# The Progressive Thread



## fjnmusic

This thread is for forum members who would like to consider some of the positive aspects of progressive governments that have been elected in Canada and its provinces. It is not for the complainers. No trolls please.

ETA: This thread can also serve as a discussion of progressive policies and governments in other parts of the world as well, especially with an election on the horizon in the USA. What is that makes one's views "progressive" as opposed to say, "conservative"? Is there a difference between "progressive" and "liberal" or "democrat"? Feel free to expand the scope as needed, but please always be respectful of others' views, especially those with whom you may disagree.

There are many other places where one can complain about progressive policies (The Alberta NDP Thread, ironically enough, among others), and so this thread is designed for those of us who see hope in progressive style governments and their leaders. 

For instance, today the Royalty Review was released in Alberta, looking not nearly as scary as some people feared. 

Royalties remain the same for Alberta oilsands projects, says Notley | Globalnews.ca


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Is the Notley NDP the most pro-Big Oil government in Alberta history? 

http://theamericanenergynews.com/markham-on-energy/notley-ndp-alberta-big-oil


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

I'd love to! Unfortunately, haven't seen anything positive from any of them, yet.



fjnmusic said:


> This thread is for forum members who would like to *consider some of the positive aspects of progressive governments* that have been elected in Canada and its provinces.


So, is someone who shows up with facts a troll? Or a complainer? Or, quite simply, "right", in all aspects of the word?



fjnmusic said:


> It is not for the complainers. No trolls please.


So, you want to stifle dissent. 

Create your safe space, then bask in the illusion without the threat of micro-agressions, facts, hard truths, honesty. Helluva idea for a thread!!! XX)



fjnmusic said:


> There are many other places where one can complain about progressive policies


----------



## fjnmusic

Well that didn't take long. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

No, it didn't, 'cause the premise is stupid in the first place...

But, hey, have at 'er. The realists on this board will all be over on The Anti Progressive Thread, shredding your arguments...


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Maybe things aren't quite as rosy in Conservative Saskatchewan as we've been led to believe, with wages dropping considerably.
http://leaderpost.com/business/mone...g-drop-in-average-weekly-earnings-in-november


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjn, I don't think it's reasonable to start a thread that bars members from disagreeing with the premise.


----------



## Macfury

From the same article:



> By comparison, *Alberta saw a larger year-over-year decrease* of 2.4 per cent or $28.22 to $1,130 per week in November...





fjnmusic said:


> Maybe things aren't quite as rosy in Conservative Saskatchewan as we've been led to believe, with wages dropping considerably.
> Saskatchewan sees big drop in average weekly earnings in November | Regina Leader-Post


----------



## SINC

Amazing what too many pain killers can do, innit?


----------



## fjnmusic

Yup. Exactly what I thought would happen. Some people have no concept of boundaries. Not taking the bait. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Trying to build a wall around a thiead isn't exactly a boundary.



fjnmusic said:


> Yup. Exactly what I thought would happen. Some people have no concept of boundaries. Not taking the bait.


----------



## fjnmusic

Like moths to a flame. Not sure what a thiead is. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Less a flame than a pit of misery. If you want to highlight the marvels of "progressivism" I will be here to set the record straight. Nothing personal--I would do it for anyone.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Less a flame than a pit of misery. If you want to highlight the marvels of "progressivism" I will be here to set the record straight. Nothing personal--I would do it for anyone.



So you would really be willing to consider some of the positive aspects of progressive governments in Canada? Forgive me for saying so, but your past record seems too entrenched for that kind of positivity toward progressive thinkers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It's based on evidence, not entrenchment. Some good ideas are part of classic liberalism, but are claimed by "progressives."



fjnmusic said:


> So you would really be willing to consider some of the positive aspects of progressive governments in Canada? Forgive me for saying so, but your past record seems too entrenched for that kind of positivity toward progressive thinkers.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

fjnmusic said:


> Is the Notley NDP the most pro-Big Oil government in Alberta history?
> 
> Is Notley NDP the most pro-Big Oil government in Alberta history? - The American Energy News : The American Energy News
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not from an oil patch region, from what I have read the new royalty programme makes sense to me as it recognises cost/earnings. I am not sure they had any other choice but to follow his path, so, good for them.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Not from an oil patch region, from what I have read the new royalty programme makes sense to me as it recognises cost/earnings. I am not sure they had any other choice but to follow his path, so, good for them.



It sure seems to have taken the wind out of the sails of the WR and PC Opposition. I mean, what are they going to say? It does take some of the ferocity out of Notley's past criticisms of gov't/business relationships, but given the economic situation, I don't think the NDP had much choice either. And it is a fair review. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

They are going to say that Notley toyed unfairly with the oil industry for months before declaring that there would be no change--as energy companies began to deploy resources to BC and Saskatchewan.



fjnmusic said:


> It sure seems to have taken the wind out of the sails of the WR and PC Opposition. I mean, what are they going to say?


----------



## fjnmusic

And in other progressive news, clearly there are people who have faith in this man that he can be trusted. 
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/national/edmonton-court-relaxes-omar-khadrs-bail-conditions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Why is that "progressive"?



fjnmusic said:


> And in other progressive news, clearly there are people who have faith in this man that he can be trusted.
> Edmonton court relaxes Omar Khadr’s bail conditions | Edmonton Journal
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why is that "progressive"?



Because the viewpoint that Mr. Khadr has earned his freedom would seem to find a sympathetic ear with progressive thinkers as opposed to conservative ones, based on what I've read on these forums. Remember it was the Stephen Harper PC's who stood most staunchly against his repatriation to Canada. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That decision is agnostic to any particular philosophy. I think Khadr is a phony, but I've also said that I can see no reason under the law to keep him jailed any longer. That doesn't make me a "progressive"--just someone who applies the law even-handedly.



fjnmusic said:


> Because the viewpoint that Mr. Khadr has earned his freedom would seem to find a sympathetic ear with progressive thinkers as opposed to conservative ones, based on what I've read on these forums. Remember it was the Stephen Harper PC's who stood most staunchly against his repatriation to Canada.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That decision is agnostic to any particular philosophy. I think Khadr is a phony, but I've also said that I can see no reason under the law to keep him jailed any longer. That doesn't make me a "progressive"--just someone who applies the law even-handedly.



Fair enough. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I think it would be helpful for you to define "progressivism." It has a very ugly history including a firm embrace of eugenics, so think about the answer.


----------



## fjnmusic

Progressive, as in the counterpart to conservatism. What the Progressive Conservatives used to embrace before they became the Reform in disguise/Conservative in name only party. The PC name implies forward thinking vision while at the same time being cautious. If you don't like the term, go start your own thread. Or better yet, how's that anti progressive thread coming along?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Here is an example of what I mean by progressive and why I admire Justin Trudeau. On this interview he talks openly about mental illness and his mother's struggles with bipolar illness. 
http://www.thesocial.ca/Wellness/Health/Justin-Trudeau-talks-openly-about-his-mom-s-strugg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

To be honest, fjn, it sounds like you haven't given it a lot of thought. Your concept of "progressive" appears to be a grab bag of feel good stories about people who display one random characteristic or another. There's nothing special about discussing a family member's mental illness (though I suspect most people would not do so publicly, out of deference to the person suffering from it).


----------



## FeXL

It's doing just fine, thankyouverymuch.

I've been busy working & chasing littluns around. Unfortunately, I don't have a job that pays me to sit around on my ass all day posting on ehMac...



fjnmusic said:


> Or better yet, how's that anti progressive thread coming along?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> To be honest, fjn, it sounds like you haven't given it a lot of thought. Your concept of "progressive" appears to be a grab bag of feel good stories about people who display one random characteristic or another. There's nothing special about discussing a family member's mental illness (though I suspect most people would not do so publicly, out of deference to the person suffering from it).



You are entitled to your opinion. It is generally of no use to anyone else. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I'm not surprised that you're balking at applying intellectual rigour to your thread.



fjnmusic said:


> You are entitled to your opinion. It is generally of no use to anyone else.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm not surprised that you're balking at applying intellectual rigour to your thread.



Actually I started this thread so that I wouldn't have to keep arguing with the same three people all the time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You'd be alone otherwise.



fjnmusic said:


> Actually I started this thread so that I wouldn't have to keep arguing with the same three people all the time.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You'd be alone otherwise.



Apparently misery lives company. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's actually a good definition of "progressivism"—an equal distribution of misery.



fjnmusic said:


> Apparently misery lives company.


----------



## fjnmusic

As a Muslim woman, I see the veil as a rejection of progressive values.

Interesting food for thought. 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/muslim-woman-veil-hijab


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

This. 
http://www.inews880.com/2016/01/30/u-of-c-senior-fellow-gives-ndp-an-a-for-the-royalty-review/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I think you're confusing "progressivism" with being a sappy bleeding heart.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I think you're confusing "progressivism" with being a sappy bleeding heart.



Please reread the original post. All that you have contributed so far is negativity and criticism. I think you're looking for the "Anti Progressive Thread." Perhaps you would feel more at home there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I'm helping you to hone your thread. It seems you don't know what "progressivism" is at all and it would be very confusing to those who read the thread title and expect to see it discussed.



fjnmusic said:


> Please reread the original post. All that you have contributed so far is negativity and criticism. I think you're looking for the "Anti Progressive Thread." Perhaps you would feel more at home there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm helping you to hone your thread. It seems you don't know what "progressivism" is at all and it would be very confusing to those who read the thread title and expect to see it discussed.



I'm not asking for your help to "hone the thread." I've stated at the outset what the thread's purpose is, whether you agree or not. Since your forté seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing, as opposed to discussion, it seems to me the "Anti Progressive Thread" created by our learned friend would be the more fitting place for your style of writing. To try to force your way onto a thread just so you can insult the OP or the premise of the thread is generally considered to be "trolling." Learn to respect boundaries, Macfury. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You don't have the power to set up boundaries here, fjn. 

"Progressivism" is a belief that humanity is endlessly malleable and can "progress" only under the control of enlightened elites who will control and alter them through science and rationality. 





fjnmusic said:


> I'm not asking for your help to "hone the thread." I've stated at the outset what the thread's purpose is, whether you agree or not. Since your forté seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing, as opposed to discussion, it seems to me the "Anti Progressive Thread" created by our learned friend would be the more fitting place for your style of writing. To try to force your way onto a thread just so you can insult the OP or the premise of the thread is generally considered to be "trolling." Learn to respect boundaries, Macfury.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You don't have the power to set up boundaries here, fjn.
> 
> 
> 
> "Progressivism" is a belief that humanity is endlessly malleable and can "progress" only under the control of enlightened elites who will control and alter them through science and rationality.



And apparently you don't have the capacity to respect the boundaries others set up. I told you at the start what the purpose of this thread is. I'm not going to debate definitions with you. It's become boring. Again, if you don't like the premise of this thread, namely, finding positive examples of progressivism in the governance of this country (as in progressive vs. conservative), then please, by all means, submit something to that "Anti Progressive Thread" set up to rebut every point made here. Besides, it's looking kind of cold and lonely over there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I'm not going to debate definitions with you.


I'm not surprised.


----------



## FeXL

Unlike you right now, I don't get paid to sit on my ass & post to ehMac all day. I don't show up for work, I don't get paid. My current schedule is quite full so if nothing gets posted there, it isn't for lack of need. Have a little respect for those who are supporting your paid time off...



fjnmusic said:


> Besides, it's looking kind of cold and lonely over there.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> You don't have the power to set up boundaries here, fjn.
> 
> "Progressivism" is a belief that humanity is endlessly malleable and can "progress" only under the control of enlightened elites who will control and alter them through science and rationality.


