There is a Denny's nearby, though. Bury it there. Could hardly get more toxic.

I didn't say nuclear wasn't expensive, although that has improved over the years somewhat. I said that if we are truly facing this planetary emergency of global warming, we need to stop burning fossil fuels for power right now and nuclear is the only source which could pick up the slack.

How is it "notoriously unreliable"?

It's not lacking in options for waste disposal. Bury it. Contain it. Blast it into space. Reprocess what you can. Reduce the amount of waste through better production methods.

Just a question, how toxic do you think it is? There are still people alive from Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:

nuclear power and weaponry did come out of thin air. with massive military funding that had nothing to do with providing power for the public. the initial research and development was specifically invested to figure out a way to kill people...humans...on a massive scale. and it worked! yay! then in peace time something had to be done to justify continued funding. ergo, power.

as for ONE source...this is the dumbest thing pro nukers say. most coincidentally are also capitalist free marketers. not sure if you are, but it doesn't matter. why must the doomsayers insist on single source technology? when you create a financial portfolio, or your business grows to a large size, you make sure your investments are diversified, so if there is a shortfall somewhere, something else makes it up.

for 40-70 billion you could retrofit virtually every house in the country with a small solar setup and turbine on the roof, passively supplying power, eliminating all the hysteria of brownouts and rolling blackouts that make nuclear "necessary". this is so bloody obvious it's infuriating.

and harper is trying to sell AECL to the Americans. i say let him, and with the crap opposition of Dion and his losers providing no opposition it should be easy. then change the laws banning future nuclear power at the provincial levels of govt. haha. bye bye american suckers.

---

I'm not asking for just ONE source to power the world. I'm asking anybody to show me any of these so-called alternative energy sources which can meet the world's current energy demands. None can right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
for 40-70 billion you could retrofit virtually every house in the country with a small solar setup and turbine on the roof, passively supplying power, eliminating all the hysteria of brownouts and rolling blackouts that make nuclear "necessary". this is so bloody obvious it's infuriating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:
It's not lacking in options for waste disposal. Bury it. Contain it. Blast it into space. Reprocess what you can. Reduce the amount of waste through better production methods.

---

Dragging the thread back on topic (and quite impressed with myself for finding a way to do so)...

The past half dozen interventions haven't even talked about how the Liberals sold out their principles last night to give Stephen Harper a pass.

The NDP have taken the guess work out of it.

And people are talking about it elsewhere, why not here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

I'm not asking for just ONE source to power the world. I'm asking anybody to show me any of these so-called alternative energy sources which can meet the world's current energy demands. None can right now.

No, nuclear power didn't come out of 'thin air'. The theory behind it was established long before the reality of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oppo-Guy:
FLAG ON THE PLAY -- Thread drift.

The past half dozen interventions haven't even talked about how the Liberals sold out their principles last night to give Stephen Harper a pass.

The NDP have taken the guess work out of it.

And people are talking about it elsewhere, why not here?

Are the Dion Liberals already irrelevant on babble?

---

apparently! the Liberals are embarrassing. mass abstention? i wonder what it would be called if me and my co-workers staged a mass abstention? oh! right, a strike! a principle the liberals surely support.

First off, anyone trying to replace the massive amount of energy we use with clean renewal energy is missing a huge part of it. REDUCTION.

quote:

---

This is even better than having a majority government!!! The way Dion has responded, he has created the first ever Majority government in Canada that didn't even have an official opposition. And we didn't even have to vote. Thanks Dion!!!!!!!! You truly do represent what we want!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:

for 40-70 billion you could retrofit virtually every house in the country with a small solar setup and turbine on the roof, passively supplying power, eliminating all the hysteria of brownouts and rolling blackouts that make nuclear "necessary". this is so bloody obvious it's infuriating.

---

Well, I'm just a techie so I guess I have my nerve jumping in here with all the poli-sci types but here goes:

Given that the typical household needs at least a 5kw/day capacity from a generating system I did a google looking for suppliers in Canada that could put something on my roof.

Seems I'd need both wind and solar, since the wind doesn't always blow hard and the sun doesn't always shine. That also means a big expensive battery system to store the power for when I make big demands, like a week of cloudy snowstorm days.

Anyhow, apparently I'm looking at about $30,000 CDN at least, more possibly with incidentals.

How many households in Canada? Maybe 15 million? I don't really know but since everybody seems to pull hard numbers out of their butt on this board let's go with it.

So 15 million times 30 thousand. That's 15x30 plus 9 zeroes = 450,000,000,000.

Did I miss a zero somewhere? I get $450 billion to do every household in Canada.

