CupidS Escorts
Toronto Escorts

Toronto Sun - Ontario will never accept Trudeau carbon tax: Phillips

Previous Thread Next Thread
O

Orion1027

Member
Jan 10, 2017
482
3
18
JohnLarue said:
Putting lipstick on pig does not change the fact that it is still a pig
It was a massive tax grab to subsidize irresponsible liberal spending
Click to expand...
It is a massive tax grab by a party and government who don’t have the balls to come out and say that they want more of your money to spend on their ideological pet projects. Can you imagine the uproar if they came out and said they’ll be raising income tax by 10-20%? Instead they use the lie that it’s to fight climate change! And who ever speaks up against that are quickly and publicly shamed as knuckle draggers, or Trump supporters or anything else Gerald Butts can dream up. Bottom line, this is a bullshit tax with the sole purpose of separating you from your money so that Trudeau can hand it out to his socialist causes

Like sending your money to third world despots who no doubt will use the money wisely on things like Mercedes limos, AK 47s, RPGs, and a myriad of other repressive measures
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Orion1027 said:
Well, with Canada producing less than 2% of global greenhouse gas, I fail to see how burdening Canadians with a disingenuous tax is going to achieve anything other than lowering our standard of living.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Federal officials have confirmed that even if Trudeau follows through on his carbon tax threats, Canada will utterly fail to meet the targets it set in Paris three years ago.

Never mind that it would be microscopic on a global scale. As the National Post said on the weekend, it is purely about "symbolism."

The fraction of a fraction of a fraction reduction literally achieves nothing when it comes to carbon emissions.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Here's some polling data that the Trudeau government should find very troubling. It's from the U.S., but it's consistent with trends throughout the world, including Canada.

In polling that was done earlier this month, one of the questions that Gallup asked people was what do they think is the biggest problem facing the country today. It was an open question, meaning respondents could give any answer they liked (rather than choosing from a list of options).

No one said "climate change" or "global warming."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/237392...k_newsv9&g_campaign=item_237389&g_medium=copy
 
C

contact

Well-known member
Aug 1, 2012
3,629
988
113
Frankfooter said:
Yes it is.
Carbon taxes are a prime way to lower fossil fuel use.
Click to expand...
no it wont If today I use 20 liters of gas a week to get to and from work tax or not Im STILL going to use 20 Liters a week I have to get to work, public transit would take me hours( and I haven't taken it in 20+ years) not to mention without the HUGE taxpayer subsidies transit would collapse. I cant see a bus with a handful of people producing less carbon then my car.....

what about home heating? NOT an option in Canada to not heat your house your going to use the same amount of natural gas or oil or god help you electricity to heat you home tax or not
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,054
17,984
113
JohnLarue said:
Putting lipstick on pig does not change the fact that it is still a pig
It was a massive tax grab to subsidize irresponsible liberal spending
Click to expand...
Calling cap and trade a pig doesn't make it a pig.
Prove it wasn't revenue neutral.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Frankfooter said:
The US has a whole host of problems named Trump that we don't.
Useless poll.
Click to expand...
LOL. Here's a poll that was done by the United Nations in 2015, when Obama was president of the U.S. and leaders throughout the world were hyping the upcoming Paris talks on climate change:

http://data.myworld2015.org/

In the list of issues that millions of voters worldwide said are global priorities, climate change ranked dead last.

Most people don't give a damn about climate change. That's one of the many reasons that carbon taxes are such a tough sell.
 
P

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Moviefan-2 said:
Meanwhile, the New York Times ran a column last week where a professor said "the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/opinion/climate-change-parenting.html

That seems rather extreme to me. But what the hell, if Trudeau thinks he can also sell that one to his supporters, he's welcome to try. :thumb:
Click to expand...
Franky ( Frankfooter) is a perfect candidate.... Also Fuji too... I sure you can come up a few more name too!!
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,054
17,984
113
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Frankfooter said:
Did you read the article, or just copy that claim from some oil funded, lobbyist site?
Click to expand...
It wasn't a "claim," it was an assertion of fact. Unlike you, I did read the article. Here's the full quote:

Nutty professor said:
To take Wynes and Nicholas’s recommendations to heart would mean cutting oneself off from modern life. It would mean choosing a hermetic, isolated existence and giving up any deep connection to the future. Indeed, taking Wynes and Nicholas’s argument seriously would mean acknowledging that the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide. There is simply no more effective way to shrink your carbon footprint. Once you’re dead, you won’t use any more electricity, you won’t eat any more meat, you won’t burn any more gasoline, and you certainly won’t have any more children. If you really want to save the planet, you should die.
Click to expand...
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,054
17,984
113
Moviefan-2 said:
It wasn't a "claim," it was an assertion of fact. Unlike you, I did read the article. Here's the full quote:
Click to expand...
You say you read the article.
Does the author really say you should commit suicide because of climate change in that article?
Or are you bullshitting again?
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Frankfooter said:
Does the author really say you should commit suicide because of climate change in that article?
Click to expand...
Yes, he does. Instead of just trolling, try reading it for yourself.