That's one definition but not the only one. Progressivism is a doctrine that, essentially, the future lies in a forward and changing orientation. Your view, extremely politicalised is more a kin to hegemony.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> That's one definition but not the only one. Progressivism is a doctrine that, essentially, the future lies in a forward and changing orientation. Your view, extremely politicalised is more a kin to hegemony.


That's really a non-definition, Rps. Any philosophy could claim that they were forward looking.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> That's one definition but not the only one. Progressivism is a doctrine that, essentially, the future lies in a forward and changing orientation. Your view, extremely politicalised is more a kin to hegemony.



Thank you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

So here's a thought. What would you deem more progressive, with reference to our kin below the border, having a Black president or a Female one?

I'm not looking for attacks on specific candidates, just which, black or female, do you consider more progressive....and why?


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> So here's a thought. What would you deem more progressive, with reference to our kin below the border, having a Black president or a Female one?
> 
> I'm not looking for attacks on specific candidates, just which, black or female, do you consider more progressive....and why?


Interesting question. Personally, I always thought that I would live to see a woman become president before an African-American man. At some point, an African-American Jewish lesbian will be elected. 

What is truly progressive about these possibilities will be if people don't mind what the person is in terms of race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc., so long as this person is a good president who faithfully lives by the oath of office for president. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps

Agreed, but we continue to marginalise population segments, in this regard we do not seem to be progressing at all.....hardly progressive.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> So here's a thought. What would you deem more progressive, with reference to our kin below the border, having a Black president or a Female one?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for attacks on specific candidates, just which, black or female, do you consider more progressive....and why?



Great question. In terms of "progress," we've already seen a black president (half black anyway), who O believe represented hope to many people. I'm not sure what Hillary represents, other than maturity compared to Trump, but she lacks a certain charisma that her husband had in spades. Had Sarah Palin become the first woman vice-president, I don't think that would have represented progress. More of a step back really. So I guess I'd have to say progress would be when we don't elect someone based on their gender or the colour of their skin, but rather the content of their character, to borrow a line from MLK, Jr. 

I think Bernie Sanders represents progress in this case. A shift to the left down south is exactly what they need. Not Trump. Definitely not Trump. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

I think the progress Sanders represents is a throw back to the days of isolationism. However his view that where is it written that the U.S. must be the world's police force is a progressive state in light of the assuming roles the U.S. Has made since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Agreed, but we continue to marginalise population segments, in this regard we do not seem to be progressing at all.....hardly progressive.


A valid point.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> " So I guess I'd have to say progress would be when we don't elect someone based on their gender or the colour of their skin, but rather the content of their character, to borrow a line from MLK, Jr.
> 
> I think Bernie Sanders represents progress in this case."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> I think the progress Sanders represents is a throw back to the days of isolationism. However his view that where is it written that the U.S. must be the world's police force is a progressive state in light of the assuming roles the U.S. Has made since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.


I don't see Sanders as being fully an isolationist. He was an early and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War, a correct stand in my opinion. "We gotta be tough, not stupid," in the war against ISIS, which seems to sum up his foreign policy POVs.


----------



## Macfury

"Progressive" has nothing to do with race or gender. It's kind of a retrograde tribalist mentality. At this point, Obama is the most "progressive," not because he is black, but because he has done the most damage to the United States. I think Hillary Clinton is about equally "progressive," but Sanders is potentially far worse.


----------



## Rps

MacFury, my response is more geared to the American political thread, and not meaning to derail this one, but I think in the case of Obama, history will show he has done more than he is given credit for.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> MacFury, my response is more geared to the American political thread, and not meaning to derail this one, but I think in the case of Obama, history will show he has done more than he is given credit for.


Yes, I think further damage will unfold as a result of his presidency.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> MacFury, my response is more geared to the American political thread, and not meaning to derail this one, but I think in the case of Obama, history will show he has done more than he is given credit for.


I agree. History will be kind to Pres. Obama.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> I agree. History will be kind to Pres. Obama.



He inherited a tremendous amount of debt brought about by the previous Bush administration and did the best he could with it. He also brought hope to a lot of minorities, not just African Americans. And he is a far better speaker than Bush, and day of the week. His penchant for drones in battle may be a bit of a sad legacy, truth be told. Saved American lives, but killed a lot of children, particularly in Pakistan.

Have you see Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee with Seinfeld and Obama? Comedy gold. 
http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee...=Facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=S7E1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> He inherited a tremendous amount of debt brought about by the previous Bush administration and did the best he could with it. He also brought hope to a lot of minorities, not just African Americans.


I'm sure he did the best he could--which is the slowest recovery from a recession in modern history. 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...n-strongest/aOpf5ZO3ToyQlBUl1mb5pI/story.html

As for African Americans, they have fared worse under President Obama than many other groups.

Is Black America Better Off Under Obama? | BlackPressUSA



> Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, “has always been double” [that of Whites] but it hasn’t always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011.
> 
> Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent. The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently, more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.


----------



## fjnmusic

Now here's an interesting made in Alberta twist...
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...ressives+question+results/11690183/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Now here's an interesting made in Alberta twist...
> Notley defends royalty review as progressives question results
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why are you surprised? Most "progressives" want to eliminate the oil industry altogether. Most telling is Notley's explanation, which you have been arguing against:



> Notley told CBC Radio on Monday.
> 
> “No one knows it more than the people in Calgary — the tremendous level of uncertainty and there’s a tremendous need to inject some stability and to attract investment in *an industry which, quite frankly, is in the process of trying to reposition itself on a global basis.*”


She's already made it happen in Alberta.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why are you surprised? Most "progressives" want to eliminate the oil industry altogether. Most telling is Notley's explanation, which you have been arguing against:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's already made it happen in Alberta.



I certainly don't think that you speak for "most progressives," especially when you seem unclear on the word actually means. I am a progressive voter but I support the oil and gas industry—just not blindly. I believe industries should clean up their industrial mess, and growth should be at a moderate pace to help avoid these booms and busts that have become a hallmark of industry in Alberta every ten years or so. I don't think it's possible for you to consider anything from a progressive point of view because it's just not in your DNA. This is why you like to argue and contradict so much. Frankly, I'd be surprised if you ever agree with anything a progressive-minded person put forward. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Dr.G. said:


> I agree. History will be kind to Pres. Obama.


With all respect, the only way history will be kind to Obama is if the type of person who thinks Bill's Wife would make a good president writes the biography...


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I certainly don't think that you speak for "most progressives," especially when you seem unclear on the word actually means.


I recall you being either unwilling or unable to define the term.



fjnmusic said:


> ...growth should be at a moderate pace to help avoid these booms and busts that have become a hallmark of industry in Alberta every ten years or so..


So you would kill growth to avoid wealth spikes? Thank goodness you're not in charge.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I recall you being either unwilling or unable to define the term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would kill growth to avoid wealth spikes? Thank goodness you're not in charge.



Reread the original post if you don't understand the use of the term "progressive" in this thread. I believe Rps has already clarified your misuse at least once and I have provided several examples of stories that would be of interest to "progressive" thinkers. 

Again, I think you might find more kindred spirits over in the Anti Progressive Thread, since you seem to be against Progressive mindsets at the best of times. It's looking kind of lonely over there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You've only provided a handful of stories with no real commonality--other than that you believe someone did something you admire. Rps's definition was so imprecise as to be virtually meaningless. Why invent new definitions when they already exist? Again, eugenics is one of the best examples of "progressive" thinking, as is fascism.

It's interesting that your examples of "progressivism" seem to be related entirely to things that government forces other people to do, revealing its authoritarian nature.



fjnmusic said:


> Reread the original post if you don't understand the use of the term "progressive" in this thread. I believe Rps has already clarified your misuse at least once and I have provided several examples of stories that would be of interest to "progressive" thinkers.
> 
> Again, I think you might find more kindred spirits over in the Anti Progressive Thread, since you seem to be against Progressive mindsets at the best of times. It's looking kind of lonely over there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Former Education Minister David King examines the need for s separate Catholic school system in Alberta and how much influence the church should have. An interesting read. 
http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...e-school-system-at-odds-with-modern-democracy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The "progressive"position could be to give each minority its own school system.



fjnmusic said:


> Former Education Minister David King examines the need for s separate Catholic school system in Alberta and how much influence the church should have. An interesting read.
> Opinion: Separate school system at odds with modern democracy | Edmonton Journal


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The "progressive"position could be to give each minority its own school system.



In a way, they already do that. There are several schools within the public school system, for example, that are faith-based, such as Jewish schools and Arabic schools (where students and staff are Muslim). Not to mention sports academies of all types, fine arts schools and what not. All are publicly funded (basically private schools paid for with public dollars), giving them the best of both worlds. They are "specialty branches" within the public school system. I'm not saying I agree with this approach; I'm just saying it's already happening in Alberta, following Klein's experiments with giving more free reign to charter schools back in the 90's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

The word "progressive" has become a substitute for the word "liberal" in modern parlance, particularly in the States; however, the term definitely refers to a particular kind of thinking in the early part of the 20th century. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It has more recently and correctly become something of a pejorative. Many liberals are separating themselves from the destructive tendencies of "progressives." The Democrat party's two current contenders are both self-described "progressives." 

I like this quote:



> *"Progressive is what hard-core leftists started calling themselves after they finished polluting the word liberal". *
> 
> Leftward ho! Clinton goes full progressive | New Hampshire





fjnmusic said:


> The word "progressive" has become a substitute for the word "liberal" in modern parlance, particularly in the States; however, the term definitely refers to a particular kind of thinking in the early part of the 20th century.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era


----------



## fjnmusic

In case you missed it, and before it gets pulled, you've gotta see Larry David as Bernie Sanders in "Bern Your Enthusiasm."
http://youtu.be/C9YsAjONgqI


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> In case you missed it, and before it gets pulled, you've gotta see Larry David as Bernie Sanders in "Bern Your Enthusiasm."
> http://youtu.be/C9YsAjONgqI
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:clap::lmao::clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

Royalties: the right choice for right now.
http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-royalty-choice-right-for-the-times


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

The Truth About Alberta's Energy Industry. A good read, and certainly puts things in perspective. 
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-albertas-energy-industry-steven-bell-bcomm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

No $h!t. What nearly everybody in Alberta knew 8 months ago. The only ones who didn't were the hand picked researchers & the Knotheads who hired them...



fjnmusic said:


> Royalties: the right choice for right now.


----------



## FeXL

Nothing new there, either. Are you just coming to these realizations? Or do you just happen to really like the penultimate paragraph?

And, what's the tie-in to this thread? If anything, Rachel & Justin have shown that their intentions are exactly the opposite to the sage advice in your link.



fjnmusic said:


> The Truth About Alberta's Energy Industry. A good read, and certainly puts things in perspective.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> No $h!t. What nearly everybody in Alberta knew 8 months ago. The only ones who didn't were the hand picked researchers & the Knotheads who hired them...



Can you respond without getting so angry do you think? Negativity does not make you persuasive. When a gov't promises a royalty review and they will abide by the results, and these are the results, you should be happy. They're just keeping yet another election promise. It doesn't mean these royalty rates are fair when the price of oil is higher; it just means this isn't the right time to raise them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Nothing new there, either. Are you just coming to these realizations? Or do you just happen to really like the penultimate paragraph?



You seem to be under the delusion that to be a progressive minded person you have to hate the oil industry. This is a very shallow understanding and probably explains why you don't understand the Alberta NDP or Federal Liberal's stance either. You seem to want to oversimplify into a good/bad, right/left, us/them kind of dichotomy. Life usually doesn't work like that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> You seem to be under the delusion that to be a progressive minded person you have to hate the oil industry. This is a very shallow understanding and probably explains why you don't understand the Alberta NDP or Federal Liberal's stance either. You seem to want to oversimplify into a good/bad, right/left, us/them kind of dichotomy. Life usually doesn't work like that.


Well, all I can say it that it beats having blind faith in terrible policy for both Alberta and Canada. Thank goodness their terms dates are so similar. We can get all the destruction over in 4.5 years and then toss both the federal Libs and the Alberta NDP out on their sorry butts.


----------



## FeXL

I'd have been happy if they had done their job in <3 months. There was more than enough information available at that time to draw a conclusion. Taking 8 months to come to the conclusion that everyone else save a select few already knew cost this province untold dollars in lost investment. Good enough for gov't work, I guess.

That's why I'm pi$$ed off. Another fail for the Knotheads...



fjnmusic said:


> When a gov't promises a royalty review and they will abide by the results, and these are the results, you should be happy.


----------



## FeXL

Nope. I just know that the particular progressives we are speaking of have no clue when it comes to getting Alberta's oil to the market. _Any_ market. Does it make sense that the NB refinery is using overseas oil when we could be using our own? 

If they did, then both of them would be hustling their little buns off getting pipelines going. Instead, we have The Hairdo saying that, even if it's approved, there's no guarantee a pipeline will be built. _Very_ reassuring. And, we have no comment from the Knothead regarding that statement. If she truly supported Alberta oil, she'd be crawling up & down PM Pompadour to get a pipeline built. Instead, nothing.

Ergo...



fjnmusic said:


> You seem to be under the delusion that to be a progressive minded person you have to hate the oil industry.


----------



## FeXL

Further to this, it's not anger, it's sarcasm.

Just one of the services I offer...



fjnmusic said:


> Can you respond without getting so angry do you think?


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Further to this, it's not anger, it's sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> Just one of the services I offer...



The PM Pompadour part is kind of funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Uniting the right in Alberta: easier said than done. For Brian Jean, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

http://albertapolitics.ca/2016/02/u...er-with-friends-like-these-who-needs-enemies/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

On the gas front, here's an article you might find interesting, and one that certainly supports the gas industry. How long does it take for a hybrid to become cost effective?
http://driving.ca/ford/fusion-plug-...w-high-gas-needs-to-be-for-hybrids-to-pay-off


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Interesting article and certainly one that separates liberals and conservatives from "progressives." The "progressive" would likely look at that article with anger and demand that the government meddle with the economy to favour the hybrid/electric vehicles.



fjnmusic said:


> On the gas front, here's an article you might find interesting, and one that certainly supports the gas industry. How long does it take for a hybrid to become cost effective?
> How much does gas need to cost for hybrids to pay off? | Driving
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Seems fair to me; you want the resource, you are responsible for the clean up. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/says...s+abandoned+wells+alberta/11716721/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Seems fair to me; you want the resource, you are responsible for the clean up. NDP says polluters, not taxpayers, should clean up thousands of abandoned wells in Alberta


I agree. But that is simply a point of law--not "progressive."


----------



## FeXL

How is this progressive? Or, for that matter, the next one you posted?



fjnmusic said:


> On the gas front...


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> How is this progressive? Or, for that matter, the next one you posted?



The thread was designed to attract progressive minded thinkers to examine and discuss government policies and related issues. These issues can come from a number of sources. Apparently it also attracts commentary from anti progressive thinkers as well. It's important to realize that not every progressive thinker feels exactly the same way about every issue. The commonality would seem to be in more of a hope for the future, glass is half full kind of mentality. You can disagree with how I've set this thread up, but I believe you have your own thread set up expressly for that purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> The thread was designed to attract progressive minded thinkers to examine and discuss government policies and related issues. These issues can come from a number of sources. Apparently it also attracts commentary from anti progressive thinkers as well. It's important to realize that not every progressive thinker feels exactly the same way about every issue. The commonality would seem to be in more of a hope for the future, glass is half full kind of mentality. You can disagree with how I've set this thread up, but I believe you have your own thread set up expressly for that purpose.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All valid points, fjn. As you say, there is a "commonality" amongst progressives, but there are also differences as well. Still, we are all able to share these POVs in a rationale, respectful and friendly manner. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

The Optimist Thread? I have hope for the future primarily because the tide is turning on "progressive" thinking.



fjnmusic said:


> The thread was designed to attract progressive minded thinkers to examine and discuss government policies and related issues. These issues can come from a number of sources. Apparently it also attracts commentary from anti progressive thinkers as well. It's important to realize that not every progressive thinker feels exactly the same way about every issue. The commonality would seem to be in more of a hope for the future, glass is half full kind of mentality. You can disagree with how I've set this thread up, but I believe you have your own thread set up expressly for that purpose.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> The Optimist Thread? I have hope for the future primarily because the tide is turning on "progressive" thinking.


Interesting, but when I read your comment Macfury it reminded me of the scene from the West Wing where Santos defended liberals and progressives.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrG9N-cmds[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting, but when I read your comment Macfury it reminded me of the scene from the West Wing where Santos defended liberals and progressives.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrG9N-cmds


Santos is confusing classic liberal thinking with devolved "progressivism." I think Santos killed a lot of people on _Dexter_.






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Santos is confusing classic liberal thinking with devolved "progressivism." " I think that you are the one who is confused.

No fair switching roles. He was also in LA Law on TV.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> "Santos is confusing classic liberal thinking with devolved "progressivism." " I think that you are the one who is confused.
> 
> 
> 
> No fair switching roles. He was also in LA Law on TV.



Yup. Everyone loved Jimmy Smits in the LA Law days. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting, but when I read your comment Macfury it reminded me of the scene from the West Wing where Santos defended liberals and progressives.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrG9N-cmds[/ame]



Seems to me Hawkeye was more of a progressive stick it to the man kind of guy on M*A*S*H as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Seems to me Hawkeye was more of a progressive stick it to the man kind of guy on M*A*S*H as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good point.


----------



## FeXL

I'm sorry, am I the only one who notices the complete & utter disconnect between post one & post 94 of this thread?



fjnmusic said:


> This thread is for forum members who would like to consider some of the positive aspects of progressive governments that have been elected in Canada and its provinces.





fjnmusic said:


> The thread was designed to attract progressive minded thinkers to examine and discuss government policies and related issues.


----------



## heavyall

The left's co-opting the term "progressive" was dirty pool from the outset. Most left-wing principles are anything but progressive. Socialism is a throw-back to a failed ideology that collapses under itself when it reaches sufficient levels within a given society. 

What would be truly progressive today? Less tax burdens on the people, less government intrusion into their lives, less government spending, less debt. In today's high debt, high tax, over-regulated society THAT would be progress.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> I'm sorry, am I the only one who notices the complete & utter disconnect between post one & post 94 of this thread?



If you don't like this thread, no one is forcing you to read it or respond to it. I don't contribute to the Anti Progressive Thread if I can help it cause I know I won't be welcome in that playground. Threads evolve, FeXL, and I'm okay with that. 

What I'm not okay with is the groundswell of negativity that rises up in just about every thread I've seen you contribute to, particularly the political ones. Those of us with more positive perspectives on the current government and/or economic situation and related issues sometimes just like to discuss ideas without being attacked for our views. Other forums manage it somehow, and they also have moderators when things start getting nasty and personal, something ehMac use to have but now obviously lacks. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

You obviously missed (again, I might add) the open invitation to anyone on that thread. In complete opposition to your restrictions. 

Please, come on in. The water is hot but, if you can defend your progressive position, feel free. If you can't, then you will feel picked on.



fjnmusic said:


> I don't contribute to the Anti Progressive Thread if I can help it cause I know I won't be welcome in that playground.


Nice little CYA. Even if transparent...

And, I'd also add that the only reason you started this thread is to have your own, personal little "safe space" where you wouldn't be proven wrong time & time again. Similar to the "safe spaces" that many progressive university students are creating for themselves who are unable to defend their positions, as well.



fjnmusic said:


> Threads evolve, FeXL, and I'm okay with that.


There is damn little to be positive about in Alberta, Canadian or American politics right now. That's why "particularly the political ones". Nor in the refugee situation, anywhere. Sorry if bad news makes you...sad.



fjnmusic said:


> What I'm not okay with is the groundswell of negativity that rises up in just about every thread I've seen you contribute to, particularly the political ones.


Discuss away. And, why would asking you to defend your position be construed as an attack? Because you can't?



fjnmusic said:


> Those of us with more positive perspectives on the current government and/or economic situation and related issues sometimes just like to discuss ideas without being attacked for our views.


I was on the receiving end of some of that wunnerful "moderation" back in the day. It was not dealt out fairly or even-handedly. As wanting as you may consider the fora to be now, we are better off without the moderators as they existed.

If you perceive this place as nasty & personal, perhaps you would do better to be critical of those delivering it in the first place instead of those reacting to it. Many of us here don't get nasty unless it's directed at us. I can be civil if I want. Somebody starts crawling down my throat, they're going to get a size 10-1/2 boot right up their backsides. I flatly refuse to be cordial to someone who is acting like an a$$hole.



fjnmusic said:


> Other forums manage it somehow, and they also have moderators when things start getting nasty and personal, something ehMac use to have but now obviously lacks.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> You obviously missed (again, I might add) the open invitation to anyone on that thread. In complete opposition to your restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, come on in. The water is hot but, if you can defend your progressive position, feel free. If you can't, then you will feel picked on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice little CYA. Even if transparent...
> 
> 
> 
> And, I'd also add that the only reason you started this thread is to have your own, personal little "safe space" where you wouldn't be proven wrong time & time again. Similar to the "safe spaces" that many progressive university students are creating for themselves who are unable to defend their positions, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is damn little to be positive about in Alberta, Canadian or American politics right now. That's why "particularly the political ones". Nor in the refugee situation, anywhere. Sorry if bad news makes you...sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discuss away. And, why would asking you to defend your position be construed as an attack? Because you can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was on the receiving end of some of that wunnerful "moderation" back in the day. It was not dealt out fairly or even-handedly. As wanting as you may consider the fora to be now, we are better off without the moderators as they existed.
> 
> 
> 
> If you perceive this place as nasty & personal, perhaps you would do better to be critical of those delivering it in the first place instead of those reacting to it. Many of us here don't get nasty unless it's directed at us. I can be civil if I want. Somebody starts crawling down my throat, they're going to get a size 10-1/2 boot right up their backsides. I flatly refuse to be cordial to someone who is acting like an a$$hole.



And again, you demonstrate all the qualities of an Internet troll. It's sad, really, your need for attention. I guess even negative attention is better than none at all. Have a nice day. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Riiiiiiight.

'Cause I jes' lives for a nice, red herring post like yours...



fjnmusic said:


> It's sad, really, your need for attention.


----------



## fjnmusic

Apparently it's not just Alberta where oil and gas operations haven't exactly been cleaning up after themselves. If you want the pity of the people, at least follow through and do your job. 
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/like-wa...rried-about-abandoned-oil-gas-sites-1.2778302


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Curious how this has all happened under BC's Progressive Social Credit, NDP & Liberal governments for the last 65 years...



fjnmusic said:


> Apparently it's not just Alberta where oil and gas operations haven't exactly been cleaning up after themselves.


----------



## fjnmusic

When is a reporter not a reporter? When he goes by the name Ezra Levant or works for the Rebel. 
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...log+rebel+from+government/11723016/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Banning the media is a very "progressive" trait.



fjnmusic said:


> When is a reporter not a reporter? When he goes by the name Ezra Levant or works for the Rebel.
> Alberta NDP bans Ezra Levant's right-wing blog The Rebel from government news conferences
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Seeing as you missed it on the NDP Thread and, further to...

