Did P. M. Pierre Elliott Trudeau save the world environment?

Discussion in 'Canada' started by DennisTate, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is actually a quite serious question.

    P. M. Trudeau made an error back in 1974, that may well come to be understood as one of the most important mistakes ever made by a political leader.

    When P. M. Pierre Elliott Trudeau took Canada off the gold standard, (which incidentally had to be done for many valid reasons), a miscalculation was made that is the number one reason why our national debt has spiraled out of control.

    But..... there is a very good side to this because all of us know that we humans have been in a somewhat similar mentality to our ancestors who shot, boiled, barbecued, roasted and friend passenger pigeons into extinction.

    We are highly prone to OVER Consumptionism............. I addressed part of the background issues back in my 2006 provincial level campaign as an independent.

    www.BankingSystemFlaws.blogspot.ca/

    My name is Dennis Tate. I lived most of my forty seven years in West Lochiel Lake, Guysborough County. I am running for MLA as an independent in the area of Pictou Centre so that I can help as many people as possible become more aware of what I am sure is the real reason why our roads are in disrepair, why hospital beds are unused, why so many of the rural schools have been shut down, why our soldiers in Afghanistan are poorly equipped and why many if not most of our young people may have to leave Nova Scotia to find jobs.

    When well trained workers have high quality technology to work with then the total of all wages and benefits paid out to employees is only a fraction of the retail value of the products they produce. As a result of this fact the only way to move products out of warehouses is to extend higher and higher levels of credit. One problem with an abundance of red ink is that compound interest on all this government, business and personal debt over a period of decades will grow to astronomical levels. At this time there is approximately TEN TIMES as much debt in Canada as there is money. A simple explanation for how this happened can be seen here:
    http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty34.htm

    In my opinion this rather simple mathematical problem is perhaps the number one cause of inflation in the Canadian economy over the past three decades. This is also perhaps the number one reason why our costs of production are so high and Canadian products cannot compete on the world markets as well as they could under better conditions.

    From 1940 to 1970 the Government of Canada put roughly half of the total money supply into the economy through loans issued through the federally owned Bank of Canada. Provincial and municipal governments could borrow the money to build roads, schools, hospitals and sewage treatment facilities at zero or one percent interest. In 1970 we changed our system and since that time a higher and higher percentage of all government debt is financed through loans issued through privately owned banks. At this time it is ninety eight percent. This policy may be great for our banking sector but it was estimated that in the one year of 1995 alone our federal government could have saved roughly SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments if we had gone back to creating half the total money supply through these low interest rate loans issued through the bank that is OWNED BY ALL CANADIANS.

    Considering that our deficit was approximately thirty billion dollars for that year, simply by changing back to an already proven monetary and banking system, we could theoretically have had a FEDERAL BUDGET SURPLUS OF THIRTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in 1995.

    The massive cutbacks in the Canadian military, in health care, highway construction, social programs and education were profoundly affected by these accounting practices?

    So what can you and I do about this problem?
    1. If we will do our homework and study this question we can put pressure on our provincial level politicians to create a provincially owned bank. A true Bank of Nova Scotia owned by all Nova Scotians could be used to finance town and municipal government projects at zero or one percent interest just as The Bank of Canada used to do.

    2. Town and municipal government officials in New Glasgow, Stellarton and Trenton should seriously consider creating a local currency unit such as has been done in Ithaca, New York.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Hours
    (updated link)

    This is a great way to promote local businesses and help sustain rural economies.

    3. It is also possible for groups of concerned individuals to get together and organize a local barter exchange as a cooperative. Mr. Rob Assels has been instrumental in just such an initiative in the Tatamagouche and River John area so surely we can get similar organizations up and running here in New Glasgow, Pictou, Stellarton, Trenton and Westville. Here is a link into the Halifax LETS system:
    (halifaxlets.com/)
     
  2. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I gave some further details in my 2008 campaign writing.......

    http://www.bankingsystemsflaws.blogspot.ca/

    You would be astonished how many of our political leaders do not understand the tremendous benefits of historical Canadian monetary policy.

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenB.htm

    We can encourage our federal and provincial level officials to re-enact wise monetary policy such as Prime Minister Mackenzie King did in 1940 by organizing a local film production cooperatives or company. Due to our proximity to the ocean we should all be highly motivated to produce films and effectively use the media to educate individuals and politicians all across Canada through YouTube.com. Time is limited if we hope to stimulate our economy, save our elementary school and prevent the loss of our roads and homes to the threat of rising ocean levels.
     