I was better at math before the kids came.

Our Liberals don't need to funnel all those billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of a few nuclear power contractors on the QT. They could distribute the money widely and affect an economic boom right here in Ontario and turn the corner on these abysmal Liberal-led economies. The conservatives are no better, they are the same thundering nitwits who would have created another Darlington nuclear fiasco same all over again. David Suzuki was in Australia last year trying to convince them that nuclear is expensive, unsafe, dirty, unreliable, and a job killer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:

apparently! the Liberals are embarrassing. mass abstention? i wonder what it would be called if me and my co-workers staged a mass abstention? oh! right, a strike! a principle the liberals surely support.

Here's an idea for making things work...we bring in a scab caucus to fill the Official Non-Opposition's benches. i'm sure they'd like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:

apparently! the Liberals are embarrassing. mass abstention? i wonder what it would be called if me and my co-workers staged a mass abstention? oh! right, a strike! a principle the liberals surely support.

Here's an idea for making things work...we bring in a scab caucus to fill the Official Non-Opposition's benches. i'm sure they'd like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

Well, I'm just a techie so I guess I have my nerve jumping in here with all the poli-sci types but here goes:

Given that the typical household needs at least a 5kw/day capacity from a generating system I did a google looking for suppliers in Canada that could put something on my roof.

Seems I'd need both wind and solar, since the wind doesn't always blow hard and the sun doesn't always shine. That also means a big expensive battery system to store the power for when I make big demands, like a week of cloudy snowstorm days.

Anyhow, apparently I'm looking at about $30,000 CDN at least, more possibly with incidentals.

How many households in Canada? Maybe 15 million? I don't really know but since everybody seems to pull hard numbers out of their butt on this board let's go with it.

So 15 million times 30 thousand. That's 15x30 plus 9 zeroes = 450,000,000,000.

Did I miss a zero somewhere? I get $450 billion to do every household in Canada.

I was better at math before the kids came.

Perhaps someone could make it clearer.

---

I guess we have two different threads going here.

You probably didn't miss a zero. I "blew past" Farnival's remark you quoted because I don't believe something like that could be done for the cost cited and if it were, that it would be a better power generation option than nuclear power.

First of all, if you want to talk unreliability, solar and wind power generation are the height of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
Of course they would; they voted down the anti-scab labour bill, so they should be all peachy-keen with replacement 'scab' opposition.
Might even make them more productive when their jobs can be so easily replaced by eager beaver novo politicos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

You probably didn't miss a zero. I "blew past" Farnival's remark you quoted because I don't believe something like that could be done for the cost cited and if it were, that it would be a better power generation option than nuclear power.

---

Keep in mind that there are real world examples for nuclear power that we don't really want to follow. When a taxpayer funded nuclear power project comes due and payable, like Darlington nuclear expansion became due and payable at the start of the 1990's, there is no room for cost cutting with nuclear facilities without compromising safety. Nuclear power is more expensive than anyone wants to admit to. British taxpayers ended up holding the bag for British Energy's losses invested in expensive nuclear power stations. And the German-controlled PowerGen ended up mothballing 25 percent of its UK stations by 2003 due to lack of profitablity issues. Several other UK nuclear generators have shutdown since then.

There are other ways to create enough electrical power without producing what's known as overcapacity with power generating facilities, another costly situation which taxpayers want to avoid like the plague.

NDP Proposed Peak Demand Savings(MW) Peak (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

conservation	350	350	350	350	350
energy efficiency	300	800	1100	1400	1,700
Demand Managemen	500	1000	1500	2000	2500
Fuel Switching	60	100	150	175	200
Co-generation	150	275	310	340	400
Total	1,360	2,525	3,410	4,265	5,150

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Keep in mind that there are real world examples for nuclear power that we don't really want to follow. When a taxpayer funded nuclear power project comes due and payable, like Darlington nuclear expansion became due and payable at the start of the 1990's, there is no room for cost cutting with nuclear facilities without compromising safety. Nuclear power is more expensive than anyone wants to admit to. British taxpayers ended up holding the bag for British Energy's losses invested in expensive nuclear power stations. And the German-controlled PowerGen ended up mothballing 25 percent of its UK stations by 2003 due to lack of profitablity issues. Several other UK nuclear generators have shutdown since then.

There are other ways to create enough electrical power without producing what's known as overcapacity with power generating facilities, another costly situation which taxpayers want to avoid like the plague.

NDP Proposed Peak Demand Savings(MW) Peak (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

conservation	350	350	350	350	350
energy efficiency	300	800	1100	1400	1,700
Demand Managemen	500	1000	1500	2000	2500
Fuel Switching	60	100	150	175	200
Co-generation	150	275	310	340	400
Total	1,360	2,525	3,410	4,265	5,150

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

Ok, Fidel. I'd like an answer to my central question, though. What else is there that can replace the output of fossil fuel-based power sources in the immediate future?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Not another nuclear power megafiasco like Darlington, that's for sure. I don't think we want to be stuck paying for nuclear power add-ons if they are going to represent another bankrupt nuclear company kept from sinking by the taxpaying public. Of course, Ontarians don't have a say in this matter now that 22% of eligible voters have handed Dalton and his gang 100% of power for the next four years. We won't see any expensive nuclear power generation for at least another 10 long-years and after this gang in Toronto has spent a lot of money before hitting the happy trail and laughing all the way to bank and for cushy rewards in the private sector for jobs well done. In the meantime, they won't have any extra money leftover for what would produce results for Ontario in the here and now.

---

I notice you still did not answer Dead_Letter's question. This is what constantly appalls us "techie" types. Anybody with hair in his ears can come up with a reason to say no. Few people can offer technical solutions THAT ACTUALLY WORK!

That's the thing about the Universe. It doesn't care about your dreams or your political persuasion. Something either works or it doesn't. The reason no one here wants to tackle how a quick move to solar and wind would pan out is because if they know enough to properly answer the question they know that it would NOT pan out!

Someday wind and solar will be appropriate. Maybe faster than we think. I'll bet 3 beer that it won't be in the next 10 years!

As for nuclear power being so frightfully expensive, our history in Ontario shows us no such thing. What we were shown was that A NUCLEAR PLANT BUILT BY POLITICIANS WILL BE FRIGHTFULLY EXPENSIVE!

I'd be very interested to hear figures about nuclear plants built by OTHER SOURCES! Are there private vendors that can come in on time and on budget? Or even other countries with nuclear programs?

The fact that we failed so miserably here in Ontario doesn't prove anything about the cost of nuclear power in itself. It just proved that WE failed in doing it! It's like claiming the safety record of a politically-run unsafe powderkeg like Chernobyl applies to any other nuke plant designed and operated by sane people. Anybody who can't see this point should be forced to drive a Lada or a Yugo for a couple of years.

This really should be in another thread but I suspect it's going to die anyway. There's not enough qualified opinions here to debate it. Once enough people stamp their feet and demand their unworkable dreams there won't be much more that can be said.

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Wild Bill ]

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Wild Bill ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:
... Mr. Dion is better informed than any of us on what the Liberal election machine looks like...

---

Babble exclusive!

The Liberal Election Machine:

1) Fully fund Transit through massive gasoline tax increase
2) Fully fund a rail transportation system by massive trucking fee increase
3) Immediate ban on old lightbulbs
4) Immediate Pollution tax on GHG emmitting Industries that pays for...
5) Massive funding for retrofitting of energy reduction initiatives and insulation
6) Trees everywhere and rooftop garden initiatives
____
7) Wind, Solar, Hydro power initiatives
8) higher on the grid pricing
9) Canadian Ban of exporting of energy
10) massive funding on Lake water cooling and geothermal heating projects.

That's generally what I got in my head as a really strong start. As you'll notice, the first 6 have to do with the most important factor in Green Energy, which I mentioned above and everyone conveniently ignored. REDUCTION.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
A rough outline to a plan that works.

1) Fully fund Transit through massive gasoline tax increase
2) Fully fund a rail transportation system by massive trucking fee increase
3) Immediate ban on old lightbulbs
4) Immediate Pollution tax on GHG emmitting Industries that pays for...
5) Massive funding for retrofitting of energy reduction initiatives and insulation
6) Trees everywhere and rooftop garden initiatives
____
7) Wind, Solar, Hydro power initiatives
8) higher on the grid pricing
9) Canadian Ban of exporting of energy
10) massive funding on Lake water cooling and geothermal heating projects.

That's generally what I got in my head as a really strong start. As you'll notice, the first 6 have to do with the most important factor in Green Energy, which I mentioned above and everyone conveniently ignored. REDUCTION.

You CAN NOT base the society on Green Energy at the present levels, it just won't work, it HAS to be coupled with energy reduction or it will not work.

---

1. Go ahead! Commit political suicide! Then what are you going to do after you're voted out to the wilderness?

2. If rail would work we'd already be using it. Most businesses would rather suck on the lit end of a road flare than use rail. Why? Rail is far more expensive, with old-fashioned unions that command ridiculously high pay scales and a management that has built a system where cars cannot be tracked and are often even lost! Besides, rail is too slow for most shipments. It's ok for a car full of grain or iron ore but if you fill the cars with parcels the railroads are just far slower than UPS or Fed-Ex in sorting them out and delivering them.