Red Rose Country



> All budding totalitarians know that if you can't control the press, you can't control the masses.


Yep.

More:



> Update: According to the National Post article, the Notley Crue are doubling down. *It should be mentioned that Sheila Gunn Reid single-handily destroyed the Alberta NDP over Bill 6.*


M'bold.

Yep.

Even more:



> The Rebel found perhaps unexpected support from Canadian media personalities who are not associated with the right:
> 
> _I don't agree with pretty much anything @SheilaGunnReid says, but I don't see how her views should bar her from covering Alta. govt.
> 
> — Keith Baldrey (@keithbaldrey) February 16, 2016
> 
> *For goodness sakes Alberta, as a BC press gallery president I once approved access for the Communist Party. #bcpoli
> 
> — Keith Baldrey (@keithbaldrey) February 16, 2016*
> 
> *Whatever you think of @TheRebelTV, this is appalling. Government has no place deciding who is and isn't a journalist pic.twitter.com/MRndV43cqb*​_*
> 
> — Jesse Brown (@JesseBrown) February 16, 2016*


M'bold.

Yep.



fjnmusic said:


> When is a reporter not a reporter?


----------



## fjnmusic

Ezra Levant swore under oath in a courtroom that he is not a reporter, likely to mitigate his circumstances in a libel suit. Either he is or he isn't. If he isn't, then he does not get to be part of the press junket and more than any other blogger. He has testified that he is not a reporter (you might actually want to read the article). It's a fair call. No harm, no foul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You don't have to be a "reporter" to be part of the media. You could simply be a commentator. However, reporter Sheila Gunn Reid has also been ousted by the Notley regime.



fjnmusic said:


> Ezra Levant swore under oath in a courtroom that he is not a reporter, likely to mitigate his circumstances in a libel suit. Either he is or he isn't. If he isn't, then he does not get to be part of the press junket and more than any other blogger. He has testified that he is not a reporter (you might actually want to read the article). It's a fair call. No harm, no foul.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

I did. First thing this morning on my daily blogroll & again, later, when I found it posted on the NDP thread. They have an opinion. That is all...



fjnmusic said:


> (you might actually want to read the article).


Funny, I'm not a reporter either but I frequently get admitted as a member of the media.



fjnmusic said:


> He has testified that he is not a reporter


The only way this is a fair call is if the shoe isn't on the other foot. Then we'd be hearing a hue & a cry about censorship, human rights violations & a veritable plethora of other compaints.



fjnmusic said:


> It's a fair call. No harm, no foul.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Ezra Levant swore under oath in a courtroom that he is not a reporter, likely to mitigate his circumstances in a libel suit. Either he is or he isn't. If he isn't, then he does not get to be part of the press junket and more than any other blogger. He has testified that he is not a reporter (you might actually want to read the article). It's a fair call. No harm, no foul.


At the time he wasn't. He was the host of an opinion show on a channel that doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You don't have to be a "reporter" to be part of the media. You could simply be a commentator. However, reporter Sheila Gunn Reid has also been ousted by the Notley regime.













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

And?



fjnmusic said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> And?



And this is what "reporting" looks like when one is being objective, I suppose. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

I will make this comment for all who are discussing this topic to consider. 

In the story it states,* "When an NDP staffer learned that Reid’s Rebel colleague, Holly Nicholas, was already in the royalty briefing, the staffer entered the lock-up and kicked Nicholas out.”*

NDP seeking to muzzle opposing journalists | GUNTER | Columnists | Opinion | Edm

This is the part that needs to be put forth as part of the debate. If normal departmental scrutiny of the people allowed into the lock up were followed, it does indeed appear that Rebel Media met the criteria of the day to be allowed to enter the lock up as 'media'. Granted that process is done by line staff who are given policy to follow by the government and I very much doubt they ignored policy.

To have a complete reversal of that accreditation once accepted and entry allowed, can only come from one source with the power to veto the decision and I don't think I have to tell anyone that it would come from the very highest level, ie: the premier's office.

And therein lies the fly in the ointment folks, and anyone debating the issue had better be able to explain the reversal as part of the defence of the government, if that is their stance. Once recognized as valid 'media' and then tossed unceremoniously out on their collective butts now becomes political, does it not?

Food for thought.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I will make this comment for all who are discussing this topic to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> In the story it states,* "When an NDP staffer learned that Reid’s Rebel colleague, Holly Nicholas, was already in the royalty briefing, the staffer entered the lock-up and kicked Nicholas out.”*
> 
> 
> 
> NDP seeking to muzzle opposing journalists | GUNTER | Columnists | Opinion | Edm
> 
> 
> 
> This is the part that needs to be put forth as part of the debate. If normal departmental scrutiny of the people allowed into the lock up were followed, it does indeed appear that Rebel Media met the criteria of the day to be allowed to enter the lock up as 'media'. Granted that process is done by line staff who are given policy to follow by the government and I very much doubt they ignored policy.
> 
> 
> 
> To have a complete reversal of that accreditation once accepted and entry allowed, can only come from one source with the power to veto the decision and I don't think I have to tell anyone that it would come from the very highest level, ie: the premier's office.
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the fly in the ointment folks, and anyone debating the issue had better be able to explain the reversal as part of the defence of the government, if that is their stance. Once recognized as valid 'media' and then tossed unceremoniously out on their collective butts now becomes political, does it not?
> 
> 
> 
> Food for thought.



Perhaps she lied about which "news organization" she was from. Just saying. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You're just guessing with nothing to go on. Nobody from The Rebel Media should be denied access.



fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps she lied about which "news organization" she was from. Just saying.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps she lied about which "news organization" she was from. Just saying.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Nope she applied as a Rebel Media rep.

And now this:

Ten reasons why the Notley government is really stupid to bar Ezra and The Rebel | Warren Kinsella


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Nope she applied as a Rebel Media rep.
> 
> 
> 
> And now this:
> 
> 
> 
> Ten reasons why the Notley government is really stupid to bar Ezra and The Rebel | Warren Kinsella



I'm not going to shed a tear for Ezra or his sensationalist "news" site, when he's already declared himself under oath to be not a reporter. Other bloggers are also turned away. I will say that he's received far more attention from this than he deserves, but perhaps this is also karma.
http://canadalandshow.com/article/e...w-me-out-his-open-non-partisan-public-meeting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Typical "progressive" attitude. We've already established that you don't have to be a reporter to be a member of the media.



fjnmusic said:


> I'm not going to shed a tear for Ezra or his sensationalist "news" site, when he's already declared himself under oath to be not a reporter. Other bloggers are also turned away. I will say that he's received far more attention from this than he deserves, but perhaps this is also karma.
> Ezra Levant's Goons Threw Me Out of His "Open, Non-Partisan, Public" Meeting | CANADALAND
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Loos like the Notley regime is only singling out The Rebel Media.

Alberta NDP calls review of media policy amid backlash for banning Ezra Levant’s The Rebel from press briefings | National Post



> The legislature press gallery president, Calgary Herald reporter Darcy Henton, said The Rebel contacted him asking for its reporter to be accredited with the gallery earlier this month. *Henton said accreditation wasn’t necessary, and the reporter could get a visiting media pass by show their credentials to security.*
> 
> “It’s long been a practice in Alberta,” he said. “You don’t have to be a member of the press gallery to cover news conferences at the Alberta legislature.”
> 
> *“I can’t recall a previous incident where people were banned from covering news conferences. I’ve been here off and on since ’94.”*


----------



## fjnmusic

Some balance, please. 
http://albertapolitics.ca/2016/02/e...ry-has-the-mainstream-media-singing-his-tune/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

From your own article:



> "I don’t know who advised the government to get in this unwinnable fight, but it was bad advice."





fjnmusic said:


> Some balance, please.
> Alberta PoliticsGo figure! Ezra Levant, the Pied Piper of right-wing-nuttery, has the mainstream media singing his tune! - Alberta Politics
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> From your own article:



As I said, balance, which this article has, unlike some of the things you post. Did you read and digest the whole article?

Something else to consider: based on the Principles for Ethical Journalism, does Ezra Levant and the Rebel qualify as journalism? Seems point #1 gets violated right from the get go. 

http://www.caj.ca/principles-for-ethical-journalism/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Some balance, please.
> Alberta PoliticsGo figure! Ezra Levant, the Pied Piper of right-wing-nuttery, has the mainstream media singing his tune! - Alberta Politics


OMFG, balance? :lmao::lmao:

David Climenhaga lives here and he and I have coffee together. He is without a shadow of a doubt the largest single NDP supporter and union driven writer in the country. Not to mention he is employed by a union and a party member. Don't get me wrong he's a good guy and I like him, but balance? Really?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> OMFG, balance? :lmao::lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> David Climenhaga lives here and he and I have coffee together. He is without a shadow of a doubt the largest single NDP supporter and union driven writer in the country. Not to mention he is employed by a union and a party member. Don't get me wrong he's a good guy and I like him, but balance? Really?



Yes. The article is balanced. Did you read it? He may be a leftie, but the argument he presents is fairly objective. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Yep, I read the advance copy last night. Great spin to try and divert blame from his party, but that was about it. Now that Notley has admitted her 'mistake' it doesn't matter.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> As I said, balance, which this article has, unlike some of the things you post. Did you read and digest the whole article?


I did. He agrees with me. And now so does Notley.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I did. He agrees with me. And now so does Notley.



Isn't that odd. He agrees with me too, and yet we do not agree with each other. I don't think it's Premier Notley who is lacking intelligence here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

Progressives gave us new safe space bathrooms and change room. What can go wrong?

Man cites transgender rule in women's locker room

Trigger warning! The reporters refer the transgender woman in question as a "man".


----------



## Macfury

He said it was a mistake to deny access to the Rebel Media. You certainly didn't express that sentiment.



fjnmusic said:


> Isn't that odd. He agrees with me too, and yet we do not agree with each other. I don't think it's Premier Notley who is lacking intelligence here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Progressives gave us new safe space bathrooms and change room. What can go wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Man cites transgender rule in women's locker room
> 
> 
> 
> Trigger warning! The reporters refer the transgender woman in question as a "man".



I must admit I am baffled by the need to redefine all public washrooms spaces. Maybe if they were all individual washrooms like you see at, say, Canadian Tire. Of course at home, all of our washrooms are gender neutral. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> He said it was a mistake to deny access to the Rebel Media. You certainly didn't express that sentiment.



Entitlement-wise, it was a fair call. Access is a privilege, not a right. I can't walk up, say I have s blog and be granted access. And it's not a freedom of speech or freedom of the press issue either. The Rebel Media can print send publish whatever they want, true or not, and deal with libel suits afterwards. It's only about optics; the NDP looked bad for saying no. Personally, I think it takes a big person to admit a mistake, like Klein did after getting hammered and throwing money at the homeless people in the Herb Jamison centre. 
Who knows? Maybe this served as a good opportunity to spotlight the buffoonery of Ezra Levant for those who didn't already know. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It is not a privilege.



fjnmusic said:


> Entitlement-wise, it was a fair call. Access is a privilege, not a right. I can't walk up, say I have s blog and be granted access. And it's not a freedom of speech or freedom of the press issue either. The Rebel Media can print send publish whatever they want, true or not, and deal with libel suits afterwards. It's only about optics; the NDP looked bad for saying no. Personally, I think it takes a big person to admit a mistake, like Klein did after getting hammered and throwing money at the homeless people in the Herb Jamison centre.
> Who knows? Maybe this served as a good opportunity to spotlight the buffoonery of Ezra Levant for those who didn't already know.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It is not a privilege.



It is not a right either. It is not a right available to any Canadian citizen who shows up. If it were, anyone could go there, and the seats could all be taken by people are not a legitimate part of the press corps. Surely you must know from watching Stephen Harper that a free press is really more of a pipe dream. Even legit news agencies may be denied access. Harper refused to do media scrums, for example. At any rate, If I'm not mistaken, you need identification to be a part of the press gallery. It is not a right. Privilege is a better description.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It is a right accorded to the media. Not 100% access to everything, but equal access to those events open to the media.



fjnmusic said:


> It is not a right either. It is not a right available to any Canadian citizen who shows up. If it were, anyone could go there, and the seats could all be taken by people are not a legitimate part of the press corps. Surely you must know from watching Stephen Harper that a free press is really more of a pipe dream. Even legit news agencies may be denied access. Harper refused to do media scrums, for example. At any rate, If I'm not mistaken, you need identification to be a part of the press gallery. It is not a right. Privilege is a better description.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Accreditation; not every "media source" is entitled to it. An interesting discussion. 
http://alberta.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=810236


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Accreditation; not every "media source" is entitled to it. An interesting discussion.
> What makes a journalist a journalist? | Alberta Primetime
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It was only interesting due to the fact that the participants were all part of MSM or so-called media experts. Where was the viewpoint of of what 'they' call bloggers or social media?

A one-sided bunch of media hacks discussing a phenomena they detest called social media is what I saw. No balance, no unbiased input.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> It was only interesting due to the fact that the participants were all part of MSM or so-called media experts. Where was the viewpoint of of what 'they' call bloggers or social media?
> 
> 
> 
> A one-sided bunch of media hacks discussing a phenomena they detest called social media is what I saw. No balance, no unbiased input.



Boy, you are a crusty old bugger, aren't you? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Boy, you are a crusty old bugger, aren't you?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I guess you could say that, although I was once a crusty young bugger. 

Never could resist callin' a spade a spade, but more often called it a f'in' shovel.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I guess you could say that, although I was once a crusty young bugger.
> 
> 
> 
> Never could resist callin' a spade a spade, but more often called it a f'in' shovel.



I wouldn't know you if you suddenly developed a soft side. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It's certainly interesting. However, they agree that the rules of access must be applied equally.



fjnmusic said:


> Accreditation; not every "media source" is entitled to it. An interesting discussion.
> What makes a journalist a journalist? | Alberta Primetime
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Why oil could reach $85 a barrel by year end (and neither the Libs nor the NDP would have to lift a finger and could still look like saviours)

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/oil-could-surge-to-85-by-year-end-analyst.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It's certainly interesting. However, they agree that the rules of access must be applied equally.



For all members of the accredited media, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

And for more on who should be allowed into news conferences, here's the Journal's Graham Thompson. 

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...gislatures-free-press-melodrama-far-from-over


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> And for more on who should be allowed into news conferences, here's the Journal's Graham Thompson.
> 
> Graham Thomson: Legislature’s free press melodrama far from over | Edmonton Journal


From the link:



> *For journalists, that sounds ominously like the government wants to have the power to define who is a journalist to excluding anyone the government doesn’t like from news conferences at the legislature.*


This is exactly why Notley should have dropped the issue altogether, but once again she is not bright enough to realize she is dabbling in an area that ANY government does not belong. By appointing what she thinks is an 'unbiased' former media member to decide something for government they have no right to decide, she errs further. Stay tuned for a typical Notley screw-up ahead over this issue. AGAIN.


----------



## Macfury

Agreed. These are the errors of a neophyte.



SINC said:


> This is exactly why Notley should have dropped the issue altogether, but once again she is not bright enough to realize she is dabbling in an area that ANY government does not belong. By appointing what she thinks is an 'unbiased' former media member to decide something for government they have no right to decide, she errs further. Stay tuned for a typical Notley screw-up ahead over this issue. AGAIN.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> From the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why Notley should have dropped the issue altogether, but once again she is not bright enough to realize she is dabbling in an area that ANY government does not belong. By appointing what she thinks is an 'unbiased' former media member to decide something for government they have no right to decide, she errs further. Stay tuned for a typical Notley screw-up ahead over this issue. AGAIN.



Wait a minute. You don't think there should be any limits on who gets to sit in the press gallery? You don't think accreditation should count for anything? And if you think there should be limits, who would enforce them, if not the government or its employees? Not sure what you're advocating here, Don.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

I think the issue is what is a media member....today anyone who has a blog with more than 10 readers can be classed as media. Take Sinc's SAP site. It has over 1million people who have seen it.....media? I would think so. Is The Rebel any different than the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast and a host of others. What would you suggest as the magic number. My father published a small newspaper and would only dream about the readership smaller blogs have...so who is the media in this instance.....Ms Notley, it would appear, is behind the times. First rule of leadership is not to make something out of nothing....since we have had many posts on this issue, and broadcast coverage, she broke that rule.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Wait a minute. You don't think there should be any limits on who gets to sit in the press gallery? You don't think accreditation should count for anything? And if you think there should be limits, who would enforce them, if not the government or its employees? Not sure what you're advocating here, Don.





Rps said:


> I think the issue is what is a media member....today anyone who has a blog with more than 10 readers can be classed as media. Take Sinc's SAP site. It has over 1million people who have seen it.....media? I would think so. Is The Rebel any different than the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast and a host of others. What would you suggest as the magic number. My father published a small newspaper and would only dream about the readership smaller blogs have...so who is the media in this instance.....Ms Notley, it would appear, is behind the times. First rule of leadership is not to make something out of nothing....since we have had many posts on this issue, and broadcast coverage, she broke that rule.


First and foremost 'the government or its employees' should NEVER be involved in selecting media of any kind. They are the people that the media watch and hold accountable. Notley assuming that power with her new study is asinine and she is an ass for assuming she has that power. She does and should not.

As for accreditation, that has always been a sticky point. Over the years I have experienced many groups issue so-called 'press passes' to media of their choosing and it turns out badly for them every single time. They always think they are smart enough to select media fairly, but wind up selecting those they like and forgeting those they don't. Trouble is that is not in any way smart for any group, never mind government. The media are watchdogs and to give the government ANY kind of control over who is, or is not media is like hiring the fox to look after the henhouse.

The system is not broken in any way and should be left alone. The legislature’s press gallery determines who can be a member of the gallery with access to office space and security passes. That has been used for years and works just fine. That way the press control themselves as to who is a valid media and who is not. I have no doubt in my mind that The Rebal Media would not be approved by that body. Keep in mind that is for privileged access to the legislature and its members and gives valid media further access to transmission options for their material. Every provincial legislature in the country has a similar system.

Now we come to public press conferences, an entirely different matter. Since they are public, there is no accreditation policy, nor should there be. Any member of the public should have the right to attend these functions in a free society, even The Rebal Media.

There are hundreds of small newspapers in this province but they are not members of the press gallery. Their association, the Alberta Weekly Newspaper Association used to be a member and may still be, but it is through the AWNA that member papers could access the Leg when they needed to on rare occasions. Certain groups of newspapers also held membership in the gallery in some cases. Our group held an office in the Leg for many years representing some 40 plus Alberta weeklies.

Then there comes the question of bloggers and news sites that are online only outlets. That includes many mentioned above and certainly includes my own site, SAP. 

Am I media? Well, in answer to that, I have over 50 years of experience in media and I am licensed by the city of St. Albert to conduct media business in the community. Am I entitled to an office in the Leg? Good grief no! Nor do I have any desire to work full time in the Leg. Do I wish to cover public press conferences held by the provincial government anywhere in the province? Sometimes, if the issue has enough local interest. Can I attend those press conferences without any formal accreditation? You bet. Never had an issue doing so.

I have been doing the strictly online thing now for 14 years, so this is nothing new like some are want to claim.

There is no need for any further intervention as to who or what is media. It is very clear to me that the media themselves have sorted out their pecking order and the system works just fine as it is, Ms. Notley. You would be well advised to pull your nose out of this mess before it blows up in your face and try and avoid drowning in adverse public and media opinion.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> The system is not broken in any way and should be left alone. The legislature’s press gallery determines who can be a member of the gallery with access to office space and security passes.


Just to point out that this is also a matter of logistics. The legislature can't accept an unlimited number of media types on logistics alone.

And, as you point out, this is entirely different from press conferences.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> First and foremost 'the government or its employees' should NEVER be involved in selecting media of any kind. They are the people that the media watch and hold accountable. Notley assuming that power with her new study is asinine and she is an ass for assuming she has that power. She does and should not.
> 
> 
> 
> As for accreditation, that has always been a sticky point. Over the years I have experienced many groups issue so-called 'press passes' to media of their choosing and it turns out badly for them every single time. They always think they are smart enough to select media fairly, but wind up selecting those they like and forgeting those they don't. Trouble is that is not in any way smart for any group, never mind government. The media are watchdogs and to give the government ANY kind of control over who is, or is not media is like hiring the fox to look after the henhouse.
> 
> 
> 
> The system is not broken in any way and should be left alone. The legislature’s press gallery determines who can be a member of the gallery with access to office space and security passes. That has been used for years and works just fine. That way the press control themselves as to who is a valid media and who is not. I have no doubt in my mind that The Rebal Media would not be approved by that body. Keep in mind that is for privileged access to the legislature and its members and gives valid media further access to transmission options for their material. Every provincial legislature in the country has a similar system.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we come to public press conferences, an entirely different matter. Since they are public, there is no accreditation policy, nor should there be. Any member of the public should have the right to attend these functions in a free society, even The Rebal Media.
> 
> 
> 
> There are hundreds of small newspapers in this province but they are not members of the press gallery. Their association, the Alberta Weekly Newspaper Association used to be a member and may still be, but it is through the AWNA that member papers could access the Leg when they needed to on rare occasions. Certain groups of newspapers also held membership in the gallery in some cases. Our group held an office in the Leg for many years representing some 40 plus Alberta weeklies.
> 
> 
> 
> Then there comes the question of bloggers and news sites that are online only outlets. That includes many mentioned above and certainly includes my own site, SAP.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I media? Well, in answer to that, I have over 50 years of experience in media and I am licensed by the city of St. Albert to conduct media business in the community. Am I entitled to an office in the Leg? Good grief no! Nor do I have any desire to work full time in the Leg. Do I wish to cover public press conferences held by the provincial government anywhere in the province? Sometimes, if the issue has enough local interest. Can I attend those press conferences without any formal accreditation? You bet. Never had an issue doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been doing the strictly online thing now for 14 years, so this is nothing new like some are want to claim.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need for any further intervention as to who or what is media. It is very clear to me that the media themselves have sorted out their pecking order and the system works just fine as it is, Ms. Notley. You would be well advised to pull your nose out of this mess before it blows up in your face and try and avoid drowning in adverse public and media opinion.



A fair and thorough response. Thanks for this, Don.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

I don't know what the limit should be for how big a media outlet needs to be before they are not considered just some blogger, but The Rebel has a larger readership than Macleans does. Unless people are going to claim that Macleans is too small to be covering politics, whatever the number is, The Rebel have already comfortably surpassed it.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> I don't know what the limit should be for how big a media outlet needs to be before they are not considered just some blogger, but The Rebel has a larger readership than Macleans does. Unless people are going to claim that Macleans is too small to be covering politics, whatever the number is, The Rebel have already comfortably surpassed it.