  3. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IF........ P. M. Pierre Trudeau HAD NOT...... made that error..... (apparently back in 1974)........ that took Canada off a better central banking policy THEN.......... during the 1980's and '90's the Canadian economy could have kept growing in such a way that would NOT have corresponded with a massive increase in our national debt and.........experts in our Big Brother to the south would have been asking questions?!

    Those experts would fairly easily have figured out what these three economists wrote......

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenB.htm
    Now the problem south of the border tends to be not quite as serious as up here in Canada due to the tendency for Canadian interest rates to be higher than they usually are in America.

    I have read that during some years when the American economy created about 3.5 times as much debt as money, we Canadians were producing ten times as much interest owing on all loans as the amount of money that actually goes into the economy.

    So......... were it not for the error made by P. M. Pierre Elliott Trudeau back in '74, the national debt might have been only a fraction of what it has been over these past decades and you know as well as I do what the result would have been?!

    We might well have turned 50% more productive farmland into parking lots here in Canada and the problem could perhaps have been even greater in the USA?!

    P. M. Pierre Elliott Trudeau........... may have saved the world environment by slowing us down long enough for Mr. Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen, Sir Richard Branson and Ms. Elizabeth May and others to get us thinking about a different way of doing business that is kinder and more gentle to the air and water and trees and soil?!
     
  4. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Shiva_TD does a great job of describing how we have been in a mentality of OVER-consumptionism.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=394887&page=4&p=1065350854#post1065350854
    Ignorance shown in my 2008 campaign, my apology to Ms. Elizabeth May!
    .......
    My theory is that the error that caused our national debt to spiral out of control had the benefit of slowing us Canadians and Americans down somewhat in our tendency to OVER-consume?!
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have to disagree because consumption isn't the problem.

    Based upon numerous sources the average minimum household expenditures necessary in the United States is about $30,000/yr and that is necessary for survival in our modern economic world. Tens of millions of households don't have this much income and they're not over-consuming anything. We can also note that modern technological advancements actually reduce the amount of natural resourses required for products we use. Today's home appliances use much less energy and in many cases require less from nature to produce them (e.g. flat screen TV's).

    The problem hasn't been over-consumption but instead the over-exploitation of some natural resources because of profit where the long term costs are not considered. For example we have plenty of clay to make bricks to build brick buildings such as homes and apartments we need but it costs more than wood frame construction that depends upon clear-cutting forests so we've over-harvested our forests because there was more money in it for the logging companies. We could even use modern adobe to build homes but instead we use wood frame construction because deforestation is less expensive. We're stealing a natural resourse from our children for profit today but it's not over-consumption that's the problem because we need shelter.

    The same problem exists with food. We need food but we can't over-use a natural aquifer to produce the food. We can't pump thousands of years of accumulated ground water to produce food for today leaving no ground water for future generations. We need to change the crops so that the natural rainfall sustains the agricultural needs both today and into the future.

    It's not about the consumption but instead the use of natural resources without considerations for nature based upon the profit motive.
     
    DennisTate and (deleted member) like this.
  6. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is such an exceptionally well written reply that I wasn't sure how to respond to you.

    I think that you are in many ways correct..... so perhaps the problem is in the way that products are packaged in a manner that is exceedingly wasteful.

    Much of the waste coming from homes in North America could be greatly decreased if better regulations were put in place regarding packaging of products?!

    I just found a good quotation on the primary subject of the OP.


     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I recently moved from WA to AZ and I found a huge difference between the two when it came to disposal of waste and recycling.

    In the city where I lived in WA they provided the waste management services and provided a recycle and a trash barrel. I know that I only recycled a part of what could be recycled and simply dumped many items (packaging) that could have been recycled into the trash can. I'd roughly estimate that half of what could have been recycled went into the trash that went to a landfill.

    Today I live in a small city in AZ and the trash collection is private. I'm only provided one barrel and no recycling barrel. Instead of me doing the recycling the waste management company does it and they (according to their advertising) recycle 85% of all the trash they receive.

    This is a huge difference and recycled waste and recycled waste is not a problem it because reduces the use of natural resources (except when it requires more natural resources to recycle than what is gained by the recycling which often happens with government mandated recycling efforts).

    Two other notes.

    First is that private waste collection in AZ, where they do the recycling, only costs a small fraction of what I was paying in WA where the city contracted the waste collection and I did the far less effective recycling.

    Next is the fact that if we just address waste disposal using land fills that it's been estimated that a 15 square mile "trash dump" would provide all of the area necessary for the entire United States for the next 200 years. We don't really have a problem with disposal of waste when it's properly done but far to much waste isn't disposed of properly and often ends up in the ocean where it's detrimental to the planet ecology.

    Was the logical fallacy missed? If you don't have any money then you can't loan money to yourself. If you have the money in a different account then you can transfer it as a "loan" to another account like the US has done with the Social Security Trust Fund where the money was borrowed to fund general expenditures so that general taxation wouldn't have to be increased (and that will have to eventually be paid back into the Trust Fund by future taxpayers) but if that money doesn't exist then it can't be borrowed.

    If you don't have any money then you can only borrow money from someone that has money.
     
  8. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The first article that I read that got me looking at central banking policy was back in 1994 and it actually dealt with the situation faced by President Lincoln.

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/lincolnkennedy.htm

    ..................…
    In order to finance the transition over to truly green sources of energy we must take another look at President Lincoln's rather brilliant experiment in monetary policy.

    (Note: There was a high level of inflation during the time of the Civil War but what else could possibly happen when you take your most well trained farmer and workers and pay them to shoot cannons and muskets at each other. War..... decrease the production of consumer goods and services at the same time that the supply of money is increased.... so of course inflation will naturally occur)!
     
  9. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  10. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just watched a fascinating documentary on Netflix two nights ago.

    Please watch this documentary and then answer me again whether or not we North Americans are prone to overconsumption.

    http://www.cowspiracy.com/


     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two different issues are being confused. People consume goods and services while how we produce those goods and services can be problematic. It's not the consumption but instead the production that is the issue.

    So no, we're not over-consuming but instead the production, in many cases, for that consumption is a problem.

    BTW - Cattle do produce greenhouse gases but that's a natural source and not a man made source of greenhouse gas production. The planet can recycle the natural greenhouse gases back into a solid state but it's the excess of man made greenhouse gases that tips the scale and causes global warming.
     
    DennisTate and (deleted member) like this.
  12. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What an astonishingly good answer!

    I have to agree with you that ....... the primary problem may well be in the flawed way in which we produce goods rather than in the amount that is consumed?!

    That film presented a powerful case that run off from overly concentrated agri-business may well be the number one cause of dead zones in our oceans.

    Algae in our oceans eat up a huge percentage of atmospheric carbon that is processed by plants each year. (If I remember correctly the percentage may well be forty percent).

    Sulfur dioxide is producing acid rain which is killing and weakening our trees. Run off from agriculture is killing our oceans. 91% of deforestion in the Amazon Rain Forest is done to produce pasture land for cattle.

    The world's plants and algae in the oceans can deal with a great deal of excess atmospheric CO2, but not if we kill them through the run off and waste products from agri-business and industry!
     
  13. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As a point of fact the oceans cannot deal with excess CO2 that results in the acidification of the oceans and the largest know mass extinction has now been linked to excess atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification.

    http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...gered-mass-extinctions-252-million-years-ago/

    The temperature changes are also adversely affecting nature and it's from the top down and not from the bottom up. Microbes can adapt to climate change more so than complex species at the top of the food chain.

    http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...eady-causing-dramatic-changes-say-scientists/

    When it comes to ocean warming, where much of the increase in global temperatures have been recorded since the late 1990's, fish are cold blooded and cannot easily adapt to rising water temperatures. Yes, they are moving North to colder waters but they're limited in how long they can do this and the larger the fish the more of a problem it represents. As a food source we depend upon large fish as opposed to microbe life and it's the large fish that are disappearing but it's not all due to climate change. Greed has been far more responsible in the past.

    For example tuna is a great food source and the oceans can provide a substantial amount of tuna for mankind. Assuming the food chain exists the tuna population can probably produce a 20% surplus each year for us to consume without harming this food supply. Applying some numbers to this for every 100 million tons of live tuna in the ocean we could harvest about 20 million tons of tuna without harming the tuna supply. The problem is, that to obtain more annual profits the tuna industry didn't just harvest 20 million tons of surplus tuna available but harvested more so the original 100 million tons of tuna in the ocean was diminished. We have 80% less tuna in our oceans today than we did just 50 years ago. Comparatively today we only have the 20 million tons of live tuna when we had 100 million tons before and it can only produce about 4 million tons of excess tuna for consumption. Not only have we lost a valuable food source but even the tuna industry has lost because there isn't as much tuna available for them to harvest annually and this decline was driven by the past greed of the tuna industry that over-harvested the ocean's tuna supply for an immediate profit taking far more than was was being produced annually.

    They were like the farmer that sold their seed grain which reduced their future harvests and they were equally as stupid.
     
  14. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And........ we even have to wonder if the plan was deliberate and somewhat like...…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act


    Lately.... the production of ethanol for fuel is a somewhat more practical way to burn up excess corn and wheat?!
     
  15. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When somebody is the political leader of a nation, such as President Lincoln was when the Civil War was looming, or when Prime Minister Mackenzie King was in Canada in 1940 and WWII had already began, then that political leader has the responsibility to take a serious look at how money is created and what options exist to finance emergency measures.

    It can be quite effectively argued that some astonishingly unwise practices by massive companies with lots and lots and lots of money will soon lead to the deaths of millions and I believe billions of people so.........… options must be discussed.


    http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ould-utah-state-dollar-save-usa-dollar-2.html

    Could a Utah State Dollar save the USA Dollar?



    Have you seen any of the following films:

    1. The Future of Food
    2. Food Inc
    3. The World According to Monsanto.

    If so..... then you know that the USA dollar to some degree is linked to and backed up by a plan to control the world's production of food in such a way that could eventually produce global famine.


    "George Soros says that America must give up the dollar and accept world currency."

    http://www.examiner.com/article/geo...aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
     
  16. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Money is a commodity used for exchange (e.g. gold and silver) and is not something the government can create. In point of fact the US Constitution limits the authority of government to "coin" money (a manufacturing process that produces certified tokens out of metal) and borrowing. What Lincoln faced was how to borrow money when no one had any money to purchase treasury notes so promissory "legal tender" notes were created that could be (and were) redeemed in the future. Even under US law today Federal Reserve (promissory) notes can be redeemed "on demand in lawful money" (American Eagle gold and silver coins that are legal tender money) but the law is not being enforced.
     
  17. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is your opinion on this action being taken by ten USA states?

    Personally, I love what these political leaders are doing and feel that their initiative could improve life for millions of Americans.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/pf/local_currency/index.htm?iid=F_Jump

     
  18. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again..... this is an exceptionally good point.

    I made statements in my 2008 municipal level campaign writing that I eventually had to apologize to Green Party Leader Ms. Elizabeth May for.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...008-campaign-my-apology-ms-elizabeth-may.html

    Ignorance shown in my 2008 campaign, my apology to Ms. Elizabeth May!



    Back in 2008 when I campaigned for the office of municipal councilor my ignorance regarding the importance of reducing atmospheric carbon is out there for all to see!

    I am wondering if the information regarding the increasing acidity of the oceans can alter how we view the importance of altering our economy?
     
  19. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It unconstitutional. Only the US Congress has the authority to "coin money, and regulate the value thereof" in the United States. It needs to be remembered that it was "state coinage" and "promissory notes" that lead to the centralized control of the money supply by the Federal government. A "dollar" issued by a state is not legal tender in the United States because the US Congress controls the money supply. In short a "Virginia Dollar" could not be used to pay any debt outside of the state of Virginia. It couldn't be used to pay federal taxes or to purchase commodities like automobiles that aren't produced in Virginia because it wouldn't be legal tender. Even the residents of the State of Virginia could refuse to accept it as payment of a debt because it's not legal tender in the United States.

    I have a much easier solution. If a State treasurer demanded redemption of Federal Reserve notes (FRN's) from a Federal Reserve bank in "lawful" gold and silver coinage so that it could comply with Article 10 of the US Constitution that requires payment of all debts in gold and silver by the State the Federal Reserve would be forced by the Supreme Court to redeem the FRN's with American Eagle gold and silver coins at face value in compliance with the US Constitution and existing statutory law.

    The only "problem" related to this is that the US government and the Federal Reserve don't have enough gold and silver coins for the redemption but this can be fixed by revaluing the gold and silver coinage like Congress did in the 1980's with the Gold Bullion Coin Act (authorized by Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution). Based upon the current outstanding debt of the US government we'd need to revalue gold coins based upon a $5,000/oz gold standard as opposed to the current $50/oz established in the 1980's.
     
  20. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fascinating theory!

    A gifted Christian visionary was once shown that silver was going to skyrocket in value........ far more so than gold.

    If I remember correctly his name may have been Jason Westerfield.