We will never see commercials about "hero" employees who shipped a parcel by rail to arrive the next day.

3. A ban on light bulbs is attacking the trivial part of the equation. The power drawn by home lighting is a spit in the ocean compared to the total power load in the average house with washers, dryers, ovens and furnace motors.

A 1500 watt toaster oven consumes the same power as over 166 9w compact flourescent lamps!

The idea may sound good, but math shows it doesn't actually DO good!

4. Pollution tax on industries? Go ahead. They're all moving to China and India anyway where there are NO pollution laws or taxes. This will just make them leave a little faster, that's all.

5. Maybe. More insulation can't hurt. The problem is that running the funding through a government office usually wastes $10 for every $1 actually spent on the goal.

6. I like trees! Rooftop gardens are nice too. Don't know how they could work in Toronto. Lots of rooftops but once your tomatoes are ripe are you going to see thousands of rooftop loads being shuttled around the city to markets by use of the TTC? It's a sure bet Toronto couldn't handle that many more delivery trucks.

Maybe if deliveries were only allowed at night and banned from moving during the day it might work. That would of course generate other problems...

7. Wind, solar and hydro. Well, do we have many more suitable hydro sites? And the distribution towers to deliver the power where we need it? It doesn't get from James Bay to Burlington by rail, you know! Besides, the native peoples seem to be flat out against the idea.

Wind and solar are still too expensive. Again, triple Joe Lunchbucket's electricity bill and see how long you keep his vote and stay in power. He's doing all he can just to feed his kids.

8. See #7.

9. Ban power exports? Are you asking to have not just Quebec but Manitoba separate from Canada? They can't sell any more power to Ontario because there are no wires to send the power down. They depend on selling to the Americans for an important part of their provincial budget to care for their citizens. How to you propose to make it up to them? Keep in mind that their political leaders don't want to get voted out either.

10. Massive funding? Geothermal? How massive are you talking? What's the payback? How long will it take? Will it bankrupt a province or the country in the attempt?

People will want the answers FIRST before they will ever vote for a party that wants to do this or if already in power expects to stay there!

As for reduction, suppose we achieved 100% efficiency? This would of course contravene the Laws of Physics but for purposes of argument let's go with it.

While we are doing this we have more and more people coming in who want to have lights to read with and ovens to cook their food. Obviously we'd still need more power sources. So your suggestion only affects the timeline and not the actual need.

BTW, how much power do you think would be available by use of "reduction" That toaster oven I mentioned still needs 1500 watts. There is no known way in this reality for it to do the same job with less. Microwave ovens are more efficient but try cooking a hamburger in one. The meat will still look raw. YOU eat it! Nobody else is likely to follow your example.

Are you implying that we could save 10% of our available power? 20%? 50%?! Ontario alone may need as much as 30-40% more available power to meet the needs of the near future. If you think "reduction" can achieve this then I'd be very interested in how you think we can get such things as toaster ovens and furnace motors to get by on less. If you make enough sense in your technical details I'd be very interested in investing in a company with you to start manufacturing such products.

We haven't even mentioned the power needed to smelt steel or produce aluminum!

I'm sorry, but I just don't see enough practical details in your 10 suggestions to agree with you. I can keep an open mind but that doesn't mean I'll let a "mighty wind" toot through it!

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Wild Bill ]

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Wild Bill ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

2. If rail would work we'd already be using it. Most businesses would rather suck on the lit end of a road flare than use rail. Why? Rail is far more expensive, with old-fashioned unions that command ridiculously high pay scales and a management that has built a system where cars cannot be tracked and are often even lost! Besides, rail is too slow for most shipments. It's ok for a car full of grain or iron ore but if you fill the cars with parcels the railroads are just far slower than UPS or Fed-Ex in sorting them out and delivering them.

We will never see commercials about "hero" employees who shipped a parcel by rail to arrive the next day.

---

My experience as purchaser was that rail was far cheaper. The criticism of rail was that it was a rougher ride (damage) and you can not guarantee delivery dates.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:

Babble exclusive!

The Liberal Election Machine:

---

HA! Good one. Notice the driver is nowhere to be found either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

I'd be quite willing to step up to the plate. I am quite good at 'faking to the left.'

---

So Wild Bill what brings you to this site? Lets see if I understand this rail bad trucks better, solar bad, wind power bad, nuclear divine. And of course the right wing mantra government action bad bad bad. Private sector the light of the world. BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS

As a techie does your job have anything to do with developing nuclear?

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

My experience as purchaser was that rail was far cheaper. The criticism of rail was that it was a rougher ride (damage) and you can not guarantee delivery dates.

We used an intermodal (truck->rail->truck) service and it cut our freight costs by 25%.

---

Hey, I never said NOTHING is better shipped by rail! I just believe that by far the lion's share of parcels and goods that are being shipped by truck could not accept the increased time and inefficiencies of rail transport.

Personally, I'd champion using Zeppelins to replace much of truck transportation! I'm quite serious and would be prepared to defend the idea but this would definitely demand another thread!

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Question: if the Liberals are really such sitting ducks and have to acquiesce to every whim of Emperor Harper, then why doesn't the PM simply call an election anyway and trounce the Liberals at the polls to get a majority? Am I mistaken in thinking this is a bit of a sideshow to distract the citizenry?

---

I think it is because unless the government falls due to a confidence vote the GG could ask the party with the second most seats to form the government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:
The biggest risk I see of promoting nuclear power is that other countries will use it to produce nuclear weapons. The actual pollution a civilian nuclear plant causes is minimal, especially when compared with coal.

---

If it's not a problem, then why did Dalton McGuilty see fit to change Ontario's environmental laws ahead of time to accommodate what will be another nuclear power megafiasco?

If nuclear power is the eureka answer that will allow us to continue playing at widget capitalism and expansion of what is an unustainable economy in order to satisfy a banking cabal snapping at everyone's heels to get moving and borrow more money, then why are the Yanks having to import power from Canada? No country has more nuke power plants than the U.S., and here were are a net exporter of hydro-electric power to that country. In fact, Canada exports massive, simply massive amounts of total energy to the U.S., the most wasteful and most unsustainable economy in the world with a voraceous appetite for cheap Canadian energy.

Solar and other forms of renwable power are doable. We have to start living within our means and using locally-generated power, because electric power generation is a natural monopoly and not suitable for marketization and profiteering except on the backs of a taxpaying public. NeoLiberal capitalist schemes for privatization and deregulation are proven to be costly mistakes around the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:

I think you are slightly mistaken the Liberal history goes;" Just a step to the left (remember not a big step) and JUMP TO THE RIGHT".

So Wild Bill what brings you to this site? Lets see if I understand this rail bad trucks better, solar bad, wind power bad, nuclear divine. And of course the right wing mantra government action bad bad bad. Private sector the light of the world. BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS

As a techie does your job have anything to do with developing nuclear?

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

---

"Just a step to the left!" Rocky Horror, anyone?

Actually, I came to this site because I'm a longtime political junkie and enjoy discussion. To be honest, I'm just about ready to bail. I find that the board is so overwhelmingly leftie that it gets rather predictable, at least to me. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having leftie views but to me this board is like a newspaper with virtually the same content on almost every page. I just don't seem anywhere near a balance. I suspect that some of the more rude posters just turn a lot of alternative views off and they don't come back to participate.

I also wouldn't fit such simplistic definitions of my views. As a techie, I think in terms of the most efficient and appropriate solution. That always can change with advances in what is cost-effective and possible, along with the parameters of a situation, or "what we got to work with", if you like.

Wind and solar are perfectly acceptable forms of power in certain situations. At their present level I don't agree they make sense on the top of everyone's house.

And at my age I am not so naive that I believe the private sector is always efficient or even honest. It's just that in my dealings with government run services over my life I have yet to be impressed, ever! It always seems these agencies run like a private sector model, just one from General Motors in 1955!

I think too many of us hold to the illogical fallacy that answers are always digital, i.e. on/off, one or the other. If my man is good then your's must be evil. My party's right and thus your's must be wrong.

The world does not work that way! Often both parties are wrong! And just because you prove that my party leader smells doesn't mean that yours is automatically the essence of roses. That sort of view is just too simplistic but unfortunately I find it all too common.

Particularly in message forums! I find too many posters think that being a champion smartass is the same as being right in their argument. Truth doesn't care. It just is.

As for being a techie, no I'm not in the nuclear industry. I'm one of those who's first book was a science text! I spent my career selling hi-tech electronic parts to manufacturers and industry. I began with the first microprocessor chips invented and ended after 9/11 when the market crashed here in Canada. Remember how Nortel stock fell from over $200 to less than a buck? Nortel was buying perhaps a third of all electronic parts for circuit boards in Canada!

Today I work from my home, repairing and building guitar amplifiers and equipment. Not as much money but a LOT of free beer! Electric guitar amps are still mostly vacuum tube technology. Most guitarists won't use a solid state amp if you put a gun to their head. The distortion is different. If you want to sound like Van Halen or Cobain you need tubes. Since tube technology hasn't been taught in schools for over 40 years it's a nice niche for me with little or no real competition!

And even amongst my customers I'm surrounded by lefties! All musicians are left in their politics, it seems. The only one I've ever heard of that isn't is Ted Nugent!

Anyhow, enough of the hijack. I just couldn't let what seemed to me to be butchered impractical tech solutions (from poli-sci majors?) go unchallenged!

Now, back to the flames!

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Wild Bill ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

1. Go ahead! Commit political suicide! Then what are you going to do after you're voted out to the wilderness?

...

I'm sorry, but I just don't see enough practical details in your 10 suggestions to agree with you. I can keep an open mind but that doesn't mean I'll let a "mighty wind" toot through it!

---

So I'm not going to go through each point line for line, but you just gave the perfect example of why this whole system (and possibly planet) is going to collapse upon itself.

Zero political balls, zero acceptance of personal responsibility to the planet, a massive amount of FUD about how hard these measures would be to implement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

Hey, I never said NOTHING is better shipped by rail! I just believe that by far the lion's share of parcels and goods that are being shipped by truck could not accept the increased time and inefficiencies of rail transport.

Personally, I'd champion using Zeppelins to replace much of truck transportation! I'm quite serious and would be prepared to defend the idea but this would definitely demand another thread!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The answer, as you've hinted at, is to invest in renewable power sources and non-polluting technologies. Solar panels right now are expensive and inefficient at converting solar to electric energy. But there scientists saying that with basic research into new materials technology, solar will eventually become cheap and so efficient. So efficient that unlike previous claims for nuclear, the power really will be too cheap to even meter.

---

I'm reminded of an old FireSign Theater sketch, where one of the teenage characters says:"Whaddya gonna do tomorrow?" and another replies:"Yeah, but it's today!"

This morning I read a Canadian Tire flyer that offered a 6.5 watt solar panel for $199.99. This means that you could power no more than one of those 13 watt compact flourescent lamps that all the Greens are raving about from that panel, under a bright sun! A bit of cloud or nightfall and that lamp goes out.

To do this would cost $400!

Yes, someday efficiencies will improve but it's today! We need power today and we need to pay our bills today!

I still maintain that if any party tries to bootstrap the evolution of wind and solar techolnogy by gouging working people on their energy bills they will be turfed from office harder and faster than what happened to the Mulroney/Campbell Tories!

Most Canadians are just being squeezed to hard to accept being taxed more for someone else's dream solution.

Give us cheap solar or wind power (don't forget the deep-cycle batteries you need to go with them!) FIRST and then you'll get people to follow! Proponents of these power sources seem to have little or no technical knowledge themselves but have absolute confidence in SOMEONE ELSE to invent a cheap solution!

quote:

---

johnpauljones: ... unless the government falls due to a confidence vote the GG could ask the party with the second most seats to form the government.

---

Are you sure about that? We have the following from Senator Eugene A. Forsey’s booklet "How Canadians Govern Themselves." It is available online at:

How Canadians Govern Themselves: Forsey

quote:

---

In Canada, the Prime Minister and his cabinet can call an election at any time within five years of the last election. When that happens, the Prime Minister must either surrender office to the opposition party (the party that has the second-most seats in the House of Commons) or ask the Governor General to dissolve (end) Parliament and call an election.

---

I read this as meaning that the PM can call an election and has a choice about which way to go. Would the Governor General really say "No"?

quote:

---

... a government must ask permission to call an election - but the Queen or the Governor General almost never says no.

---

The GG would have to copy the conduct of a previous GG in the "King-Byng" affair of 1921 and refuse the wishes of an existing PM and call upon the opposition to form a government. Is that really likely today?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

No, you said rail was more expensive because of their wage costs when in fact it is cheaper.

---

Perhaps I wasn't perfectly clear. So what? If it is cheaper IN ENOUGH CASES why are there so many trucks on the highways? Are all those businesses simply stupid and pay more?

I thought your point had to do with the volume of truck shipping and all the resultant pollution, with rail as a solution. My rebuttal position is that rail has unresolved problems and peculiarities that make it a less desirable solution to the lion's share of the shipments!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

Perhaps I wasn't perfectly clear. So what? If it is cheaper IN ENOUGH CASES why are there so many trucks on the highways? Are all those businesses simply stupid and pay more?

---

Because we don't cost out things properly.

First off we're abnormally subsidizing personal vehicular transport far higher than anything else.