I think it's about more than numbers actually. I believe there's a code of ethics involved as well, a commitment to be as impartial as possible. The Rebel Media clearly fails this litmus test.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I think it's about more than numbers actually. I believe there's a code of ethics involved as well, a commitment to be as impartial as possible. The Rebel Media clearly fails this litmus test.


That too is a very slippery slope. You might have forgotten that in the last federal election Post Media, owners of the Edmonton Journal and Sun as well as most major dailies in Canada ordered their editors to run endorsements for the Conservatives.

Kind of puts your litmus test as a total media failure does it not?

Or do you find that to be impartial and therfore acceptable as it is not Rebel Media?


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> I think it's about more than numbers actually. I believe there's a code of ethics involved as well, a commitment to be as impartial as possible. The Rebel Media clearly fails this litmus test.


By that standard, so does CBC and many other "mainstream" outlets in this country.


----------



## ehMax

SINC said:


> First and foremost 'the government or its employees' should NEVER be involved in selecting media of any kind. They are the people that the media watch and hold accountable. Notley assuming that power with her new study is asinine and she is an ass for assuming she has that power. She does and should not.
> 
> As for accreditation, that has always been a sticky point. Over the years I have experienced many groups issue so-called 'press passes' to media of their choosing and it turns out badly for them every single time. They always think they are smart enough to select media fairly, but wind up selecting those they like and forgeting those they don't. Trouble is that is not in any way smart for any group, never mind government. The media are watchdogs and to give the government ANY kind of control over who is, or is not media is like hiring the fox to look after the henhouse.
> 
> The system is not broken in any way and should be left alone. The legislature’s press gallery determines who can be a member of the gallery with access to office space and security passes. That has been used for years and works just fine. That way the press control themselves as to who is a valid media and who is not. I have no doubt in my mind that The Rebal Media would not be approved by that body. Keep in mind that is for privileged access to the legislature and its members and gives valid media further access to transmission options for their material. Every provincial legislature in the country has a similar system.
> 
> Now we come to public press conferences, an entirely different matter. Since they are public, there is no accreditation policy, nor should there be. Any member of the public should have the right to attend these functions in a free society, even The Rebal Media.
> 
> There are hundreds of small newspapers in this province but they are not members of the press gallery. Their association, the Alberta Weekly Newspaper Association used to be a member and may still be, but it is through the AWNA that member papers could access the Leg when they needed to on rare occasions. Certain groups of newspapers also held membership in the gallery in some cases. Our group held an office in the Leg for many years representing some 40 plus Alberta weeklies.
> 
> Then there comes the question of bloggers and news sites that are online only outlets. That includes many mentioned above and certainly includes my own site, SAP.
> 
> Am I media? Well, in answer to that, I have over 50 years of experience in media and I am licensed by the city of St. Albert to conduct media business in the community. Am I entitled to an office in the Leg? Good grief no! Nor do I have any desire to work full time in the Leg. Do I wish to cover public press conferences held by the provincial government anywhere in the province? Sometimes, if the issue has enough local interest. Can I attend those press conferences without any formal accreditation? You bet. Never had an issue doing so.
> 
> I have been doing the strictly online thing now for 14 years, so this is nothing new like some are want to claim.
> 
> There is no need for any further intervention as to who or what is media. It is very clear to me that the media themselves have sorted out their pecking order and the system works just fine as it is, Ms. Notley. You would be well advised to pull your nose out of this mess before it blows up in your face and try and avoid drowning in adverse public and media opinion.


Nice read SINC (Except for ad-hominem attacks in the first paragraph  ) . 

I strongly feel there always needs to be free access to the media and at public events, everyone should have access, even it is blogs, and even if they are blogs that I strongly, strongly disagree. 

I did an essay in college last semester on media bias in Canada interestingly enough. In my research, I came across some instances where Prime Minister Stephen Harper was _sort of_ restricting media access at the time by having reporters pre-submit questions, as reported in the Globe on May 26, 2006: *PM presses on in his feud with the news media*. 

The Observatory on Media and Public Policy at McGill University also did a study in 2006 on potential media bias in Canada on the federal election in 2006 amongst all the major newspapers in Canada. A summary noted:



> Despite efforts by individual media sources to correct perceived biases, a 2006 study found little evidence of political bias in the coverage of the 2006 election among major daily newspapers. The Observatory on Media and Public Policy at McGill University defined media bias as subjective coverage to provide a candidate with political leverage by portraying him or her in a more favourable light than their opponent in hard news stories. The study determined that the newspapers provided objective coverage. The researchers also provided an explanation for the perceived favour Stephen Harper received as a candidate from the press: Harper's actions provided more fodder for more news stories, while Paul Martin's campaign was significantly more lacklustre.


Even though Canada's overall national media is relatively unbiased and fairly objective, there is obviously bias. From a scholarly essay I read:



> The media is inherently biased and should therefore admit its position on the news and information it is providing to the population. Media literacy courses throughout Canada are now teaching students how to detect bias in the press. Since Canada is a democratic country, Canadians have the right to choose what to read and watch. By allowing the media more freedom to express opinions while admitting their bias, important subjects can be covered more directly and thoroughly without having to maintain the façade of neutrality. All demographic groups in Canada find their views represented in the media.


Having said that, my thoughts on The Rebel is that the majority of it's arguments are based on logical fallacies. I actually find the level of most arguments embarrassingly unintelligent. Ezra Levant has been sued for libel and lost twice and has had to issue formal apologies. He was a lobbyist for Rothman's Incorporated, cigarette manufacturer and a lobbyist for Achieve Energy Services Limited Partnership, the oil and gas industy in Alberta. So many of his arguments are based on logical fallacies, they are quite easy to dissect. I think Conservative points of view need to be heard and argued for based on facts and evidence, but more often than not, he plays extremely loose with facts and he's been called on it many times and has had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines and has had to retract those statements.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> That too is a very slippery slope. You might have forgotten that in the last federal election Post Media, owners of the Edmonton Journal and Sun as well as most major dailies in Canada ordered their editors to run endorsements for the Conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of puts your litmus test as a total media failure does it not?
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you find that to be impartial and therfore acceptable as it is not Rebel Media?



No, I just thought that was a foolhardy move on the part of those papers. The writing was on the wall as to who was going to win those elections, so the endorsement of the conservative candidates was like the kiss of death. Seems to me Andrew Coyne resigned rather than allowing the newspaper owners dictate what kind of editorial he would be obliged to write. But I still see the Journal and even the Sun as more impartial than the Rebel Media. Perhaps fabrication is a large part of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

ehMax said:


> Nice read SINC (Except for ad-hominem attacks in the first paragraph  ) .
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly feel there always needs to be free access to the media and at public events, everyone should have access, even it is blogs, and even if they are blogs that I strongly, strongly disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> I did an essay in college last semester on media bias in Canada interestingly enough. In my research, I came across some instances where Prime Minister Stephen Harper was _sort of_ restricting media access at the time by having reporters pre-submit questions, as reported in the Globe on May 26, 2006: *PM presses on in his feud with the news media*.
> 
> 
> 
> The Observatory on Media and Public Policy at McGill University also did a study in 2006 on potential media bias in Canada on the federal election in 2006 amongst all the major newspapers in Canada. A summary noted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Canada's overall national media is relatively unbiased and fairly objective, there is obviously bias. From a scholarly essay I read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, my thoughts on The Rebel is that the majority of it's arguments are based on logical fallacies. I actually find the level of most arguments embarrassingly unintelligent. Ezra Levant has been sued for libel and lost twice and has had to issue formal apologies. He was a lobbyist for Rothman's Incorporated, cigarette manufacturer and a lobbyist for Achieve Energy Services Limited Partnership, the oil and gas industy in Alberta. So many of his arguments are based on logical fallacies, they are quite easy to dissect. I think Conservative points of view need to be heard and argued for based on facts and evidence, but more often than not, he plays extremely loose with facts and he's been called on it many times and has had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines and has had to retract those statements.



Good points, Mr. Mayor. I think the Rebel Media is much closer to the National Enquirer in its "truthiness" than it is to the mainstream newspapers in Alberta. Bias is bound to occur, even in school textbooks that I've used to teach from, but information in sources must not be fabricated if a journalist wants to be taken seriously. Even though she ultimately backed down due to the optics, I think Ms. Notley made the right call. If nothing else, it got people's attention enough to take closer look at Ezra Levant's brand of "journalism." This story ain't over yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The CBC's brand of false narrative and bias is apparent to anyone who doesn't agree with them. 

I remember America's NPR once had some guests on who had to thoroughly explain to them exactly why their news coverage was biased. It was shocking to them when they had it pointed out specifically.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The CBC's brand of false narrative and bias is apparent to anyone who doesn't agree with them.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember America's NPR once had some guests on who had to thoroughly explain to them exactly why their news coverage was biased. It was shocking to them when they had it pointed out specifically.



I don't think the CBC's bias is anywhere close to the Rebel Media's bias. Furthermore, the CBC usually presents facts and issues retractions if it makes a mistake. Your dislike for the CBC notwithstanding, it is regarded by most Canadians as a fairly reliable news source. Sure they were tough on Harper, but Harper was also not very media-friendly. Most control reals aren't, unless they can manipulate the media to their advantage. Again, the big problem with Ezra Levant and his medium is that he fabricates things unless someone calls him on it. He does not meet the standard for journalistic integrity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Your dislike for the CBC notwithstanding, it is regarded by most Canadians as a fairly reliable news source.


it is regarded that way. It is not reliable.


----------



## FeXL

First off, I'm fairly sceptical oil is going to be anywhere near $85 in 10 months. The author offers nothing substantial to back up his claim. The Saudi's are determined to break other producers, period. They are willing to go to great lengths to achieve that.

Secondly, _if_ it actually did happen, the only people who would make the Progressives saviours are the same, low information voters who elected them in the first place...



fjnmusic said:


> Why oil could reach $85 a barrel by year end (and neither the Libs nor the NDP would have to lift a finger and could still look like saviours)


----------



## Macfury

They wouldn't look like saviours either. Both groups are digging pits too deep to fill with a return to higher oil prices.



FeXL said:


> First off, I'm fairly sceptical oil is going to be anywhere near $85 in 10 months. The author offers nothing substantial to back up his claim. The Saudi's are determined to break other producers, period. They are willing to go to great lengths to achieve that.
> 
> Secondly, _if_ it actually did happen, the only people who would make the Progressives saviours are the same, low information voters who elected them in the first place...


----------



## ehMax

Macfury said:


> The CBC's brand of false narrative and bias is apparent to anyone who doesn't agree with them.
> 
> I remember America's NPR once had some guests on who had to thoroughly explain to them exactly why their news coverage was biased. It was shocking to them when they had it pointed out specifically.


I agree there is a lot of Liberal bias with the CBC. 

I think part of the problem is obvious. Liberals think it's important to have a publicly funded media enterprise and Conservatives want to scale it back. Give anyone the scenario where they might lose their job if one particular party is in charge, and there is the recipe for conflict of interest. 

Not offering any answers myself, or saying it's good or bad, just why it's there. 

Balanced unbiased media is really important. Lately for my economics classes, I read stories from National Post and Globe and Mail. I think getting major Canadian news on the economy and politics is relatively pretty good and I like those publications. 

I do like following a bunch of independent private blogs on both the left and right wing side. I like any good logical argument.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> it is regarded that way. It is not reliable.



Interesting contradiction there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

The big kudatah (coup d'état): so how's that coming along? 

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...tah-alberta-style-shopping-carts-not-included


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> The big kudatah (coup d'état): so how's that coming along?
> 
> Paula Simons: It’s a Kudatah, Alberta-style; shopping carts not included | Edmonton Journal


The most telling truth from your link is this:


> Answers aren’t easy. No, the NDP can’t control the price of oil. Still, after 10 months in office, *this government is doing a woeful job of communicating its message to its citizens. It often seems more interested in picking partisan fights or pursuing Quixotic dream policies than in the hard-scrabble work of daily governance.* International economics and geopolitics have dealt Notley and her team a terrible hand. But that’s exactly why Albertans need her to lead, to speak to them in a way that shows she understands their struggles and worries.
> 
> Notley has that gift of empathy, that personal warmth, that sense of gravitas. It’s how she got elected. *Now, her media strategists, who sometimes seem scarcely more sophisticated than poor George Clark, must let her show it.*


----------



## Macfury

Paula shouldn't make fun of the spelling of some random Tweeter:



> He insisted that if he gathered enough signatures, *he could compelled* Lt.-Gov. Lois Mitchell...





fjnmusic said:


> The big kudatah (coup d'état): so how's that coming along?
> 
> Paula Simons: It’s a Kudatah, Alberta-style; shopping carts not included | Edmonton Journal
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> The most telling truth from your link is this:



I don't disagree. Paula Simons is a pretty straight shooter, a true journalist. The communication could be better by the NDP, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the governance. This George Clark reminds me of the guy who was planning to take down the African warlord Joseph Kony back in 2012 by convincing people to change their Facebook status. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Paula shouldn't make fun of the spelling of some random Tweeter:



Not sure what you mean here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I don't disagree. Paula Simons is a pretty straight shooter, a true journalist. The communication could be better by the NDP, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the governance. This George Clark reminds me of the guy who was planning to take down the African warlord Joseph Kony back in 2012 by convincing people to change their Facebook status.


Au contraire. It means EXACTLY that. There is definitely something wrong with the governance.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not sure what you mean here.


They keep hammering "kudatah" because some poor bastard on Twitter used it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> They keep hammering "kudatah" because some poor bastard on Twitter used it.



George Clark uses it too (the guy who's organizing the protest). Which of course has spawned the counter-protest "Crüedatah" movement. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Just one of his Twitter followers.



fjnmusic said:


> George Clark uses it too (the guy who's organizing the protest). Which of course has spawned the counter-protest "Crüedatah" movement.


----------



## fjnmusic

Well that was quick. Why wasn't the Rebel Media all over this, if they really are journalists?

http://albertapolitics.ca/2016/02/a...ndoned-by-his-erstwhile-friends-on-the-right/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The same reason the CBC doesn't report on many humiliations of Justin Trudeau--they are partisan.



fjnmusic said:


> Well that was quick. Why wasn't the Rebel Media all over this, if they really are journalists?
> 
> Alberta PoliticsAlberta #Kudatah plan expires with a whimper as George Clark is abandoned by his erstwhile friends on the right - Alberta Politics
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The same reason the CBC doesn't report on many humiliations of Justin Trudeau--they are partisan.



Hardly the same. The CBC reports both sides of any issue. This was supposed to be the biggest event in Alberta since the election: a true coup d'état with at least 80,000 signatures and an overwhelming crowd storming the legislature. Instead, they got a dozen supporters in a Calgary Wal-Mart parking lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Hardly the same. The CBC reports both sides of any issue.


Sure--the left and the far left.


----------



## heavyall

ehMax said:


> I agree there is a lot of Liberal bias with the CBC. .


The left bias of the CBC is at least as overt as the right bias of the Rebel. The difference is that the Rebel admits their bias, while the CBC insists they don't have one.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Sure--the left and the far left.



We have both kinds of music; country and western.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> We have both kinds of music; country and western.


Ha!



heavyall said:


> The left bias of the CBC is at least as overt as the right bias of the Rebel. The difference is that the Rebel admits their bias, while the CBC insists they don't have one.


Bingo!


----------



## SINC

heavyall said:


> The left bias of the CBC is at least as overt as the right bias of the Rebel. The difference is that the Rebel admits their bias, while the CBC insists they don't have one.


A succinct and accurate observation indeed. :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

From a Better Call Saul thread on another forum. This, to my mind, is what responsible moderation looks like. It helps nip personal attacks in the bud, a quality sorely lacking in a number of ehMac threads, sadly.




Idle Thoughts said:


> All of you, take it to the Pit if you have a problem with another poster....either that or report the posts you find offending without making it seem like a personal attack. *SenorBeef*, you were just recently warned about doing things similar to this, although there are others doing the same thing in this topic: Everyone needs to report the post and resist the urge to call out others on their posting behavior, *especially* if it's about posts they didn't even make in this topic. At best it's Jr Modding and at worst, it can hijack a topic and cause a massive fight with insults thrown around. Let's all get back to the topic at hand and off of one poster's past posts/behavior. If you want to talk about that poster, make a Pit thread about them. Beyond this point, I don't want to see any more posts about that hijack.
> 
> 
> That all being said.....
> 
> 
> 
> Gatopescado said:
> 
> 
> 
> More filler and by-product than an off-brand hot-dog. P ****in' U.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious from your many past posts on these shows that you don't like them. You've made it clear...time and time and time again. At this point, it's really looking like you're taking the chance just to thread**** in each topic about each episode, so if you don't like the show, you don't have to post in them. Don't post in any more if you're just going to basically put your hate for it in different ways, you can just ignore the thread.
Click to expand...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> From a Better Call Saul thread on another forum. This, to my mind, is what responsible moderation looks like. It helps nip personal attacks in the bud, a quality sorely lacking in a number of ehMac threads, sadly.


You ought to be glad that type of modding is not here, after all you could be in deep doo-doo for calling other posters by your favourite word which I won't repeat here but does indeed relate to doo-doo.


----------



## Macfury

It's sad to see adults submitting to this sort of nannyism.



fjnmusic said:


> From a Better Call Saul thread on another forum. This, to my mind, is what responsible moderation looks like. It helps nip personal attacks in the bud, a quality sorely lacking in a number of ehMac threads, sadly.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> It's sad to see adults submitting to this sort of nannyism.


I find it interesting that the ones seeking moderation are the ones who are incapable of articulating an argument or a defense in the first place...


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> You ought to be glad that type of modding is not here, after all you could be in deep doo-doo for calling other posters by your favourite word which I won't repeat here but does indeed relate to doo-doo.



Asshole? Yeah, you're probably right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Some questions for Premier Notley about Alberta asking for federal support as well as a response about that Rebel guy. 

Predictably, the Progressives among us will likely admire her integrity while the usual suspects will find something to complain about. I don't care. I admire this lady. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=813239


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Some questions for Premier Notley about Alberta asking for federal support as well as a response about that Rebel guy.
> 
> Predictably, the Progressives among us will likely admire her integrity while the usual suspects will find something to complain about. I don't care. I admire this lady.
> 
> CTV QP: Notley asks for federal support | CTV News
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Some integrity. 

NDP going ahead with plans to allow donors to pay to meet premier | Calgary Herald


----------



## Macfury

You admire her for holding her cap out to the feds and begging? Sweet!



fjnmusic said:


> Some questions for Premier Notley about Alberta asking for federal support as well as a response about that Rebel guy.
> 
> Predictably, the Progressives among us will likely admire her integrity while the usual suspects will find something to complain about. I don't care. I admire this lady.
> 
> CTV QP: Notley asks for federal support | CTV News
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Yup. So predictable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Why would you not be able to predict that your support for the unsupportable results in public disdain? Alberta's Beggar-In-Chief made a predictable case--she's lost control of the province's finances and now wants the Canadian public to bail her out.



fjnmusic said:


> Yup. So predictable.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why would you not be able to predict that your support for the unsupportable results in public disdain? Alberta's Beggar-In-Chief made a predictable case--she's lost control of the province's finances and now wants the Canadian public to bail her out.



Do you consider yourself to be a glass half full or glass half empty kind of guy? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The question isn't relevant when Notley has broken the glass.



fjnmusic said:


> Do you consider yourself to be a glass half full or glass half empty kind of guy?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Yes, she is...



fjnmusic said:


> Yup. So predictable.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The question isn't relevant when Notley has broken the glass.



Such a deep response. I think you miss the forest because of all the trees in the way. In other words, your anti-progressive stance is so entrenched it's really difficult for me to have a conversation about politics with you. Do you see yourself as open-minded?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Of course I'm open minded. However, I can't be open-minded to disasters in the making. I'm not the type of person who sees someone falling off a building and as each floor passes declare "so far, so good." 

Watching a provincial leader miring a challenged province deeper in recession, then kneecapping it is no cause for optimism. Seeing her beg the feds to bail her out does nothing to win my admiration. What she is doing is completely part of the "progressive" playbook.



fjnmusic said:


> Such a deep response. I think you miss the forest because of all the trees in the way. In other words, your anti-progressive stance is so entrenched it's really difficult for me to have a conversation about politics with you. Do you see yourself as open-minded?


----------



## FeXL

Defend her economic policy with something more than, "She's 50 and a lawyer." Do you think that's deep?

Provide us with some numbers to back your argument. Show us how billions of dollars taken directly from taxpayers pockets in the name of a carbon tax will benefit the province's overall economy and in what time frame.

Illustrate how this will encourage private investment in Alberta as opposed to, say, Saskatchewan, which has no carbon tax & no plans to implement one.

What steps has Rachel undergone to keep unemployment numbers from rising? What are her plans for real, long-term job creation, not temporary government make-work projects?

Further, if Rachel is doing such a bang-up job province-wide, why are her popularity numbers in the toilet with oil prices?

You want to have a conversation? Start by defending your position with facts, not platitudes about how smart she allegedly is and how you trust her to make the right decisions.

Your ball...



fjnmusic said:


> Such a deep response. I think you miss the forest because of all the trees in the way. In other words, your anti-progressive stance is so entrenched it's really difficult for me to have a conversation about politics with you.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Of course I'm open minded. However, I can't be open-minded to disasters in the making. I'm not the type of person who sees someone falling off a building and as each floor passes declare "so far, so good."
> 
> 
> 
> Watching a provincial leader miring a challenged province deeper in recession, then kneecapping it is no cause for optimism. Seeing her beg the feds to bail her out does nothing to win my admiration. What she is doing is completely part of the "progressive" playbook.



Yeah, I don't think you watched the same broadcast I did. Asking to have the same EI eligibility as the rest of the country is not asking for a bailout. Giving a billion dollars to Bombardier would be a bailout, not to mention obvious favouritism. Perhaps the subsidized child care in Quebec funded by Alberta transfer payments needs to end. There's lots to discuss, and certainly the PM is going to find himself stuck between a rock and a hard place when two progressive ideas come into conflict.

But there's no doubt in my mind that Premier Notley is moving in the right direction and representing her province effectively under the circumstances, regardless of the knee jerk reactions of the naysayers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Defend her economic policy with something more than, "She's 50 and a lawyer." Do you think that's deep?
> 
> 
> 
> Provide us with some numbers to back your argument. Show us how billions of dollars taken directly from taxpayers pockets in the name of a carbon tax will benefit the province's overall economy and in what time frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Illustrate how this will encourage private investment in Alberta as opposed to, say, Saskatchewan, which has no carbon tax & no plans to implement one.
> 
> 
> 
> What steps has Rachel undergone to keep unemployment numbers from rising? What are her plans for real, long-term job creation, not temporary government make-work projects?
> 
> 
> 
> Further, if Rachel is doing such a bang-up job province-wide, why are her popularity numbers in the toilet with oil prices?
> 
> 
> 
> You want to have a conversation? Start by defending your position with facts, not platitudes about how smart she allegedly is and how you trust her to make the right decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ball...