    I have recently read a book that gave me a good theory on why this might happen...… Don't let the title throw you off...… this author is obviously a brilliant and courageous and rational man.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/conspiracy-theories/425801-great-book-explain-ufo-cia-connection.html


    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22697841-cities-under-the-plain
    Cities Under the Plain: The true story of one mans journey, through science, magic, and the CIA to understand the world in the 21st century
     
  21. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The issue is much more fundamental and my arguments are based upon the "natural/inalienable right of property" established by John Locke's arguments in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5.

    http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

    We do not have a right to spoil or destroy nature. There is no "right to pollute" or "right to destroy nature" for anyone but we also know pragmatically there can be compelling reasons to allow the limited destruction or pollution of nature. The problem today is that we place the burden on those that seek to reduce or stop the pollution and/or destruction of nature as opposed to placing the burden on those that would pollute and/or destroy of nature. The burden should be on those that would pollute and/or destroy nature to provide a compelling argument that would justify it as opposed to the compelling argument being a responsibility of those that seek to prevent the pollution and/or destruction of nature.

    For example the use of coal for the production of electrical power. There's a compelling argument that we need the electricity and therefore need to authorize some pollution and limited destruction of nature for the electrical power but how much? According to the propaganda from the coal industry itself we have the current technology to economically reduce coal-fired pollution emissions by up to 40% so why are we still alllowing the current pollution levels is the question. We could have forced "clean coal" technology on the coal industry ten years ago and reduced the pollution up to 40% based upon the information provided for by the coal industry itself. The coal industry cannot provide any compelling argument why clean coal technology, that it has advocated for over a decade, can't be employed to reduce the pollution.

    Instead of that we have those that want to reduce the emissions having to provide the compelling arguments necessary to reduce the emissions.

    We simply have "the shoe on the wrong foot" when it comes to addressing pollution and/or the destruction of nature.
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gold is the most versitle of all metals, including silver, and as a commodity will always be worth far more than silver. The only reason we don't use gold more often is because of it's extremely limited supply which drives up the value making lesser "inferior" metals more economical to use.

    I disagree with the foundation for the following statement:

    This implies that the path determines our outcome as opposed to us selecting our path. I tend to agree with another statement:

    The person picks the path and all else, including any possible outcome, is fundamentally irrelevant because you can always change the path and where it leads at any time.
     
  23. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I feel very powerfully that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's son Ben should seriously consider the path of beginning a campaign for the office of National Leader of Canada's Conservative Party.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=429742&p=1065492708#post1065492708

    If...… young people....... who would find the documentary film "Cowspiracy" interesting and worthy of further research would begin to consider joining a political party, and yet continue to discuss what they care about with other young people who just happened to feel drawn toward a different political party....... then the nature and atmosphere of politics here in Canada could be greatly altered.

    The USA would be watching this take place of course and would be affected at least to some degree by such a shift.

    (Sorry for shifting somewhat off topic........I often can't seem to focus on more than one subject at the time, but I now know about something related to the environment accomplished while P. M. Stephen Harper was in office that more people need to know about)!
     
  24. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My mind often goes off on tangents and there's nothing wrong with that. LOL

    While I like to see people get involved in politics for any reason they shouldn't be single issue involvements and never based upon propaganda. Cowspiracy is propagand and I don't mean that in a negative context. It's pushing an agenda and by doing that it's propaganda. For example cows produce methane gas just like all animals and that's natural. A cow does not create "man-made" pollution but instead produces "natural" pollution so it's unrelated to the problem of AGW.

    I'm a registered Libertarian but I'm not much of an advocate for political parties overall. Political parties tend to be like religion where the party leaders do the thinking for the people and the people, being rather lazy, tend to accept what is said as opposed to questioning it.

    Finally I think you over-estimate how much influence Canada has on the US. Generally speaking Americans are not that much aware of anything even when it comes to our own country. When I lived in WA I often took road trips into BC and I loved the people I met but knew absolutely nothing about Canadian politics (and still don't). I have enough on my plate just dealing with our politics which are in a shambles (because of the Republican and Democrat parties).
     
  25. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    22,825
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now I personally am far, far more interested in, and involved in American politics than Canadian.

    I recently assisted in getting a serious offer for V. P. candidate Mr. Dannion Brinkley from an independent USA Presidential candidate:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...dannion-brinkley-serve-his-v-p-candidate.html

    Roger E. Nichols has asked Mr. Dannion Brinkley to serve as his V. P. candidate.

    .......................

    I also have another independent Presidential candidate looking at what Mr. Dannion Brinkley can bring to his campaign..........
    http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/421384-steve-d-kelly-has-interesting-platform.html


    Steve D. Kelly has an interesting platform.
    He sure got my attention with part 1 of his plan!
     

Share This Page