Perhaps you might also want to ask yourself why you can't even believe the things that climate alarmists are writing these days. :biggrin1:
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,054
17,984
113
Moviefan-2 said:
Yes, he does. Instead of just trolling, try reading it for yourself.
Click to expand...
I read it, that's why I was asking if you stood by your claim.
Because the author clearly states it more like 'some would say you should commit suicide but I think.....'
Typical moviefan bullshitting again.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Frankfooter said:
I read it, that's why I was asking if you stood by your claim.
Because the author clearly states it more like 'some would say you should commit suicide but I think.....'
Typical moviefan bullshitting again.
Click to expand...
There is no "some would say" language anywhere in the paragraph cited. Here are the pertinent sentences:

"Indeed, taking Wynes and Nicholas’s argument seriously would mean acknowledging that the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide. There is simply no more effective way to shrink your carbon footprint. Once you’re dead, you won’t use any more electricity, you won’t eat any more meat, you won’t burn any more gasoline, and you certainly won’t have any more children. If you really want to save the planet, you should die."

Furthermore, if you looked at my original post about this column, I didn't paraphrase the professor -- I quoted him directly and in context.

Frankfooter's interpretation reaffirms previous evidence that he is functionally illiterate.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,054
17,984
113
Moviefan-2 said:
There is no "some would say" language anywhere in the paragraph cited. Here are the pertinent sentences:

"Indeed, taking Wynes and Nicholas’s argument seriously would mean acknowledging that the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide. There is simply no more effective way to shrink your carbon footprint. Once you’re dead, you won’t use any more electricity, you won’t eat any more meat, you won’t burn any more gasoline, and you certainly won’t have any more children. If you really want to save the planet, you should die."

Furthermore, if you looked at my original post about this column, I didn't paraphrase the professor -- I quoted him directly and in context.

Frankfooter's interpretation reaffirms previous evidence that he is functionally illiterate.
Click to expand...
Besides that 'would' that you are ignoring, more importantly you're ignoring the next section from that article:
Buckel’s self-sacrifice takes the logic of personal choice to its ultimate end. But like most of us, I can’t or won’t make that choice. I’m committed to life in this world, the world I live in, in all its stupidity and suffering, because this world is the one everyone else lives in too: my colleagues and students, my friends and family, my partner and daughter. This world is the only one in which my choices have meaning. And this world, doomed as it is, is the only one that offers joy.
Click to expand...
You lied again, the author is not arguing that anyone should commit suicide.
tsk, tsk
 
D

dickydoem

Area 51 Escapee
Apr 15, 2003
1,179
64
48
Stuck in Lodi again
Leaving aside suicide and the fact that Canada emits such a small percentage of total carbon, I don't see how this carbon tax will accomplish anything.

Unless this tax is so high that it actually has a huge impact on the average family's lifestyle, I doubt that most people who commute to work will suddenly abandon their cars especially where public transit is not an option. Or people turning down their thermostat significantly in the winter so that their houses are really cold. (Wasn't this tried in the seventies during the oil embargo? And rejected.) Or suddenly stop cooling their homes and places of business in the summer. And no longer take summer or winter vacations. Are you willing to do these things?

And as an aside, why did our dear PM and his entourage and security detail have to travel to three different places across the country to celebrate Canada Day recently when he could have stayed in Ottawa for the national celebration? He probably created more carbon emission in that one day than I will in the rest of my life. But then I guess he needed to get out there to promote his re-election cause. Talk about a selfish hypocrite.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Frankfooter said:
You lied again, the author is not arguing that anyone should commit suicide.
tsk, tsk
Click to expand...
Nice try. Here is what I actually posted:

Moviefan-2 said:
Meanwhile, the New York Times ran a column last week where a professor said "the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide."
Click to expand...
It was a direct quote. I never said anything about "arguing."

Tsk, tsk, indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom