Canada water shortage is 'very real'

[Sportsdude]

[a href="vny!://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/health_water_abundance_myth"]vny!://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/health_water_abundance_myth[/a]

lol mismanagement. i seem to remember something about nafta and water...
 

[Van]

Darn right it is mismanaged. Example, the Tofino issue. The mountains are too small in that area to drain a good thaw. Dry times like they experienced not too long ago could be more common. What is the solution, build a massive golf course!??

Nothing against golf, but there may be better locations?

Tofino is such a beautiful fragile place, I guess I get worrisome.

  This is just one tiny example too. Look at the Fraser River, the interior, the praries (besides Manitoba), the acid rain in central Canada damaging the beautiful lakes. I am not sure on the maritimes?

There is tons of water available for a country of Canada's size, if managed properly.

[P.C.]

We need to take a page out of the water management practises of Las Vegas.  In a city of such decadence and frivolous activity, they sure have done amazing things.  It is mind boggling how efficient they are.....and that's in a desert no less.  

[Van]

True PC, I have seen documentaries on Las Vegas. Mind Boggling.

  California and Florida has some challenges ahead that make Canada's look pretty tame too. The next few decades should be some interesting changes.

[P.C.]

You saw that documentary Van ?  Wasn't that an eye opener !  The Bellagio with all those fountains and water displays plus the whole hotel, uses 1/200 of the water that they used to use for the golf course that used to occupy that land.  (I think it's 1/200....I can never remember stats)  They process and purify their own water.  They almost operate as their own little city (and an efficent one at that).  The entire Vegas strip uses less than 3% of their water resources.  They are amazing, for a place that only gets 4 inches of rain a YEAR.

  Not only do the hotels have extremely efficient water use practises, the rest of the city is the same.  

[Van]

Yes, I was surprised. I don't even remember where I seen that? But it sounds like the exact same one.

  As for Canada, I think Manitoba will be looked at a lot, and soon.

[Russ]

Sportsdude wrote:
[A href="vny!://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/health_water_abundance_myth"]vny!://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/health_water_abundance_myth[/A]

lol mismanagement. i seem to remember something about nafta and water...
 
I still think this is very relevant.. If the democrats in the states DO decide to revisit NAFTA I dont think they are going to come away as ahead as they think they are between the topics of water and oil being on Canada's table.

[Sportsdude]

 One Problem:

[ul][li]never trust the americans, we do things that are for the benefit of us and not for you, we don't care about you. Think of the U.S. govt as a trans-national corporation. We go around the world making deals to screw you over for our own benefit.
[/li][/ul][ul][li]nothing is what it seems. The democrats won't revisit NAFTA because it's not going to go anywhere, even if they were elected. [/li][/ul][ul][li]Conservatives and the Liberals aren't going to want to talk about. They like NAFTA. But the Liberals might go along for fear the NDP make take votes away from them on this issue.
 [/li][/ul][ul][li]Democrats are full of themselves, especially Clinton. The Clinton's say something and do another for their own person glory. This is Bill's baby, they're not going to change it and even if they did, it will not be fair, the americans don't know how to make "fair" legislation. They set up NAFTA courts and trade courts for you to follow and for us to break.
[/li][/ul][ul][li]Democrats aren't going to get elected, McCain is and he's not even going to touch this issue. [/li][/ul][ul][li]Democrats are afraid to upset those single issue voters in suburbia, they're cowards. [/li][/ul]
   

[Sportsdude]

we've pretty much destroyed mexico's agriculture production. Flooded their market with our high subsidized cheap corn and other products. We put the farmers out of business down there, and now they come up here for work, and we now want them all arrested and tell the Mexican govt to fix their economy. lol  

[Russ]

Sportsdude wrote:
One Problem:

[UL] [LI]never trust the americans, we do things that are for the benefit of us and not for you, we don't care about you. Think of the U.S. govt as a trans-national corporation. We go around the world making deals to screw you over for our own benefit.
[/LI][/UL] [UL] [LI]nothing is what it seems. The democrats won't revisit NAFTA because it's not going to go anywhere, even if they were elected. [/LI][/UL] [UL] [LI]Conservatives and the Liberals aren't going to want to talk about. They like NAFTA. But the Liberals might go along for fear the NDP make take votes away from them on this issue.
[/LI][/UL] [UL] [LI]Democrats are full of themselves, especially Clinton. The Clinton's say something and do another for their own person glory. This is Bill's baby, they're not going to change it and even if they did, it will not be fair, the americans don't know how to make "fair" legislation. They set up NAFTA courts and trade courts for you to follow and for us to break.
[/LI][/UL] [UL] [LI]Democrats aren't going to get elected, McCain is and he's not even going to touch this issue. [/LI][/UL] [UL] [LI]Democrats are afraid to upset those single issue voters in suburbia, they're cowards. [/LI][/UL]
   Hm... we agree on a few things here. Ijust not too sure on the idea that McCain is going to win.. but Im not really following whats happening so you probably know better than I do.


   

[Van]

Sportsdude wrote:
One Problem:

[UL] [LI]never trust the americans, we do things that are for the benefit of us and not for you, we don't care about you. Think of the U.S. govt as a trans-national corporation. We go around the world making deals to screw you over for our own benefit. [/LI][/UL] agree, I don't trust them Equally, don't trust Canada either.

[Sportsdude]

 -'44FDR's last campaign. Gets rid of Wallace to replace him with a more right wing Truman so he would be assured of wining. FDR dies, in '48 Wallace ran as the Progressive Party Candidate who was for the end of segregation, universal health care, was anti-war, denounced anti-communist people in Truman camp. ooops should of stayed with Wallace.

-'52 Truman couldn't run passed the 22nd admen. had low approval ratings and the korean war was dragging on. this was the McCarthyism where America was paranoid.  Eisenhower represented the strong anti-communist/anything remotely left of centre view point, rid the U.S. of communist spies etc.  He was the General, ran on a "I like Ike" campaign, won easily.

-'68Democrats would have won '68 if RFK wasn't shot and Nixon didn't go down to the south and talk about undoing civil rights acts and giving the white the power again through code words as "states rights" (which Republicans have used ever since)

-'76 - Party in fighting between the old left (new deal folks) and new left (feminist/environmental) led to Carter getting the nomination a nobody from Georgia. Think Dion in the Liberal Convention. Ford for example in the election was the choice of the feminists for his view on women's rights. The last republican ever to actually be "repbulican". This was the first real vote turn out for the theocrats (evangelicals) they voted for Carter, but by '80 they moved to Reagan and the Republicans.

-'84Democrats should of won in '84 but Gary Hart blew up with his ex-marital affairs. He was beating Reagan in everything.

-'88Democrats would have easily won with Dukasis in '88 but Bush won with finding this parolee that he let out on good behaviour go and kill somebody. Republicans used fear tatics as usual.

'00 Gore refused to use Clinton in anything because they are mortal enemies. Then the Supreme Court based on appointments to the court (more republican appointments) went Republican.
'04 Kerry ran the worst campaign ever. Ran on the war, when the main issue of this election was the 3 G's in Politics Guns, Gods and Gays. You had Senators getting elected for saying "we need to rid our schools of lesbians". The theocrats came out in droves voted for Bush.

'08 Clinton can't quit her ego, trashes Obama with the pastor thing, now she's united the right and fox news runs 24/7 racist commentary on Obama. As a republican stragetist said: "Clinton's going to kill Santa Claus the day before Christmas in front of the children". Her massive ego is annoying, she has worse approval ratings then the president. McCain is already up in the polls. half of Obama supporters will not vote for Clinton in a general election, Majority of Clinton supports will not vote for Obama. Both sides said they'd vote for McCain before voting for the other. This is another '68. Although I don't expect rioting in Denver.

   

[Van]

Yeah, what he said ^.

To top it off, it is snowing in Vancouver in late March!!

[Russ]

Van wrote:
 Yeah, what he said ^.

To top it off, it is snowing in Vancouver in late March!! [/DIV]
 I 100% agree with you.

[Lil Me]

.