Second, we're not taking into consideration the environmental impact. There is a cost here, but we don't look at it fairly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:

So I'm not going to go through each point line for line, but you just gave the perfect example of why this whole system (and possibly planet) is going to collapse upon itself.

Zero political balls, zero acceptance of personal responsibility to the planet, a massive amount of FUD about how hard these measures would be to implement.

I agree, lots of people are going to argue against extreme measures, but if we don't do something now our resources, our air, our forests and our basic environment is going to be far past the point of recovery, if it isn't already.

---

Assuming you're right about the degree of the danger, it doesn't matter a hoot about "balls" as far as the workability of any proposed solution.

My point was simply that I didn't find any of the 10 proposals to be practical or even possible. Mother Nature doesn't care how you feel about things.

You're not talking about what would work. You're talking about motivation. The previous discussion stemmed from the suitability of wind and solar power, even to having "one on every roof".

If you want to talk about how important something is to you, that's one thing. If you want to propose a solution to a problem you get no points for simple motivation. If you want to fix a problem you need a solution that will WORK!

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:

Because we don't cost out things properly.

First off we're abnormally subsidizing personal vehicular transport far higher than anything else.

Second, we're not taking into consideration the environmental impact. There is a cost here, but we don't look at it fairly.

So your point being that JIT industries cannot rely on rail the way they can rely on trucks, and you're right. My point, Too fucking bad. I'm tired of paying for coporate profits with OUR air, OUR water, OUR land, OUR lives.

---

Your perfectly entitled to your view. If you want to change how all those industries operate, you're gonna need a lot of guns. Few would accept the resultant sacrifices willingly.

I am thoroughly sick of rap and hip hop. So what? Should any hip hop fan care? Will my tastes change the scene for all those who feel differently?

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

"Actually, I came to this site because I'm a longtime political junkie and enjoy discussion. To be honest, I'm just about ready to bail. I find that the board is so overwhelmingly leftie that it gets rather predictable, at least to me. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having leftie views but to me this board is like a newspaper with virtually the same content on almost every page.
[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Wild Bill ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

I'm reminded of an old FireSign Theater sketch, where one of the teenage characters says:"Whaddya gonna do tomorrow?" and another replies:"Yeah, but it's today!"

---

Well what you say makes complete sense if you completely ignore everything the NDP has said about renewable energy sources combined with energy efficiency and conservation. It's not entirely the NDP's ideas alone, Bill. This same approach is working in the U.S. state of California where harebrained schemes for power deregulation have failed miserably and were in the process of failing in Ontario before Mike the knife's people put a stop to it themselves.

Nuclear Power: doing brain surgery to treat a headache

In New Brunswick, nuclear has basically bankrupted NB Power. The utility now has negative net worth an unreliable power supply, and it's because they gambled on building a nuclear plant – which accounts for 30% of the province's production when operating – did not produce enough reliable power to pay the bills coming in through the mail every month.

In Quebec, nuclear power was less of a disaster, but only because province recognized the screwup and put the kibosh to nuclear early on. Hydro Quebec remains solvent only because there are huge hydro-electric reserves in excess making money.

In Ontario, harebrained Tory government nuclear power projects(Liberals wanted to do the same but with them handling the kick-back, I mean contracts instead) effectively bankrupted Ontario Hydro by 1997, leading to more harebrained breakup and reorganization under the Tories before they were finally booted from power themselves. Of 21 nuclear plants built Ontario, 14 are operating today. Ontario's large supplies of hydro-electric power at Niagara Falls and other water plants producing cheapest power from falling water, are not enough to counteract huge costs of the system carrying expensive to maintain nuclear baggage leftover from Conservative governments(and Liberals chomping at the bit) stuck in a 1950's nuclear time warp.

Renewable is doable and could be saving us money and producing new power in the here and now and not ten years down the road when it becomes evident we were taken to the cleaners.

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

Your perfectly entitled to your view. If you want to change how all those industries operate, you're gonna need a lot of guns. Few would accept the resultant sacrifices willingly.

I am thoroughly sick of rap and hip hop. So what? Should any hip hop fan care? Will my tastes change the scene for all those who feel differently?

We should start a thread about creating solutions THAT WILL WORK! (and maybe stop hijacking this one!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:

You probably don't think a massive 'peace' initiative wouldn't work because there's always someone out there who 'hates us for our freedoms'. But I do NOT agree with you that it won't work simply because there is ZERO evidence that it won't work, and that's because no one has tried it, same thing with peace.

---

Actually, I would have some hope for a "peace" initiative! As long as it's not unilateral. If both sides want peace such issues can be resolved. If only one side wants that goal then of course it can't work.

