# The Alberta UCP thread



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thought I would create a brand new UCP thread to discuss the next four years of Alberta politics.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Great minds think alike...

After you, Alphonse.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Let's go with yours FeXL--it covers everything.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Thought I would create a brand new UCP thread to discuss the next four years of Alberta politics.


The UCP presented little useful detail on how they will control costs. They should start by adopting large chunks of the FCP platform.

https://www.freedomconservativeparty.ca/platform_budget


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> The UCP presented little useful detail on how they will control costs. They should start by adopting large chunks of the FCP platform.
> 
> https://www.freedomconservativeparty.ca/platform_budget


Oddly enough, I thought the same thing when I read the FCP platform myself.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

This should be interesting. Let's keep track of how the clusterf*cks on the right have evolved into the governing UCP. And by all means, let's hold them to account.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Well, Freddie, they won't be any worse than the clusterf*cks on the left they demolished.



Freddie_Biff said:


> This should be interesting. Let's keep track of how the clusterf*cks on the right have evolved into the governing UCP.


The interesting thing, Freddie, is that you will find clear & open criticism of the UCP from a number of us on these boards. That's something you, yourself, could never muster for Red Rachel, idn't it...



Freddie_Biff said:


> And by all means, let's hold them to account.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> The interesting thing, Freddie, is that you will find clear & open criticism of the UCP from a number of us on these boards. That's something you, yourself, could never muster for Red Rachel, idn't it...


It's a fundamental difference between the left and right.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Freddie_Biff said:


> This should be interesting. Let's keep track of how the clusterf*cks on the right have evolved into the governing UCP. And by all means, let's hold them to account.


I would just like to mention how impressed i am with Jason. 
Remarkable leader quits his job In Ottawa moves to Alberta Unites two parties, runs in the by election, wins and now wins by a landslide as premier!!! that is not a small feat. 
I see him as PM soon.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Inside Jason Kenney's plan to kickstart Alberta's economy — and heal the province's divisions*



> At an Alberta New Democratic Party event in Calgary one early March day, anxious parents and children flanked Premier Rachel Notley as she waxed apocalyptic.
> 
> The writ had not yet dropped, but the province’s long-awaited election campaign was effectively already underway, and Notley was there to paint a dire picture of what would happen if voters elected Jason Kenney’s United Conservative Party. “These kids right here — these lovely kids — aren’t rubbing their hands waiting for a 33-per-cent cut in corporate tax,” said Notley.
> 
> ...


More at the link.

https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1555931084


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> I would just like to mention how impressed i am with Jason.
> Remarkable leader quits his job In Ottawa moves to Alberta Unites two parties, runs in the by election, wins and now wins by a landslide as premier!!! that is not a small feat.
> I see him as PM soon.


More than a few of us believe this is his end game. The ideal scenario for Kenney, would see Scheer somehow fumbling an absolutely golden opportunity and Truedope squeaking back in with a minority. Scheer would be axed and Kenney fresh off this big win would almost certainly step in. Then a year or so later the conmen could force an election and Kenney would indeed win the grand booby prize.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

PREMIER-DESIGNATE SAYS THE FEDERAL CARBON TAX ISN’T AS BAD AS THE PROVINCIAL ONE



> An interesting comment from Premier-designate Jason Kenney concerning the carbon tax. Part of his campaign was to get rid of the provincial one. But as we know, if that one is sent packing, it will be replaced by the federal one. He justified that over the weekend in an interview with CTV:
> “The Alberta NDP carbon tax is worse than the federal Liberal carbon tax from a taxpayer’s point of view. It’s one-third higher. It has much lower levels of rebate. And so, from a consumer point of view, while we oppose the federal carbon tax, it’s less bad than the Alberta NDP one.”


An interesting view, since with no provincial carbon tax, Albertans would not receive a carbon tax rebate either. Give your head a shake, Jason.

https://www.cfcw.com/2019/04/22/premier-designate-says-the-federal-carbon-tax-isnt-as-bad-as-the-provincial-one/?fbclid=IwAR3WaPqeizuMaVt6SdbXQLiWwS46nVAYGK98w-CC3CaRM8b_Obnbm8ZOfVk#


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's not true. Those provinces willing to stand against a provincial tax are still receiving rebates from the federal program.



Freddie_Biff said:


> An interesting view, since with no provincial carbon tax, Albertans would not receive a carbon tax rebate either. Give your head a shake, Jason.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> PREMIER-DESIGNATE SAYS THE FEDERAL CARBON TAX ISN’T AS BAD AS THE PROVINCIAL ONE
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong again Freddie. All provinces citizens can claim their federal carbon tax rebate on their income tax. Regina Leader-Post story confirms it:

https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatc...e-will-claim-2019-carbon-tax-rebate-this-year

*shakes head*


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Once again, you're concerned about the nickels & dimes from the carbon tax rebate, all the while Red Rachel's profligate spending has cost you thousands of $$$.



Freddie_Biff said:


> An interesting view, since with no provincial carbon tax, Albertans would not receive a carbon tax rebate either. Give your head a shake, Jason.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Alberta's new energy minister is Sonya Savage:



> Her most recent position was senior director of policy and regulatory affairs at the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association where she handled files on regulatory reform, Indigenous reconciliation, legal, environment and climate change.


What's wrong with this new government? Did they remove "anti-pipeline activist" from the job requirements?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What's wrong with this new government? Did they remove "anti-pipeline activist" from the job requirements?


Rascis'!!!


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Gosh. It makes you wonder if he said it just to get elected. 












> Jason Kenney says at this time, the United Conservative Party will not be using legislation to stop sending oil to B.C.
> 
> Kenney, who was sworn in Tuesday, had promised during his campaign he'd turn the taps off to B.C.
> 
> ...


 https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/04/30/kenney-alberta-no-intention-turning-off-taps-bc/


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Gosh. It makes you wonder if he said it just to get elected.


*snicker*


----------



## 18m2 (Nov 24, 2013)

Surprise?

He's a politician and politicians will say anything to win.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

As opposed to, say, not mentioning once in your campaign an issue that will definitely not get you elected?

Like, say, Red Rachel & her carbon tax?

Which is worse, Freddie? A lie of omission or an adjustment to your policy?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Gosh. It makes you wonder if he said it just to get elected.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't recall him saying he would do so_ immediately_. Do you have a quote on that, Freddie?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Gosh. It makes you wonder if he said it just to get elected.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Hello, Bigot.

Earlier you were fine with "People say and mis-speak a lot of things".

And, just as I explicitly pointed out, someone from the right says something & it's yuk-worthy?

Hypocrite...



CubaMark said:


> *snicker*


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Kenney is a politician. If his lips were moving chance are really good he was lying. No surprise.

Then we have Rachel's lies about the carbon tax. She said not a word during the campaign then dropped it on Albertans with zero consultations. Nope not even a Shannon Phillips job where they claimed they were listening but sent the RCMP as proxies.

IOW Rachel was lying even when her lips were not moving!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Most politicians are prone to use what I call weasel words. Of course Kenney is no exception and the wording is of course crucial. 

He has said he would sign Bill B-12 into law, and appears to have done so. As to whether he takes it any further depends on the next move from Horgan.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/poli...tion/wcm/a72ccb98-697c-41d4-bcb6-0fa2725fc77c



> Kenney promised repeatedly during the election that, should the UCP win, his cabinet would proclaim Bill 12 “within one hour” of being sworn in.
> 
> Neither Kenney nor his Energy Minister Sonya Savage would comment Tuesday on whether that was still the plan, but the premier confirmed in an op-ed penned originally for the Vancouver Sun (now running in the Journal and Calgary Herald) that his cabinet had charged ahead.
> 
> ...


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thought that it was this face:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


>


 You really should have read the post immediately prior to this before posting yet another meme that fails to relate to reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> You really should have read the post immediately prior to this before posting yet another meme that fails to relate to reality.


Following either current events or the thread in which he's posting are not two of his strong suits.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Wild Rose Country



> As he gears up for the most important political battle of a generation:
> 
> In the short time since he has been elected, there has been no shortage of voices saying that Kenney will not be able to get Alberta’s oil and gas to international markets because of the political realities in Vancouver and Montreal and Ottawa and Paris and the UN, etc.
> 
> But that’s the current ground, upon which not even the super progressive Rachel Notley could get a pipeline built. What Kenney will do, as he always does, is to shift the terrain.​


Hmmm...

Some of the things mentioned in the article are up for debate. That said...

Comments salient.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A little surprising. I figured since his lips were moving when he said it, Kenney was lying, he is after all a harpoon politician and learned from the master. Still it looks like he intends to follow through. 

No mention if the July rebates will also be aborted. Interesting times. I don't foresee any prices coming down as a result, so those on the low end of the financial ladder will of course be hurt the most.

https://calgaryherald.com/pmn/news-...y-30/wcm/0a3e92ba-5de4-4976-a88b-820c3ec74fae


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Wild Rose Country



> Alberta, meet your new Agriculture Minister. #plant19 https://t.co/EOzaniyLx8
> 
> — Jason Kenney (@jkenney) May 12, 2019​


And the first comment:



> What a novel idea! Imagine having a farmer as Agricultural Minister.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the UCP does nothing else this term, they have done one thing very right by restoring the secret ballot to any employee vote to certify a union in the province. 

This removes the threats and intimidation unions use to bully employees into forming a union. Best thing ever against forced unionism, an all too common tactic used by union thugs.



> Alberta's Bill 2 will restore mandatory secret ballot for all union certification votes, and return to a 90-day period (down from six months) for unions to provide evidence of employee support for certification.
> 
> The government will also establish a program by Oct. 1 to provide “support and assistance” to unionized employees for them to better understand and exercise their rights under the labour relations code.
> 
> Changes affecting unions would take effect when the bill receives royal assent or when regulations are completed.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/...b86rZCX97wvak822JDbRKb_HCezyr0rHHKN-Pu-2Zd9po


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

With optimism in the Alberta economy booming, an article from the Beaverton is all you got? You should be happy for the province!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Wasn't too long ago Freddie was vehemently denying that his memes had zero correlation to reality. 

Obviously he's forgotten that little shnit fit.

However it does have my wondering how the Feds are going to collect their Trudeau Tax on all the CO2 that wildfire is generating. Thankfully since Kenney abolished the Alberta version Alberta taxpayers will not be footing the cost of trying to collect that tax.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

OOPS another meme firmly based in fantasy. For those too dumb to figure it out, Kenney points out the obvious:
https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...arbon-taxes-wont-help-stop-forest-fire-threat


> “They’ve had a carbon tax in British Columbia for 10 years. It hasn’t made a difference to the pattern of forest fires there … or in Alberta. And we’ve always had forest fires. We always will,” Kenney said Friday after a luncheon speech to a Calgary business audience.


More specifically we have huge tracts of something commonly called 'Fire Pine'. This tree grows as thick as grass in the aftermath of a forest fire. In fact it depends on fire to release its seeds. After 40 to 50 years the Fire Pine are mature, pine bark beetles kill off huge swaths of them and the next stage in the cycle is, you should have guessed it by now, a forest fire.


Freddie_Biff said:


> https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/05/jason-kenney-vows-to-sue-wildfires-for-defaming-oil-industry/?fbclid=IwAR04au8ig3SKZQb86rZCX97wvak822JDbRKb_HCezyr0rHHKN-Pu-2Zd9po


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> With optimism in the Alberta economy booming, an article from the Beaverton is all you got? You should be happy for the province!


Yeah leopards never change their spots. Just like Freddie never learns. He's still swimmin in the ****load of debt Rachel left behind with a closepin on his nose.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

> Opinion: Two-tier minimum wage will cost older workers their jobs
> 
> CALGARY HERALD
> Updated: June 7, 2019
> ...





 https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/...nimum-wage-will-cost-older-workers-their-jobs


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good move! There needs to be a premium to hiring younger workers that Notley's regressive policies removed.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Good move! There needs to be a premium to hiring younger workers that Notley's regressive policies removed.




How does your statement make any sense?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Youth workers are inexperienced. Without a dual-wage system, all things being equal, people will hire only seasoned workers.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Earplugs. Very mature, Jason, very mature. What a great example you set.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's kind of funny, considering the way that Notley's NDP steamrollered all opposition to her kook-fringe legislation. 

I believe Kenney was elected in part to control generous public sector wage and benefit packages, so he's delivering on a promise. What could the NDP possibly say on behalf of the unions they represent that would make a difference?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's kind of funny, considering the way that Notley's NDP steamrollered all opposition to her kook-fringe legislation.
> 
> I believe Kenney was elected in part to control generous public sector wage and benefit packages, so he's delivering on a promise. What could the NDP possibly say on behalf of the unions they represent that would make a difference?


It will be interesting to see if Kenney uses the Harpoon approach. Will his MLAs and cabinet ministers be handed one sentence talking points by their puppet masters, and be punished severely if they say anything else?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Kenney is quite right not to listen to the knotheads. Red Rachel still doesn't get it that Albertans rejected both her and her party by a huge majority. She needs to learn to STHU.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

eMacMan said:


> It will be interesting to see if Kenney uses the Harpoon approach. Will his MLAs and cabinet ministers be handed one sentence talking points by their puppet masters, and be punished severely if they say anything else?




I would be surprised if anything different transpired.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> Kenney is quite right not to listen to the knotheads. Red Rachel still doesn't get it that Albertans rejected both her and her party by a huge majority. She needs to learn to STHU.




Wrong. Kenney and his United Cons are being paid to listen to and represent all Albertans, not just the ones he likes. The arrogance is unwarranted.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Notley listened and then thoroughly ignored all of the Albertans begging her to abandon her nonsensical platform. You supported her arrogance for four ruinous years.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Wrong. Kenney and his United Cons are being paid to listen to and represent all Albertans, not just the ones he likes. The arrogance is unwarranted.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Notley listened and then thoroughly ignored all of the Albertans begging her to abandon her nonsensical platform. You supported her arrogance for four ruinous years.




At least she listened. She didn’t stick earplugs in her ears and pass them out to all her party cohorts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

She didn't pass out earplugs. She pretended to listen and refused to entertain a single viewpoint that didn't take the province further to the left. 

Stings, doesn't it?



Freddie_Biff said:


> At least she listened. She didn’t stick earplugs in her ears and pass them out to all her party cohorts.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

To whom? The voices in her head? It sure as hell wasn't the farmers when she unionized farm workers, as just one example. It also wasn't business owners when she cranked minimum wage up to $15/hr, either. Nor was it John Q Public when she hired on 50,000 new public employees or created $100 billion in debt & deficit.

In some instances, she never even bothered asking the question. Eg., the carbon tax.

Go p!$$ on somebody else's back & tell _them_ it's rainin', Freddie...



Freddie_Biff said:


> At least she listened.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> She didn't pass out earplugs. She pretended to listen and refused to entertain a single viewpoint that didn't take the province further to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> Stings, doesn't it?




Uh, no. Kenney claimed he would be improving the decorum in the legislature, and then he pulls this assoholic stunt. No one is defending him. Except you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm neither defending nor criticizing something that I don't care about. If Rachel Notley had built Alberta's economy instead of hamstringing it, she could have danced on the legislature tables for all I care.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Uh, no. Kenney claimed he would be improving the decorum in the legislature, and then he pulls this assoholic stunt. No one is defending him. Except you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> To whom? The voices in her head? It sure as hell wasn't the farmers when she unionized farm workers, as just one example. It also wasn't business owners when she cranked minimum wage up to $15/hr, either. Nor was it John Q Public when she hired on 50,000 new public employees or created $100 billion in debt & deficit.
> 
> In some instances, she never even bothered asking the question. Eg., the carbon tax.
> 
> Go p!$$ on somebody else's back & tell _them_ it's rainin', Freddie...


She shafted Alberta with the proper decorum, and in Freddie's books, that's OK.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The second Red Rachel's cadre of Proglets left the building not only did the decorum improve, but the average IQ in the building went up 20 points...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Kenney claimed he would be improving the decorum in the legislature...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> At least she listened. She didn’t stick earplugs in her ears and pass them out to all her party cohorts.


Bullchite.

Like she listened to Albertans pleas not to foist a carbon tax upon us.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> Bullchite.
> 
> 
> 
> Like she listened to Albertans pleas not to foist a carbon tax upon us.




You’re being obtuse. She listened, even if she disagreed. Your boy Kenney made a complete ass of himself and his party with the ear plugs shenanigans. The action is not defensible from someone who said they wanted to improve the decorum. Further, it sends a pretty clear message to the citizens of this province.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't suppose anyone upset by this bit of fun bothered to check the facts before shooting their mouths off, mainly Dippers?

The ear plugs were not used. It was all in fun to poke fun at NDP lies being told in the legislature.



> A spokesperson for Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is dismissing complaints that he disrespected the legislature and public sector workers by handing out earplugs to his caucus during a debate on Bill 9 late Wednesday night.
> 
> "This was a harmless and light-hearted attempt to boost government caucus morale after being forced to listen to the NDP's insults, lies and over-the-top rhetoric for hours on end," Kenney's press secretary Christine Myatt said in a written statement Thursday.
> 
> ...


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo....5183189?cmp=newsletter-news-digests-edmonton


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It sends a clear message to the leftist boobs who have ruined the province, I'll give you that.

But it's small condolence to the thousands of businesses that collapsed under Notley that she listened to their concerns while she stuck a knife in their backs. Ask those businesses whether they'd rather have Kenney, who pulled a silly stunt with earplugs, or the return of Rachel Notley (who listens to them).



Freddie_Biff said:


> You’re being obtuse. She listened, even if she disagreed. Your boy Kenney made a complete ass of himself and his party with the ear plugs shenanigans. The action is not defensible from someone who said they wanted to improve the decorum. Further, it sends a pretty clear message to the citizens of this province.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> You’re being obtuse. She listened, even if she disagreed. Your boy Kenney made a complete ass of himself and his party with the ear plugs shenanigans. The action is not defensible from someone who said they wanted to improve the decorum. Further, it sends a pretty clear message to the citizens of this province.


You certainly cannot say the same about her cabinet minister Shannon Phillips. She who sent the RCMP in her stead to avoid listening to local opposition to the Castle Wilderness Area scam.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> You certainly cannot say the same about her cabinet minister Shannon Phillips. She who sent the RCMP in her stead to avoid listening to local opposition to the Castle Wilderness Area scam.


Exactly what I was thinking of. No government representatives sent, so no earplugs required!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Why, yes. Yes, it does...

:clap::clap::clap:



Freddie_Biff said:


> Further, it sends a pretty clear message to the citizens of this province.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> You certainly cannot say the same about her cabinet minister Shannon Phillips. She who sent the RCMP in her stead to avoid listening to local opposition to the Castle Wilderness Area scam.


Yep. I missed that one in my post.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Public inquiry into U.S.-funded attack on Alberta is vital



> For at least the past 10 years — it’s actually more like 20 — Alberta’s oil and gas industry has had a target on its back that it has done little to remove.
> 
> Lies and smears have been spread around the world about how damaging Alberta’s oilsands are to the existence of our planet. The response over all of those years by the Alberta government and, worse yet, the energy industry? Silence. Crickets. A veritable black hole of a response. Actually, silence would have been preferable.
> 
> Many major oil players in Alberta actually helped fund the smears against them by sending tens of thousands of dollars annually to the likes of the David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute and even Greenpeace, which has actually argued in court documents that using lies to further its agenda while damaging legitimate businesses should be allowed under its right to freedom of expression.


More:



> Kenney has vowed to bring in a law that bans foreign money from Alberta politics, something that should be implemented across the country.


Good!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Renegade Regulator



> Someone – finally – has been paying attention.
> 
> The Government of Alberta has advised, thus far informally, that it will not comply with Manson’s Law, the Court Ruling which permits private ownership of legislation. The Government has advised that a formal declaration on the matter will be released this summer. Watch for it folks, this is big.​


Prog heads exploding...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A couple notes on opposition to the UCP's "Chicago Principles" for free speech on university campuses.

Here an NDP critic is quoted as saying the UCP's move is "pandering to the hate groups and anti-choice groups".
https://twitter.com/abndpcaucus/status/1157009348490489857

The critic conflates hate groups and anti-abortion groups. They want to ban anti-abortion groups from speaking as they would with hate groups?

Another NDP critic refers to "an intentional move to broaden polices to invite in racists, homophobes, and misogynists"
https://twitter.com/KathleenGanley/status/1156280202755887104

More conflating. Given how freely progressives dish out the labels racist, homophobe, and misogynist, it sounds like they're eager to limit speech across a wide range of political opinion, and not just "hate".

Criticize racial quotas for jobs? Racist. Criticize a Pride parade policy? Homophobe. Criticize feminist theory? Misogynist. All some form of "hate" to the NDP.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Criticize racial quotas for jobs? Racist. Criticize a Pride parade policy? Homophobe. Criticize feminist theory? Misogynist. All some form of "hate" to the NDP.


I don't doubt that getting broad buy-in on banning "hate" was always intended to move the dial this far. I never supported a separate legal treatment for so-called hate.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I don't doubt that getting broad buy-in on banning "hate" was always intended to move the dial this far. I never supported a separate legal treatment for so-called hate.


Ditto here. Now we're seeing legislation attempts that would jail those who support a boycott of Israeli settler made products. They must be anti-semitic since they oppose the concentration camps in the West Bank and Gaza. Absolutely obscene.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*Alberta MLAs take 5% Pay Cut*

https://calgaryherald.com/news/poli...-cut/wcm/951cd496-2944-4838-bf7f-a5fd5749a8ae

Way past time and pathetically inadequate given the amount of damage past governments have inflicted on the province. However it is good to see that they brought travel allowances in line with the public sector. 



> The committee also voted Tuesday to kill the fuel credit card program for MLAs, remove the ability to claim for fuel, maintenance and car washes, and bring politician mileage to the same per-kilometre rate as the public service.


Now if we can just get them to accept CPP and OAS as their only form of public pension, just like the rest of us.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

So, is Alberta winning yet? It doesn't feel like Alberta's winning. I'm glad all these newly unemployed Albertans will have a balanced budget on their dinner tables though.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

dona83 said:


> So, is Alberta winning yet? It doesn't feel like Alberta's winning.


In order for Alberta to win, it's a 2 step process. We got rid of the provincial commies, that's step one. Step two involves getting rid of the federal commies & da little feminist dictator. That's going to take separation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dona83 said:


> So, is Alberta winning yet? It doesn't feel like Alberta's winning. I'm glad all these newly unemployed Albertans will have a balanced budget on their dinner tables though.


Notley salted the economic earth of Alberta. What do you expect from a new government in four months? And what does a balanced budget have to do with creating unemployment?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

FeXL said:


> In order for Alberta to win, it's a 2 step process. We got rid of the provincial commies, that's step one. Step two involves getting rid of the federal commies & da little feminist dictator. That's going to take separation.




That sounds like a pretty wimpy answer to how to get the province “winning” again. You get what you wanted: the “commies” are gone. Like dona83, I don’t see much winning yet. Gloating yes, actual success no.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Four months to undo four years of carpet-bombing the economy?



Freddie_Biff said:


> That sounds like a pretty wimpy answer to how to get the province “winning” again. You get what you wanted: the “commies” are gone. Like dona83, I don’t see much winning yet. Gloating yes, actual success no.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Getting rid of the commies _was_ the first step forward. That in itself will save taxpayers 10's of billions of $$$. That's already a win. The rest will take a while as the tangled web Red Rachel weaved is parsed and dismantled, thread by thread.

After that, separation is the only thing left. Of course, Kenney could take the first steps by declaring a UDI, trading in the Queen's Horsemen for a provincial police force (not these goofy-assed sheriff idiots), collecting GST ourselves & then forwarding it to Prinz Dummkopf and developing the Alberta Pension Plan, among others.



Freddie_Biff said:


> That sounds like a pretty wimpy answer to how to get the province “winning” again. You get what you wanted: the “commies” are gone. Like dona83, I don’t see much winning yet. Gloating yes, actual success no.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

FeXL said:


> Getting rid of the commies _was_ the first step forward. That in itself will save taxpayers 10's of billions of $$$. That's already a win. The rest will take a while as the tangled web Red Rachel weaved is parsed and dismantled, thread by thread.
> 
> 
> 
> After that, separation is the only thing left. Of course, Kenney could take the first steps by declaring a UDI, trading in the Queen's Horsemen for a provincial police force (not these goofy-assed sheriff idiots), collecting GST ourselves & then forwarding it to Prinz Dummkopf and developing the Alberta Pension Plan, among others.




Separation. That’s your ultimate end game. Clearly you haven’t thought this through. We’d still have no pipeline to tide water and no way to get one either. That’s some insightful thinking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You have no pipeline now, thanks to Notley's dithering. Why would not having one as a separate country be worse?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Separation. That’s your ultimate end game. Clearly you haven’t thought this through. We’d still have no pipeline to tide water and no way to get one either. That’s some insightful thinking.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

On the contrary, a lot of thought has gone into this.

Any east-west/west-east freight movement across our border, whether by air, rail or highway, immediately gets the crap taxed out of it. Loads are inspected minutely to make sure they conform to our regulations. I can see these inspections taking days. I expect that suddenly, the bastards are going to be amenable to a pipeline. If not, we'll run one stateside and the refineries that currently process our oil and communities that use our natural gas can all GF'd. Wanna see the Lower Mainland come onside in a hurry? Turn their natural gas tap off. Then both the eastern _and_ the western bastards can freeze in the dark.

And, _and_, not only no more Laurentian Elite dictating terms & conditions which are entirely unacceptable to western Canadians, but no more unfairly calculated transfer payments to provinces who refuse to develop their own resources and are using Alberta taxpayers as their own personal milch cow.

You just have to look beyond your nose, Freddie.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Separation. That’s your ultimate end game. Clearly you haven’t thought this through. We’d still have no pipeline to tide water and no way to get one either. That’s some insightful thinking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> You just have to look beyond your nose, Freddie.


A lot of prog Albertans don't even want the oil and gas industry to succeed.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> A lot of prog Albertans don't even want the oil and gas industry to succeed.


Fine. Let's see 'em walk the walk: this winter they can prove their worthiness by living entirely off the grid. And none of this halfway BS, either. You either commit to it, in which case there'll be a helluva lot fewer of the idiots come spring, or you don't & you STFU. No changing your mind a few hours into the first cold snap. 

A true acolyte believes...

Related:

20,000 new NYC homes/businesses NEED natural gas before winter but pipeline blockades won’t allow it…climate activism/energy ignorance roll the dice with thousands of lives at stake



> Should a cold snap emerge that creates the same situation as happened in Rhode Island earlier this year, we could quite easily see a catastrophe of such monumental significance that it might actually break through the energy-ignorance wall of climate activists. There appears to be no other way to get them to learn other than to have a great number of people die.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Fine. Let's see 'em walk the walk: this winter they can prove their worthiness by living entirely off the grid. And none of this halfway BS, either. You either commit to it, in which case there'll be a helluva lot fewer of the idiots come spring, or you don't & you STFU. No changing your mind a few hours into the first cold snap.
> 
> A true acolyte believes...
> 
> ...


They will blame people with commmon sense for faling to provide them with sun heat and windmill power at crippling prices. This is religion we're talking. The new Luddites.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> A lot of prog Albertans don't even want the oil and gas industry to succeed.




Well that’s not true of this prog Albertan. You make a lot of assumptions.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

"A lot" ≠ "everybody"...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Well that’s not true of this prog Albertan. You make a lot of assumptions.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Related:

Alberta: The Right Once Again Has to Clean Up the Fiscal Mess Wrought by the Left



> Having personally lived through two disastrous NDP governments in B.C., 1972-75 and 1991-2001, my heart pours out to our neigbours in Alberta, who suffered through the disastrous financial ruin of Rachel Notley’s incompetent reign. Being a Devout Leftist, she of course has no shame and accepts no responsibility for the enormous damage she has done.
> 
> But people who … you know … are responsible and understand math … have a quite different opinion:
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Pleasing Your Enemies Does Not Turn Them Into Friends



> Jason Kenney takes no prisoners.
> 
> Honestly, it can’t be easy being the long-time head of Amnesty International Canada (AI), stuck in annoyingly free and peaceful Canada, having to work yourself up into high dudgeon to denounce a democratically-elected government peacefully standing up for its citizens.
> 
> On the other hand, your insistence that the burning human rights threat in Canada right now is – to use your description – the “establishment of an energy ‘war room’ devoted to defending the oil and gas industry in Alberta and a public inquiry into the foreign funding of groups who oppose or criticize energy developments in the province” can hardly pass unchallenged. Relentless misinformed attacks against our oil and gas industry have cost us thousands of jobs and hurt families from every region of our province. The cost in investment and jobs has been incalculable. Our government won the largest democratic mandate in Alberta history in part on a promise to stand up to those attacks. I will not apologize for keeping that promise.​


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Inquiry into foreign funding of anti-Alberta energy campaigns could shake up enviro charities



> In a drive-by take-down editorial this past weekend, the Globe and Mail blasted Alberta’s public inquiry into foreign funding of anti-Alberta energy campaigns. The editorial had few facts on hand to support its claims, but it let loose with a series of cheap shots, glib commentary and a conclusion that fell back on an ancient tribal chant: “For Alberta to create a public inquiry to go after critics is a McCarthyesque misuse of power.”
> 
> Ah, McCarthyism, the old ideological cushion of the lazy lefty — although most Canadians under the age of 50 would have to Google it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Frankly, I find the concept of this so-called "Alberta Energy War Room" a joke. We all know what the problem is. There are any number of solid solutions floating around. To the top two in the comment quoted below, add in "Turn off the Trans Canada pipeline" and "Build the Alaska Pipeline". There. That was easy. Cheque, please?

Now, find someone with the cajones to apply them...

Alberta’s Energy War Room Gets Revved Up



> It will soon be up & running! Bravo Premier Kenney!


From the comments:



> I notice all the trains are still running on schedule with their oil cars.
> All the pipelines to BC are still flowing.
> No protestors are in jail.
> No collection notices have been sent to people who accepted foreign donations.
> ...


Yeppers.

The linked article:

'Energy war room' to begin work within weeks, Kenney tells business crowd


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Kenney's an idiot.

Liberals Hate You



> It’s really not that complicated.
> 
> Sad to see what’s happened to the once great Liberal Party.
> 
> ...


The singular thing about the Liberal party that was ever great is the steaming pile they leave in the midst of our country...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Alberta Budget
https://www.alberta.ca/budget.aspx

I hope Kenney implements the planned cuts/hikes or more. I had expected more of a Ford-type cop out, so this is a pleasant surprise. It will probably cost me a lot, but it's good for the province as a whole.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Albertans want to see cuts. That's why they voted UCP. I know that concept fries your prog/socialist brain...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Albertans want to see cuts. That's why they voted UCP. I know that concept fries your prog/socialist brain...


Interesting how your visual agnosia blocks out the first part of that meme....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've got nothing against tax cuts. Money earned by people and businesses belongs to them--not the government.



CubaMark said:


> Interesting how your visual agnosia blocks out the first part of that meme....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I've got nothing against tax cuts. Money earned by people and businesses belongs to them--not the government.


:lmao: He's done it again! :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, I was out all day in the community at the grocery store, to the doc's office, the optometrist to get my glasses adjusted, the bank to make a deposit, the coffee shop for a half-hour, the neighbourhood gas station and store to fill up and lastly the pub for an hour. I asked all kinds of folks how they felt about the budget. Short answer, no problem, it was needed and just what we expected was the common response. That's why we got rid of Notley, so no big deal with average Albertans.

That noted, all the TV and news outlets can do is run stories on how it is hurting Edmonton so bad as their LRT funds were scaled back for two years. Serves the residents of Edmonton right, going all NDP in the election. Looks good on them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Serves the residents of Edmonton right, going all NDP in the election. Looks good on them.


Freddie agrees with you. Why should Edmonton expect any consideration if it never votes conservative?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Look at that crappy meme through your prog glasses for a moment and tell us all what we should be getting excited about.



CubaMark said:


> :lmao: He's done it again! :clap:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

This is something positive the United Conmen could easily have accomplished by this fall's changeover.

I really don't care whether we go 100% MDT or 100% MST, but this semi annual shift should have been stopped a long time ago!

https://calgaryherald.com/news/b-c-...ange/wcm/a025cedf-b079-40f8-bda9-1fe67e85e54b



> VICTORIA — British Columbia is pushing ahead with a plan to eliminate seasonal time changes, but when it would happen remains a matter of timing.
> 
> Attorney General David Eby says legislation is being introduced Thursday that would allow B.C. to stop moving between daylight saving time and standard time every spring and fall.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

eMacMan said:


> This is something positive the United Conmen could easily have accomplished by this fall's changeover.
> 
> I really don't care whether we go 100% MDT or 100% MST, but this semi annual shift should have been stopped a long time ago!
> 
> https://calgaryherald.com/news/b-c-...ange/wcm/a025cedf-b079-40f8-bda9-1fe67e85e54b




It was an NDP MLA that proposed this change a few years ago.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> It was an NDP MLA that proposed this change a few years ago.


Yep, it was. It was also the NDP government who chickened out and didn't follow through.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> It was an NDP MLA that proposed this change a few years ago.





SINC said:


> Yep, it was. It was also the NDP government who chickened out and didn't follow through.



Bingo! They could bring in people from Ontario to change lightbulbs, irritating a large portion of the population. And failed to follow through on a really good idea. Not truly their idea, but a very good idea which had almost universal support.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Jason Kenney is an asshole, pure and simple. $4.7 billion could go a long way in a hurting economy beyond corporate giveaways. 



> Notley: Kenney has betrayed Albertans to fund a $4.7B corporate handout
> 
> Rachel NotleyUpdated: October 30, 2019
> 
> ...


 https://edmontonjournal.com/opinio...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1572442472


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Statements such as this reveal the perversity of the "progressive" mind. Deciding to take less in tax is a "handout" because the income of people and companies does not actually belong to those who earned it--it apparently belongs only to the government. 

A sweet moment to watch Notley seething as her "work" is undone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Geez accepting Notley bull is troubling, especially when it was she who created the whole friggin' mess. I can do nothing but ignore anything the ex premier, now an unelected dummy by a whopping majority of us because she was a complete disaster type person. Just wish she would STFU since 90% of us never believed a word she uttered anyway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Geez accepting Notley bull is troubling, especially when it was she who created the whole friggin' mess. I can do nothing but ignore anything the ex premier, now an unelected dummy by a whopping majority of us because she was a complete disaster type person. Just wish she would STFU since 90% of us never believed a word she uttered anyway.


Only hard core progs are crying along with her.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Statements such as this reveal the perversity of the "progressive" mind. Deciding to take less in tax is a "handout" because the income of people and companies does not actually belong to those who earned it--it apparently belongs only to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> A sweet moment to watch Notley seething as her "work" is undone.




Once again you miss the point.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> Geez accepting Notley bull is troubling, especially when it was she who created the whole friggin' mess. I can do nothing but ignore anything the ex premier, now an unelected dummy by a whopping majority of us because she was a complete disaster type person. Just wish she would STFU since 90% of us never believed a word she uttered anyway.




Plus, don’t forget she’s a WOMAN.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What is the point you thought Notley was making here that I might be missing?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Once again you miss the point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> What is the point you thought Notley was making here that I might be missing?


Is the point you apparently missed that Notey wants the spending continued and Freddie buys the BS, perhaps?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> What is the point you thought Notley was making here that I might be missing?




Oh gee, I dunno. Perhaps that a $4.7 billion giveaway of taxpayer’s money to corporations is not a good investment especially if the budget is as tight as he claims it is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The $4.7 billion does not belong to the taxpayers. It belong to the corporation. Notley took it away from them.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Oh gee, I dunno. Perhaps that a $4.7 billion giveaway of taxpayer’s money to corporations is not a good investment especially if the budget is as tight as he claims it is.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> The $4.7 billion does not belong to the taxpayers. It belong to the corporation. Notley took it away from them.




???


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The NDP and their supporters just don't get it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The $4.7 billion does not belong to the taxpayers. It belong to the corporation. Notley took it away from them.





Freddie_Biff said:


> ???



I've always shied away from calling other members commies, but seemingly in Freddie's mind corporate and presumably personal income belongs to the guv'ment except for whatever the bums in Edmonton chose to dole out.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Freddie, the fact that she's a woman is probably the single least offensive thing about her.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Plus, don’t forget she’s a WOMAN.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> I've always shied away from calling other members commies, but seemingly in Freddie's mind corporate and presumably personal income belongs to the guv'ment except for whatever the bums in Edmonton chose to dole out.


Of course, when Ralph Klein inflicted that "40% pay cut" it was a special case. That money had to be given back to him, because it didn't belong to the taxpayer. What a hypocrite!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

It's a start. :clap:

Alberta to protect citizens from civil suits who defend their land with force



> Alberta is making changes to the law that will prevent property owners from being sued if they injure a criminal on their property. These amendments will be introduced imminently, making Alberta’s legislation on this matter retroactive to the start of 2018, according to Global News.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> It's a start. :clap:
> 
> Alberta to protect citizens from civil suits who defend their land with force


While I support the general idea. Retroactive legislation is always an incredibly bad idea. 

For example, how easy it would be to pass retroactive legislation making it a crime to criticize the current government. Penalty being a $100,000 fine and/or 5 years in jail. By the time the supreme court or the next government got around to reversing the law. A lot of people would have chewed through their life savings and many more would be rotting in jail.

Since this is one case legislation far better for the government to support the legal costs of the defendant rather than making the legislation retroactive.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Since this is one case legislation far better for the government to support the legal costs of the defendant rather than making the legislation retroactive.


Can you imagine the hue & cry from the left if the gov't paid legal costs for property owners currently in court for defending their family & property?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*Ye Gods*

Well Kenney seems to be trodding the well worn path to total corruption. A path blazed by previous Conmen and then the NDP.
https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion...cp-believes-it-is-immune-to-political-fallout




> For a premier who conveyed considerable outrage at the former NDP government for failing to mention a carbon tax in its 2015 election platform, Jason Kenney has sure shown a lot of indifference toward sticking to his own election playbook.
> 
> “The biggest lie in Alberta history,” was how Kenney characterized the carbon tax omission.
> It was a hyperbolic statement to be sure, effectively designed to win votes, but one that must now be weighed against the UCP government’s own catalogue of detours.
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

As someone who voted for the Kenney government, I will openly admit that he is on the wrong path and a very risky one.

I fear I made a huge mistake in trusting him and so do most Albertans I speak with who voted for him. Every move he makes is making division in this province much worse.

You don't seize union pensions and make friends when it was totally unnecessary. You don't fire a government appointee who is investigation your very own election campaign to be leader long before the election to make you premier. You don't open wounds with legislation that is totally unnecessary to address abortion or right to die when it is already clearly defined under current law.

In short, when you turn into an ass whole, you lose the confidence of the people in six short months.

The man is mad.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But still better than Notley!


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> As someone who voted for the Kenney government, I will openly admit that he is on the wrong path and a very risky one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I’ve considered Kenney to be an ass whole for quite some time. He is acting like a tyrant. Strange that there is something we can agree on, but you’re right on the money here.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> But still better than Notley!




How? What has he done that is actually good for the province?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Notley acted like a tyrant, but you liked the direction she was taking you in.



Freddie_Biff said:


> I’ve considered Kenney to be an ass whole for quite some time. He is acting like a tyrant. Strange that there is something we can agree on, but you’re right on the money here.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Notley acted like a tyrant, but you liked the direction she was taking you in.




Again, what has Kenney done that is actually good for the province?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Not the makings of an ethical leader. This is what former PC Thomas Lucaszek has to say...



> Via Thomas Lukaszuk
> 
> Today, Alberta joined the ranks of rogue states, led by a strong man who acts is if he was above the law.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Repealed the carbon tax, restored competitive corporate tax rates, public inquiry into anti-Alberta energy campaigns, war room to fight misinformation related to oil and gas, 2.8 per cent spending cut over term of office, plans to cut public sector employment by 7.7%.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Again, what has Kenney done that is actually good for the province?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Repealed the carbon tax, restored competitive corporate tax rates, public inquiry into anti-Alberta energy campaigns, war room to fight misinformation related to oil and gas, 2.8 per cent spending cut over term of office, plans to cut public sector employment by 7.7%.




Public sector employment includes MY employment. I have a problem with that, all to justify his $4.7 billion tax cut to corporations. I’m not seeing any new jobs to justify this waste of taxpayers’ money.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The public sector in Alberta is bloated. Why shouldn't it be trimmed? The $4.7 billion is not "taxpayer money." It is money temporarily confiscated from corporations by Notley and returned to them by Kenney. If the $4.7 billion belongs to the taxpayers, then why were you complaining about the Klein teachers' union wage cuts? By your argument, Klein was only returning the taxpayers' money to the taxpayer. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> Public sector employment includes MY employment. I have a problem with that, all to justify his $4.7 billion tax cut to corporations. I’m not seeing any new jobs to justify this waste of taxpayers’ money.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Not the makings of an ethical leader. This is what former PC Thomas Lucaszek has to say...


Thomas Lucaszek is a bigger ass whole than Kenney by a mile.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Q1: So you were onside with Red Rachel's hiring of 60,000 additional public servants because they were "new jobs" and not merely a "waste of taxpayers’ money"?

Q2: Have you personally seen an improvement or talked to anyone else who has seen an improvement in provincial gov't services with the addition of all those bodies?



Freddie_Biff said:


> I’m not seeing any new jobs to justify this waste of taxpayers’ money.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie, still waiting on your answer. If the income of corporations belongs to the taxpayer, who does your income belong to?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Curious how Freddie disappears for weeks at a time when pointed questions are directed his way...


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Freddie, still waiting on your answer. If the income of corporations belongs to the taxpayer, who does your income belong to?




I don’t bother with nonsensical questions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You don't bother answering questions where you've already painted yourself into a corner! 



Freddie_Biff said:


> I don’t bother with nonsensical questions.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> You don't bother answering questions where you've already painted yourself into a corner!




Believe what you want to believe, Macfury. I doubt that I could ever change your mind anyway.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

A well-researched, solid argument based on facts would go a long way towards that. However, I'm guessing those are in somewhat short supply... 



Freddie_Biff said:


> I doubt that I could ever change your mind anyway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I didn't ask you to change my mind. I asked you whether the money used to pay public salaries belongs to the taxpayer.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Believe what you want to believe, Macfury. I doubt that I could ever change your mind anyway.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

S’more reaction to Jason Kenney’s Bill 22: calling card of the ass whole. 



> Keith Gerein: Tone deaf decisions could see Kenney's political capital dry up sooner than he thinks
> 
> Keith GereinUpdated: November 21, 2019
> 
> ...


 https://edmontonjournal.com/news/p...olitical-capital-dry-up-sooner-than-he-thinks


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Does the money used to pay public sector salaries belong to the taxpayers?



Freddie_Biff said:


> S’more reaction to Jason Kenney’s Bill 22: calling card of the ass whole.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Does the money used to pay public sector salaries belong to the taxpayers?




What does your question have to do with the article? You seem to be willfully ignorant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm ignorant of one piece of information. Does the money used to pay public sector salaries belong to the taxpayers?



Freddie_Biff said:


> What does your question have to do with the article? You seem to be willfully ignorant.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Broken record. Boring.

And for the record, no it doesn’t.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I'm ignorant of one piece of information. Does the money used to pay public sector salaries belong to the taxpayers?





Freddie_Biff said:


> Broken record. Boring.
> 
> And for the record, no it doesn’t.


All public sector employees are paid from the government's revenue stream source, ie: taxpayers. That is an irrefutable fact.

Those funds do indeed belong to the taxpayers, who entrust their government to oversee its dispersal. Once the funds are paid to public sector employees, it becomes the property of the individual employee. Simple enough for anyone to comprehend.


----------



## 18m2 (Nov 24, 2013)

SINC said:


> Those funds do indeed belong to the taxpayers,


I disagree. The monies collected from all the varied sources available to governments are the property of the government and no longer the taxpayer. Tax revenues are a small part of Alberta's revenue but other provinces have a larger proportion of revenue from a variety of taxes.

A fine point sure enough but the generalization that government money belongs to us is erroneous.

Have you ever tried to ask them for some of the money? Good luck with that!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> All public sector employees are paid from the government's revenue stream source, ie: taxpayers. That is an irrefutable fact.
> 
> Those funds do indeed belong to the taxpayers, who entrust their government to oversee its dispersal.



Exactly. Once Ralph Klein reversed teachers pay increase, that money became taxpayer money again. Freddie wants it both ways: business income belongs to taxpayers, but his income belongs to him alone. Pure hypocrisy!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The UCP can start using this against Red Rachel any time now.

*Damning investigations into AER show NDP was asleep at the pump jack*

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/po...phIGJWzQpMN9MmsB0p2d2pnfsekGOCjIEGQgVKyOqrGLQ


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

18m2 said:


> A fine point sure enough but the generalization that government money belongs to us is erroneous.


And I disagree with that. Years ago, when Albertans got their "Ralph bucks" cheques, Klein was merely returning to us what was rightly ours in the first place.

In addition, it's my tax $$$ that pay public service wages & salaries. As such, to a greater (counsellor, mayor, MLA, Premiere, MP, Groper McBlackface, nurses, doctors, etc.) or lesser (teachers) extent, they work for me.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

18m2 said:


> A fine point sure enough but the generalization that government money belongs to us is erroneous.


And I disagree with that. Years ago, when Albertans got their "Ralph bucks" cheques, Klein was merely returning to us what was rightly ours in the first place.

In addition, it's my tax $$$ that pay public service wages & salaries. As such, to a greater (counsellor, mayor, MLA, Premiere, MP, Blackie McGropeoplekind, nurses, doctors, etc.) or lesser (teachers) extent, they work for me.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> All public sector employees are paid from the government's revenue stream source, ie: taxpayers. That is an irrefutable fact.
> 
> Those funds do indeed belong to the taxpayers, who entrust their government to oversee its dispersal. Once the funds are paid to public sector employees, it becomes the property of the individual employee. Simple enough for anyone to comprehend.


You neglect to understand that teachers are also taxpayers.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

18m2 said:


> I disagree. The monies collected from all the varied sources available to governments are the property of the government and no longer the taxpayer. Tax revenues are a small part of Alberta's revenue but other provinces have a larger proportion of revenue from a variety of taxes.
> 
> A fine point sure enough but the generalization that government money belongs to us is erroneous.
> 
> Have you ever tried to ask them for some of the money? Good luck with that!


A simple concept that it is surprising how many people here do not understand it, starting with broken record Macfury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you quit your job today, would the government have less tax money or more? Simple answer: your entire salary could now be redeployed. You don't contribute to the tax base--you subtract from it.



Freddie_Biff said:


> You neglect to understand that teachers are also taxpayers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

18m2 said:


> I disagree. The monies collected from all the varied sources available to governments are the property of the government and no longer the taxpayer. Tax revenues are a small part of Alberta's revenue but other provinces have a larger proportion of revenue from a variety of taxes.
> 
> A fine point sure enough but the generalization that government money belongs to us is erroneous.
> 
> Have you ever tried to ask them for some of the money? Good luck with that!


If you believe that, then you would also disagree with Freddie, who says that the $4.7 billion no longer collected under corporate tax was money that belongs to the taxpayer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> You neglect to understand that teachers are also taxpayers.


C'mon Frank, that is obvious and does nothing to change the facts. Do you teach your students that kind of misinformation?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> C'mon Frank, that is obvious and does nothing to change the facts. Do you teach your students that kind of misinformation?



Macfury seems to think teachers are not taxpayers. Take the faulty logic up with him.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Feel free to cite the exact passage wherein MF noted that.

Be specific.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Macfury seems to think teachers are not taxpayers.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Yup. This bone-headed move will make sure doctors are onside with the UCP government. Talk about tone deaf.



> Alberta government giving itself the power to tell new doctors where they must work in province
> 
> The government argues that the problem in Alberta isn’t the supply of doctors (as it is in other provinces) but rather an issue of distributing them
> 
> ...


 https://calgaryherald.com/news/alb...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1574392985


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They work for the government and they're being required to work at a specific location for a specific length of time. That's how your socialism works.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Yup. This bone-headed move will make sure doctors are onside with the UCP government. Talk about tone deaf.
> 
> 
> 
> https://calgaryherald.com/news/alb...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1574392985


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> They work for the government and they're being required to work at a specific location for a specific length of time. That's how your socialism works.




So now you’re claiming the UCP are socialist?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Publicly-funded health care is socialist. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> So now you’re claiming the UCP are socialist?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Publicly-funded health care is socialist.




Point being? The NDP never demanded that doctors had to work at specific locations once they stated working. Sounds like something else to me. Authoritarianism perhaps.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The government is their employer. The UCP knows it can't change this socialist program--but they can make it run more efficiently. The NDP didnt care about how the money was spent.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Point being? The NDP never demanded that doctors had to work at specific locations once they stated working. Sounds like something else to me. Authoritarianism perhaps.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The point is that it's easy to get a doctor to live/work in populated areas like a city. It's much more difficult to get them to move to smaller, lightly populated rural areas. In the small town of 900 I grew up in, for example, for years they had a sign alongside the highway passing through town noting, "Doctor wanted".



Freddie_Biff said:


> Point being? The NDP never demanded that doctors had to work at specific locations once they stated working.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

FeXL said:


> The point is that it's easy to get a doctor to live/work in populated areas like a city. It's much more difficult to get them to move to smaller, lightly populated rural areas. In the small town of 900 I grew up in, for example, for years they had a sign alongside the highway passing through town noting, "Doctor wanted".




In that case you need to offer them an incentive for taking a small town job, not punish them if they don’t. How does it benefit the province if they opt to go somewhere else entirely?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Once the government stops paying doctors' salaries, then let the free market set their salaries. They can then open offices wherever they want. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> In that case you need to offer them an incentive for taking a small town job, not punish them if they don’t. How does it benefit the province if they opt to go somewhere else entirely?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'm not one for more gov't interference in anyone's life but there are conditions governing employment worldwide.

As such, if you want your MD, you put time in rural health care as a condition thereof.

'Sides, offering incentives? That doesn't sound very socialist of you, Freddie...



Freddie_Biff said:


> In that case you need to offer them an incentive for taking a small town job, not punish them if they don’t. How does it benefit the province if they opt to go somewhere else entirely?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I'm not one for more gov't interference in anyone's life but there are conditions governing employment worldwide.
> 
> As such, if you want your MD, you put time in rural health care as a condition thereof.
> 
> 'Sides, offering incentives? That doesn't sound very socialist of you, Freddie...


That's the crux of it. Freddie wants their generous salaries paid by government, and then invokes the free market of incentives when socialism doesn't deliver.

Remember also that medical associations set the number of MDs graduating each year, so they can artificially squeeze supply. If that pact were upended, a larger supply of doctors would see some of them forced to begin their careers in these remote areas.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> That's the crux of it. Freddie wants their generous salaries paid by government, and then invokes the free market of incentives when socialism doesn't deliver.
> 
> Remember also that medical associations set the number of MDs graduating each year, so they can artificially squeeze supply. If that pact were upended, a larger supply of doctors would see some of them forced to begin their careers in these remote areas.


I live in a small rural community. One that thankfully is blessed with a surplus of doctors. Big advantage is that when I make an appointment the doc sees me right on time and always allows enough time to discuss any issues I may have. I know that the docs who have chosen to work here also appreciate the more relaxed working conditions. 

Disadvantage if/when something serious arises I will be shuffled off to a major population center.

Those docs who love working in a pressure cooker should absolutely be free to work out of a big city.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> I live in a small rural community. One that thankfully is blessed with a surplus of doctors. Big advantage is that when I make an appointment the doc sees me right on time and always allows enough time to discuss any issues I may have. I know that the docs who have chosen to work here also appreciate the more relaxed working conditions.
> 
> Disadvantage if/when something serious arises I will be shuffled off to a major population center.
> 
> Those docs who love working in a pressure cooker should absolutely be free to work out of a big city.


Yeah kinda like here. Lots of GPs but none have hospital privileges so all they can do if something is urgent is send you to emergency for a 6-8 hour wait. One clinic here now is doing much more like sewing up cuts and do so on a walk in basis which helps.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Disadvantage if/when something serious arises I will be shuffled off to a major population center.


There's the trade-off of living in a rural area. Specialty care is available, but only if you travel a bit.


----------



## 18m2 (Nov 24, 2013)

My Dr. also works part time at the emergency department at our local hospital. It's only happened once where he has been called away for an emergency when I have scheduled appointment but coverage was supplied by his wife who is also a Dr. I like them both. We are lucky. The specialist I see is in Victoria which is roughly a 35 minute drive.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yeah kinda like here. Lots of GPs but none have hospital privileges so all they can do if something is urgent is send you to emergency for a 6-8 hour wait. One clinic here now is doing much more like sewing up cuts and do so on a walk in basis which helps.



Cuts and broken bones are par for the course here, the local ski hill and the hospital have a symbiotic relationship. Had a hernia operation done locally. I was referring to some of the bigger stuff like heart, kidney and liver. Or eyes beyond the routine eye exams and lens prescriptions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The UPC could just cut salaries at Alberta Health Services and not affect care at all.

*Here's your top 40 or so Annual Avg Compensation by Role for AHS 2018*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> The UPC could just cut salaries at Alberta Health Services and not affect care at all.
> 
> *Here's your top 40 or so Annual Avg Compensation by Role for AHS 2018*


What's the source for that, Don? Those salaries are simply insane....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> What's the source for that, Don? Those salaries are simply insane....


Mark, I found it after following some links from this CBC story:

*Top public sector earners revealed in annual Alberta sunshine list*

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...led-in-annual-alberta-sunshine-list-1.5197850

Damned if I can duplicate it now, but it was posted as part of a discussion exchange regarding the story by a reader.

The interesting thing about the chart is that the CBC story says:



> Dr. Verna Yiu, president and CEO of Alberta Health Services, and Patrick Dumelie, president of Covenant Health, also made the top 10.
> 
> Yiu earned $576,856 in salary and $78,769 in non-taxable benefits last year for a total of $655,625 in compensation.


 If you compare that to the first positon in the image, (Yiu's), posted again below, the numbers are identical from CBC and the image list which led me to believe the salaries are real.

Interesting to note that the salaries were approved by Notley and her NDP party, who claimed to have reduced salaries to save money.

And yes, they are incredible and a huge waste of public money.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

SINC said:


> Interesting to note that the salaries were approved by Notley and her NDP party, who claimed to have reduced salaries to save money.


She had to pay for those extra 60,000 public service NDP-voting hires somehow...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

More on the AHS salary issue and why the UCP wants to trim management expenses.

I finally traced back the info on the chart above from that CBC story to its source on Facebook. I do not know who the author is, but this guy has certainly done his homework and supports it all with many more images of AHS material from government websites.

No wonder Alberta Health Services has failed the people of this province by mismanagement. This is criminal and needs to be fixed, but unions are demanding an 8% increase in their pay alone. 

Here is what he had to say at this link to the support documents:

https://www.facebook.com/100000425689822/posts/2814265678597594?d=n&sfns=mo



> Let’s talk numbers!! With all the recent news from the Nurses Union that 500-750 nurses could be laid off in the next 3 years by Alberta Health Services (AHS). Let’s talk about the REAL problem.
> 
> The Alberta Government has increased the Health-care Budget by $201 million this year to a total of $20.6 Billion. That is 35% of the entire $58.7-billion Alberta Budget. They report Health spending is the largest expenditure in Alberta, accounting for about 43 per cent of the province's total operating costs but I couldn’t confirm that 43 per cent for this Facebook post.
> 
> ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

As a general rule I view all polieticians as two faced liars. Here is a prime example Jason Kenny is going to increase rural RCMP staffing, but there is a catch!
https://calgaryherald.com/news/poli...-mayors-react-to-boost-in-rural-rcmp-officers


> The UCP government announced Wednesday that the number of rural RCMP officers in Alberta will grow from 1,600 to 1,900 by 2024. But as of next year, counties, municipal districts and small towns with fewer than 5,000 residents will begin paying 10 per cent of rural RCMP costs.
> 
> 
> Their share will rise every year to reach 30 per cent of policing costs by 2023.


Seriously small town councils are often forced to choose between fixing potholes in the fall or plowing the streets over the winter. So Jason's Argonuts come up with a plan to increase the size of the detachments and increase the cost to the towns. $100,000+/year is no big deal in Calgary, however in a town of 5000 that is a $400/year tax increase on every resident.

The net effect will be fewer RCMP stationed in the small towns for the simple reason we cannot afford the additional cost.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> As a general rule I view all polieticians as two faced liars. Here is a prime example Jason Kenny is going to increase rural RCMP staffing, but there is a catch!
> https://calgaryherald.com/news/poli...-mayors-react-to-boost-in-rural-rcmp-officers
> Seriously small town councils are often forced to choose between fixing potholes in the fall or plowing the streets over the winter. So Jason's Argonuts come up with a plan to increase the size of the detachments and increase the cost to the towns. $100,000+/year is no big deal in Calgary, however in a town of 5000 that is a $400/year tax increase on every resident.
> 
> The net effect will be fewer RCMP stationed in the small towns for the simple reason we cannot afford the additional cost.


What formula would you use to determine how many police officers the province should provide to rural communities for free?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> What formula would you use to determine how many police officers the province should provide to rural communities for free?


This was Kenney's supposed response to very slow police response times in rural Alberta. However it will increase local costs even if no additional members are added. Therefore the net result will almost certainly be decreased rather than increased presence. IOW his fix is guaranteed to aggravate the problem.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> This was Kenney's supposed response to very slow police response times in rural Alberta. However it will increase local costs even if no additional members are added. Therefore the net result will almost certainly be decreased rather than increased presence. IOW his fix is guaranteed to aggravate the problem.


I don't see a problem with charging the communities some price for providing an RCMP presence. The question is, how much do you think a small community should pay for policing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I don't see a problem with charging the communities some price for providing an RCMP presence. The question is, how much do you think a small community should pay for policing.


If that article is correct and they are paying nothing, that's quite rich. 

I'd go with 70/30, with the locals paying 70%, maybe in increments of 10% per year. This could be done in conjunction with switching to a provincial police force and giving locals a more direct say in operations.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The tolerant and inclusive people in Alberta are trying to shame people who donated to the UCP.

https://www.facebook.com/ABAusterityAwards/


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> The tolerant and inclusive people in Alberta are trying to shame people who donated to the UCP.


Interesting list. I'm not on Assbook and can't see the entire list but of the first 5 names shown, there are good reasons to dislike at least two, but none of them is because of their political affiliation...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> The tolerant and inclusive people in Alberta are trying to shame people who donated to the UCP.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/ABAusterityAwards/


Looks to be having massive impact with some entries receiving 12 Shares and two Likes.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Beej said:


> If that article is correct and they are paying nothing, that's quite rich.
> 
> I'd go with 70/30, with the locals paying 70%, maybe in increments of 10% per year. This could be done in conjunction with switching to a provincial police force and giving locals a more direct say in operations.


I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding as to how it works in small communities. In our area, almost all of the population covered by the local detachment, is contained within an area of ~50 sq KM. However their responsibility covers an area of about 5000 sq KM. Barney Fife could keep the peace in our 5 towns and have enough time leftover to set up a lucrative speed trap in the Frank Slide area.

The slow response is to the outlying areas which are mainly ranchers or farmers. Individuals who horror of horrors work hard for a living and are in many ways the backbone of the province, but certainly lack the fiscal wherewithal to pay for increased policing sufficient to reach them in a timely manner.

What Kenney is doing is downloading nearly the entire provincial share of that detachment onto the municipality, while assuring that coverage to outlying areas will be diminished, as the population of the small towns footing that bill will have to reduce the size of the detachment in order to make ends meet.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding as to how it works in small communities. In our area, almost all of the population covered by the local detachment, is contained within an area of ~50 sq KM. However their responsibility covers an area of about 5000 sq KM. Barney Fife could keep the peace in our 5 towns and have enough time leftover to set up a lucrative speed trap in the Frank Slide area.
> 
> The slow response is to the outlying areas which are mainly ranchers or farmers. Individuals who horror of horrors work hard for a living and are in many ways the backbone of the province, but certainly lack the fiscal wherewithal to pay for increased policing sufficient to reach them in a timely manner.
> 
> What Kenney is doing is downloading nearly the entire provincial share of that detachment onto the municipality, while assuring that coverage to outlying areas will be diminished, as the population of the small towns footing that bill will have to reduce the size of the detachment in order to make ends meet.


I don't see a misunderstanding. They are not entitled to having the rest of the province pay for their police. As a practical matter, I'm okay with some level of cross-subsidy for the common good. 30%, for example. Maybe someone could make a case for 50% provincial funding.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> What Kenney is doing is downloading nearly the entire provincial share of that detachment onto the municipality, while assuring that coverage to outlying areas will be diminished, as the population of the small towns footing that bill will have to reduce the size of the detachment in order to make ends meet.


It seems to me that if they can't afford rapid-response policing, then they have to choose between living there and moving to a place that has the police presence they're looking for. I lived part of my young adulthood in a rural area that had slow police response, but it seemed to be part of what everyone expected.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It seems to me that if they can't afford rapid-response policing, then they have to choose between living there and moving to a place that has the police presence they're looking for. I lived part of my young adulthood in a rural area that had slow police response, but it seemed to be part of what everyone expected.


Can't imagine the neighbours reaction to neighbour grazing a thousand head of cattle next door, but maybe they are more tolerant of that sort of thing out east. Also you average city lot just ain't gonna support the average ranch or farm.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Can't imagine the neighbours reaction to neighbour grazing a thousand head of cattle next door, but maybe they are more tolerant of that sort of thing out east. Also you average city lot just ain't gonna support the average ranch or farm.


I was living in farming country at the time.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

One good thing Kenney has done was pull the provincial plug on the Calgary Green Line.

Somewhat related article here:
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...-advised-calgarys-got-to-know-its-limitations


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Alberta energy minister fires back at ‘unelected, unaccountable’ UN for criticism of energy projects



> Alberta’s energy minister says the United Nations is an unelected, unaccountable body that has no business criticizing Canada’s energy megaprojects.
> 
> Sonya Savage, in a statement, says that it’s the job of elected leaders, not the UN, to make decisions on how best to govern people and economies.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Post-secondary funding model will be tied to performance measures, says minister
https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...omes-based-approach-to-post-secondary-funding



> Nicolaides said 15 per cent of each school’s operational funding will be tied to performance measures to start, moving up to a maximum of 40 per cent by the 2022-23 academic year. Besides employment and income rates, international and domestic enrolment and administrative expense ratios are other performance measures the province says it might use. Funding agreements will be in place for three years instead of being renewed annually.


Makes sense. Apparently post-secondary funding was previously based on a whim, or maybe some hand waving and rhetorical flourishes.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Beej said:


> Post-secondary funding model will be tied to performance measures, says minister
> https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...omes-based-approach-to-post-secondary-funding
> 
> Makes sense. Apparently post-secondary funding was previously based on a whim, or maybe some hand waving and rhetorical flourishes.


Actually after reading the article it makes almost no sense. Complete lack of definition as to what 'performance' means, but said definition is pretty much at the whim of the guvment.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> said definition is pretty much at the whim of the guvment.


Yes, the provincial government intends to define performance standards for the provincial funding.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Beej said:


> Yes, the provincial government intends to define performance standards for the provincial funding.


Which is OK if one is so totally brain dead that they would trust any provincial government. 
Also wise to remember that in 4 years the Conmen may have done such an incredibly crappy job that the NDP will be able to rise from the ashes, and will then be defining performance standards.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> Which is OK if one is so totally brain dead that they would trust any provincial government.
> Also wise to remember that in 4 years the Conmen may have done such an incredibly crappy job that the NDP will be able to rise from the ashes, and will then be defining performance standards.


As opposed to the government having no performance standards. You're complaining about having performance standards instead of not having performance standards.

Trust issues are there regardless of party or standards. The same goes for incompetence -- always an issue.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> The same goes for incompetence -- always an issue.


Gov't incompetence: A feature, not a bug!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Huh. Where is the frustration & anger levelled at the Red Rachel for the exact same thing? Guess they were far too focussed on hiring 60,000 new voters, I mean, gov't employees. Look how that worked out...

'Extremely frustrated and angry:' Zero wage increases for teachers, nurses in arbitration rulings



> Teachers and nurses will not be receiving any new wage increases after arbitration rulings came down Friday.
> 
> The rulings come after the Alberta Teachers’ Association and the United Nurses of Alberta were hoping for wage increases and the province sought a two to five per cent rollback.
> 
> ...


Regular readers will know that my lovely bride is a teacher. Years ago, under Klein, she more or less quietly took her 5% rollback because it made sense to her. This time? She's willing to go along with no increase but a rollback is not acceptable, especially with the little 4 year spending & hiring spree by the Commies. Downsize gov't, get their house in order, then we'll talk.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Huh. Where is the frustration & anger levelled at the Red Rachel for the exact same thing? Guess they were far too focussed on hiring 60,000 new voters, I mean, gov't employees. Look how that worked out...
> 
> 'Extremely frustrated and angry:' Zero wage increases for teachers, nurses in arbitration rulings
> 
> ...



Freddie will be happy! That's a 0% pay cut over 40 years!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Freddie will be happy! That's a 0% pay cut over 40 years!


Freddie Math is an awfully convoluted subject, but I do wonder if 0 is considered a real number in that world?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Wacky artist has wacky sense of entitlement (my headline)
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...ture/wcm/e3b3dace-b490-496d-8482-986b5ffd5689


> You turn on your radio, there’s no music. You go to read a book, there are none on your shelf. There are no museums, no theatre, no colourful sporting events, no concert halls, no dance recitals. Even your favourite cereal comes from a blank white box.
> 
> This is the arts-free Alberta the UCP government seems to want.


Art only exists due to government funding in her world of, likely, sh*t art. Here's another gem for how self-important this type of rent seeker is:


> The arts are as much a public utility as roads, infrastructure, and other public services.


She had trouble listing real public utilities and just blurted out three overlapping things (e.g. roads are a subset of infrastructure). Didn't want to mentioned water, I guess.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Wacky artist has wacky sense of entitlement (my headline)
> https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...ture/wcm/e3b3dace-b490-496d-8482-986b5ffd5689
> 
> 
> ...


It's amazing how government creates fashionable clothing and furniture as well...

The stuff she's painting in the photo is really poor.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> It's amazing how government creates fashionable clothing and furniture as well...


:lmao: Fashion just stops without a government grant. I wish. Humans probably spend a larger share of their total resources on peacocking than peacocks do.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

If the only thing keeping these artists' heads above water is gov't funding, perhaps they should seek another line of work.

Regarding her comment about blank cereal boxes, No Name brand seems to do just fine with a solid yellow background and plain black typeface. Frankly, after looking at some of the crap "art" on packaging, it's refreshing to just be able to clearly read what the hell is in the box...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> If the only thing keeping these artists' heads above water is gov't funding, perhaps they should seek another line of work.
> 
> Regarding her comment about blank cereal boxes, No Name brand seems to do just fine with a solid yellow background and plain black typeface. Frankly, after looking at some of the crap "art" on packaging, it's refreshing to just be able to clearly read what the hell is in the box...


Philistine! How dare you question the value of cereal marketing art, which is akin to water and electricity. beejacon


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> Philistine! How dare you question the value of cereal marketing art, which is akin to water and electricity. beejacon


Why, yes. Yes, it is. _Especially_ electricity generated by bird and bat choppers...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Alberta demands to be removed from federal carbon tax in wake of court decision



> The Alberta government is demanding that the federal carbon tax no longer apply to the province after the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled the tax unconstitutional because it infringes on provincial jurisdiction.
> 
> Alberta Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer is also asking the federal government to “work out a process for the reimbursement to Albertans of taxes paid,” in a letter sent Wednesday morning to federal Justice Minister David Lametti.
> 
> “If you do not respond accordingly to our demands, the Government of Alberta will be forced to consider additional legal recourse to ensure that this unlawful tax on Albertans is removed and fully reimbursed,” the letter reads.


Whatevs.

The only way we'll be free of this millstone is to declare UDI & leave the bastards.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Maclean’s called Alberta's blockade buster a racist, so we're helping him sue — will you support him?



> Remember a few weeks ago when some masked eco-terrorists blocked a railroad near Edmonton?
> 
> Police just stood there and did nothing to remove it. So a handful of peaceful Good Samaritans simply drove up with a big truck and carted away the garbage that was blocking the railroad.
> 
> ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Kenney and his Conmen are beginning to remind me of Adolph and Joseph. Bill 10 is beyond obscene it is frightening, far more terrifying than Corona. Notice it was conveniently buried in the local press by: "Corona, The Sky is Falling" articles.

Had Albertans desired an anti-democratic province, they could have just given Red Rachael a second chance. Looks like anti-democracy walks hand in hand with anti-social distancing.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-carpay-albertas-bill-10-is-an-affront-to-the-rule-of-law


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Perhaps there's hope after all...

Alberta government backs out of deal with scandal-plagued WE Charity



> “Shocking.”
> 
> Education Minister Adriana LaGrange used the word “shocking” at least six times in my interview with her Thursday morning. She was explaining why the federal government’s WE Charity scandal drove her to back out of a three-year deal the provincial education department was about to sign with WE.
> 
> Alberta schools have “an exemplary reputation to uphold,” according to LaGrange. So once the “shocking reports” about the federal Liberals’ attempt to throw the charity a $900-million bone began surfacing, she decided to have her bureaucrats withdraw from negotiations for a $750,000, three-year deal with WE to provide programming to Alberta students, including WE Day rallies.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Apparently Kenney and the UCP are not the saviours of Alberta's economy after all. They are now neck and neck with the NDP at 38%. Not too surprising considering what an asshole he's been to pretty much everybody except AimCo and the corporations he sucks up to.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/canada/support-for-jason-kenneys-ucp-falters-now-neck-and-neck-with-notleys-ndp-poll-shows/wcm/35d8ebe4-89d9-439e-9d5a-3e63f8a3849c?fbclid=IwAR0rIV_ZvZ2uGGuRYFq_1A5Oak7fuwDt9cQJBriaxEgZXSLcAq5wu3eNwyw



> “It certainly reflects a growing dissatisfaction with the Kenney government, but what’s remarkable is two-fold,” Shachi Kurl, executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, told National Post. “What you see is support for the UCP starting to bleed to other places, such as the Alberta Party, the Alberta Independence Party, other parties, whereas the NDP’s 2019 support has stayed rock solid.”
> 
> Albertans are dissatisfied with their government’s handling of the economy, the health sector, education, unemployment, and financial issues following the COVID-19 pandemic, the poll finds.
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I am not surprised at all by Kenney's lack of performance, nor his standing in the polls. As I've noted before, I never liked him as a fed.

That said, at least he's not Red Rachel, plunging Alberta into the depths of Prog communist socialist hell.

WEXIT!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I am not surprised at all by Kenney's lack of performance, nor his standing in the polls. As I've noted before, I never liked him as a fed.
> 
> That said, at least he's not Red Rachel, plunging Alberta into the depths of Prog communist socialist hell.
> 
> WEXIT!!!


As I read this, a second Kenney government would have to negotiate with more hard line conservative party members against the NDP. That's a good thing. The NDP would increase its hold on Edmonton.

As Freddie has said before, no party once vanquished by Alberta voters ever returns to power.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> As I read this, a second Kenney government would have to negotiate with more hard line conservative party members against the NDP. That's a good thing. The NDP would increase its hold on Edmonton.
> 
> As Freddie has said before, no party once vanquished by Alberta voters ever returns to power.



Historically. There’s always a first time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It cuts whatever way you're praying for, eh Freddie? Rachel is never coming back. Neither is her party.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Historically. There’s always a first time.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> It cuts whatever way you're praying for, eh Freddie? Rachel is never coming back. Neither is her party.



Rachel is kicking butt right now in terms of communicating with Albertans, far more than KKKenney is, which probably accounts for her increasing popularity. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

She's preaching to the leftist choir — not Alberta as a whole. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> Rachel is kicking butt right now in terms of communicating with Albertans, far more than KKKenney is, which probably accounts for her increasing popularity. We shall see.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

What increasing popularity?

Your linked article notes that 96% of previous voters would vote for her again and 4% of previous UCP voters would also vote for her. Sounds like a wash to me.

'Course, I never could understand this new Prog math...



Freddie_Biff said:


> ...which probably accounts for her increasing popularity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> What increasing popularity?
> 
> Your linked article notes that 96% of previous voters would vote for her again and 4% of previous UCP voters would also vote for her. Sounds like a wash to me.
> 
> 'Course, I never could understand this new Prog math...


She's popular, but just not attracting voters?


----------