I'm the product of the 60's, where peace was the aim of people all over the planet, including behind parts of the Iron Curtain. Rock and Roll brought down the Berlin Wall, of that I am convinced.

However, you've changed the terms of the argument. Such initiatives are political and/or philosophical. The result DOES depend on how the participants care or are motivated about the issue!

That is not the case with how much power you can get from a solar panel and how much it costs. Or whether or not rail can satisfy the needs of enough customers to reduce truck traffic on the highways. These are issues with physical parameters. No amount of "balls" will change how much current will flow through an ohm of resistance under 1 volt of pressure. You get 1 amp and you'll be liking it! That's the way Mother Nature works and no amount of motivation can ever change it. Also, it is not logical to assume that technology will automatically produce whatever we want, given enough time and money thrown at a problem. It is entirely possible that the way the Universe works says that solar cells are as efficient as they're gonna get and that's it!

Now I myself am confident that we might indeed find a solution but as a techie I am prepared that Nature may have a limit as to how far we can go with solar. We may have to turn to something different. Still, it doesn't make sense to assume that if we tax people harder we will automatically get cheap solar power and just go ahead and do it! If we're wrong, who suffers? What solution did we miss while we were wasting time trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just because we really, really, really wanted it to fit?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
You know that completely describes my experience with most MSM forums. Any talk of anything left wing is immediately flamed by neo-cons who are convinced that the Invicsible Hand is god. For many of us this is a nice respite from that reality. Here you can discuss issues from various nuanced left positions instead of places were being a Liberal is being left wing.

---

Well, we have that in common. Misery and ennui!

I'd ask you for some url's of those neo-con boards except they would bore me just the same.

I guess this just proves that it's just human nature to clump together in like-minded groups. I believe it was KenS who used the term "religious left" on this board. I loved it! It perfectly describes how I've often felt trying to debate with many lefties. It was the same feeling I'd get when I actually talked with those Witnesses hammering on my door early on a weekend morning. Many of the posters on this board have given me the impression they'd love nothing more than a chance to burn a "heretic".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

Actually, I would have some hope for a "peace" initiative! As long as it's not unilateral. If both sides want peace such issues can be resolved. If only one side wants that goal then of course it can't work.

---

You just hit the nail on the head here Billy. It's exactly that reason it hasn't worked yet.

I agree (see my first post) Solar isn't the answer. Not on it's own. You keep saying things like 'it won't work because people won't like X' and the only reason people don't want it to work is because it would inconvenience all of us. That's the bare simple fact. There's no magic bullet technical solution that we're missing here, sorry, but we've been chasing down that snipe for decades now.

We need immediate uncomfortable reductions in our energy usage to get it to work. Entire industries will be shattered. Peoples giant houses will be abondoned. Governments will be thrown out of office. That's just the bare facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Bill's just worried about their freedom, the corporate jackals and their hirelings in Ontario's two old line political parties' rights to cheat and rob us with expensive nuclear power megafiascos. Cost? No problem, because if we follow mistakes made in California and UK closely enough, we, too, will have the opportunity to re-mortgage our homes in order to pay the light bills and for another nuclear power megafiasco, but this time with the Liberals on the receiving end."wink and a nod on the QT" Just so long as our phony majority governments are able to do their jobs for a little kick-back and a little graft on the side. That's all they're demanding from us without any political oppo ove the next four years.

Put it all out of your mind, Bill, because what you think and say on the issue just doesn't matter to the powermongers in Toronto. Trust and obey, it's the only way now.

---

Yeah sure, that was it! It's so much clearer now that you've pointed it out. How could I have missed not understanding what I meant?

As I had said, I'll just keep on truckin'!

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles:
What values did the Liberals betray? What values did they have in the first place?

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnpauljones: ... unless the government falls due to a confidence vote the GG could ask the party with the second most seats to form the government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Canadians Govern Themselves: Forsey

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... a government must ask permission to call an election - but the Queen or the Governor General almost never says no.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The GG would have to copy the conduct of a previous GG in the "King-Byng" affair of 1921 and refuse the wishes of an existing PM and call upon the opposition to form a government. Is that really likely today?

Seems to me if Harper wanted an election he could simply call on the GG to take the appropriate steps. And his advisors would have already told him that.

---

Yes, after nearly 2 years of government, there is absolutely no chance the GG would refuse Harper if he were to ask for dissolution. The only time the GG (or LG in the provinces) would call on the 2nd party to form a government is in the Frank Miller scenario where a newly-elected gov't was defeated on the very first confidence vote in the House/Legislature a few weeks after the election. This almost never happens, of course.