Stop telling me what to do. You don't know how to converse. If you want to rant, you've already set up your own playground expressly for that purpose. It's called the Anti Progressive Thread, and I promise you, I won't bother you there

Unless of course you're so starved for attention that this is the only way you know how to get it. Negative attention is better than none at all I suppose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Glad there's no doubt in your mind. I'm not surprised.

EI payments have always been designed with regional emphasis--there is no program for the "rest of the country." 

Agreed that there should be no Bombardier bail-out and subsidized child care in Quebec funded by Alberta transfer payments needs to end.





fjnmusic said:


> Yeah, I don't think you watched the same broadcast I did. Asking to have the same EI eligibility as the rest of the country is not asking for a bailout. Giving a billion dollars to Bombardier would be a bailout, not to mention obvious favouritism. Perhaps the subsidized child care in Quebec funded by Alberta transfer payments needs to end. There's lots to discuss, and certainly the PM is going to find himself stuck between a rock and a hard place when two progressive ideas come into conflict.
> 
> But there's no doubt in my mind that Premier Notley is moving in the right direction and representing her province effectively under the circumstances, regardless of the knee jerk reactions of the naysayers.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

What could be Better Than Ezra?

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/...ies-to-resign-from-legal-profession-1.3461396


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

You're the one here who has no concept of conversation.

Information, _facts_, are the currency in any conversation, debate, discussion, argument, whatever. I bring facts to my discussions. You bring content-free posts (Rachel's really smart! She's 50!!!). I ask for facts, you deflect, like a 6 year old in the sandbox. "Stop telling me what to do!!! I'm gonna hold my bref until I turn blue!!! Teacher!!! FeXL's using Trigger Words in my Safe Space."

Admit it. You've got nothing. No cash, no loose change, even. Maybe some pocket lint with the faded remnants of a fortune from your favorite take-out joint you failed to remove before your jeans got washed. It probably reads, "Rachel's financial policy sucks!"

You have zero concept of the financial damage the Knotheads are exacting upon this province. None. Unfortunately, that's not unusual. You're not alone. There are many people province-wide who don't. That's why you continuously deflect & avoid answering questions, why you can't defend your belief system, how your support of Rachel is naught more than faith-based. You have no facts, period. 

Not to worry. Her position _is_ indefensible.

However, just come out & admit it. Don't hide behind CFP's about lawyers, deflections and such.



fjnmusic said:


> Stop telling me what to do. You don't know how to converse.


You don't bother me here, you won't bother me there either. You'll bring no more facts to the debate there than you do here.



fjnmusic said:


> If you want to rant, you've already set up your own playground expressly for that purpose. It's called the Anti Progressive Thread, and I promise you, I won't bother you there


So, what's the thrust here? That your failed defence of your inability to actually debate a topic is to be construed as some sort of punishment, "negative attention", levelled at me?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Seldom do your posts not make me smile, FJN...



fjnmusic said:


> Unless of course you're so starved for attention that this is the only way you know how to get it. Negative attention is better than none at all I suppose.


----------



## Macfury

Agreed. These nuisance complaints are a waste of the court's time.



fjnmusic said:


> What could be Better Than Ezra?
> 
> Ezra Levant, free-speech advocate, applies to resign from legal profession - Edmonton - CBC News


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> You're the one here who has no concept of conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Information, _facts_, are the currency in any conversation, debate, discussion, argument, whatever. I bring facts to my discussions. You bring content-free posts (Rachel's really smart! She's 50!!!). I ask for facts, you deflect, like a 6 year old in the sandbox. "Stop telling me what to do!!! I'm gonna hold my bref until I turn blue!!! Teacher!!! FeXL's using Trigger Words in my Safe Space."
> 
> 
> 
> Admit it. You've got nothing. No cash, no loose change, even. Maybe some pocket lint with the faded remnants of a fortune from your favorite take-out joint you failed to remove before your jeans got washed. It probably reads, "Rachel's financial policy sucks!"
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero concept of the financial damage the Knotheads are exacting upon this province. None. Unfortunately, that's not unusual. You're not alone. There are many people province-wide who don't. That's why you continuously deflect & avoid answering questions, why you can't defend your belief system, how your support of Rachel is naught more than faith-based. You have no facts, period.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to worry. Her position _is_ indefensible.
> 
> 
> 
> However, just come out & admit it. Don't hide behind CFP's about lawyers, deflections and such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother me here, you won't bother me there either. You'll bring no more facts to the debate there than you do here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's the thrust here? That your failed defence of your inability to actually debate a topic is to be construed as some sort of punishment, "negative attention", levelled at me?
> 
> 
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Seldom do your posts not make me smile, FJN...



Such anger. Exactly the opposite of kindness and respect. I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes, but apparently it's been happening with great regularity for a long time now. Please reread the original post for this thread and ask yourself if you've been respecting boundaries. I grow tired of your negativity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Agreed. These nuisance complaints are a waste of the court's time.



And there sure are a lot of them—26 mentioned in the article. Sort of like the cases against Bill Cosby or Jian Ghomeshi in terms of numbers. Where there's smoke, there tends to be fire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I've never agreed with the "smoke and fire" analogy. It's self-serving. Proof and conviction are better metrics.



fjnmusic said:


> And there sure are a lot of them—26 mentioned in the article. Sort of like the cases against Bill Cosby or Jian Ghomeshi in terms of numbers. Where there's smoke, there tends to be fire.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I've never agreed with the "smoke and fire" analogy. It's self-serving. Proof and conviction are better metrics.



I trust you've read the Rebel Media or listened to some of Ezra Levant's rants? Would you call him objective?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I generally only see these through links presented on EhMac. I would classify them as often subjective, sometimes selective and frequently correct.



fjnmusic said:


> I trust you've read the Rebel Media or listened to some of Ezra Levant's rants? Would you call him objective?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Anger? I'm LMAO... :lmao:



fjnmusic said:


> Such anger.


Check the mirror.



fjnmusic said:


> Exactly the opposite of kindness and respect.


Actually, I hadn't eaten cold cereal for decades. Ran across Malt 'O Meal Oat Blenders with Honey & Almonds in Montana, sounded goods, tasted better. Great with breakfast beer...



fjnmusic said:


> I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes, but apparently it's been happening with great regularity for a long time now.


You already noted that the OP no longer applies because "threads evolve". I'm just part of the (r)evolution.



fjnmusic said:


> Please reread the original post for this thread and ask yourself if you've been respecting boundaries.


I grow tired of your continuous inability to back up your arguments. If you defended yourself with facts every so often, you wouldn't be subject to all the criticism calling you out for not doing it.



fjnmusic said:


> I grow tired of your negativity.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Anger? I'm LMAO... :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check the mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hadn't eaten cold cereal for decades. Ran across Malt 'O Meal Oat Blenders with Honey & Almonds in Montana, sounded goods, tasted better. Great with breakfast beer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already noted that the OP no longer applies because "threads evolve". I'm just part of the (r)evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grow tired of your continuous inability to back up your arguments. If you defended yourself with facts every so often, you wouldn't be subject to all the criticism calling you out for not doing it.



Do you know what a troll is? It's someone who deliberately searches you out looking for a fight. Over and over. It's really just a desperate need for attention, a need to be noticed. So congrats, FeXL: I can see you. Out of all the things I've ever posted, there is only one time that I can remember you've not replied negatively. Nobody likes to talk to someone who's constantly telling them that they're wrong for saying it. Who died and made you boss? 

You'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar. (But if rip their little wings off, they'll eat whatever you give them. – Kelly Bundy)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Honestly, fjn, you make yourself an attractive target by presenting a steady diet of unsubstantiated opinions. Nature abhors such vacuums.


----------



## FeXL

I'm not saying you're wrong.

I'm asking you to defend what you say...



fjnmusic said:


> Nobody likes to talk to someone who's constantly telling them that they're wrong for saying it.


----------



## fjnmusic

from the Globe and Mail



> Running on Empty: Big Oil Needs a Bigger Vision
> 
> Let’s start with geology. Big, easy conventional oil discoveries, like Mexico’s Cantarell and Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, are running out of puff. Those two and other old fogeys around the world are still pumping away, but, altogether, they produce about four million barrels per day less each year.
> 
> Aside from U.S. shale oil, the remaining potential big discoveries are very remote, very deep or in very hostile environments, meaning they are hideously expensive to find and connect to markets. In September, Shell abandoned the Chukchi Sea oil play in the Alaskan Arctic after spending an astounding $7-billion (U.S.) to find and drill a single well.
> 
> Shell, in effect, faces a slow-motion suicide. In 2014, despite its best efforts to find new reserves of oil and gas, it replaced just 26 per cent of the 1.2 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) that it produced. But it’s not alone. According to research firm IHS, the Big Five Western oil giants – BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Total and Shell – replaced 84 per cent of the amounts they produced. As oil prices fall and exploration and development budgets are crunched, the so-called reserve replacement ratio is bound to keep falling. To be sure, any of these companies could find a monster field, but the odds of doing so decline every year.
> 
> Which brings us to economics. As late as mid-2014, Brent crude, an international price benchmark, was trading at $110 a barrel. By the end of 2015, the price was down near $37 – a 66-per-cent drop. The culprits were excess supply, as U.S. shale fields turned into gushers, and OPEC, which decided in late 2014 that it wouldn’t try to boost prices any time soon by cutting output. OPEC (read: Saudi Arabia) took the view that high prices merely subsidized the development of expensive unconventional oil fields beyond its realm, notably U.S. shale oil and the Alberta oil sands. As that happened, OPEC’s global market share dwindled. OPEC’s strategy now, in effect, allows each member country to pump as much oil as it wants.
> 
> Low prices mean that the Big Five oil companies will have enormous trouble competing with the countries–among them Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia–that have exclusive access to the world’s cheapest fields. In many Saudi fields, it still costs just a couple of bucks to produce a barrel of oil. In the oil sands, Suncor is forecasting 2016 Canadian-dollar cash operating costs at $27 to $30 a barrel. Guess who is going to win over the long term? Not the Western oil companies, whose growth is now dependent on spending fortunes on unconventional reserves.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...n-approach/article28397699/?cmpid=febmktgtest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjn, the article argues that cheap oil is here to stay and that we should therefore invest in wind and solar. How can you post an article like this without realizing that the proposition makes no sense.

Is this "progressive" thinking?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> fjn, the article argues that cheap oil is here to stay and that we should therefore invest in wind and solar. How can you post an article like this without realizing that the proposition makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this "progressive" thinking?



It's an article that presents someone's perspective and their rationale for believing the way they do. It's fair game for discussion. Personally, I think too many people are looking for scapegoats in NDP/Lib governments when the reality is that the economics of the situation with regards to Big Oil is something we do not control and may never control again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's a straw man. First, I haven't heard anyone blame Notley for low oil prices--only for screwing up royally during the down cycle. The article presents no rationale for its thinking. Oil consumption is rising, but supply has temporarily outpaced it. Oil prices will rise, but Alberta will no longer be in the same position to take advantage of it, thanks to NDP policies.



fjnmusic said:


> It's an article that presents someone's perspective and their rationale for believing the way they do. It's fair game for discussion. Personally, I think too many people are looking for scapegoats in NDP/Lib governments when the reality is that the economics of the situation with regards to Big Oil is something we do not control and may never control again.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's a straw man. First, I haven't heard anyone blame Notley for low oil prices--only for screwing up royally during the down cycle. The article presents no rationale for its thinking. Oil consumption is rising, but supply has temporarily outpaced it. Oil prices will rise, but Alberta will no longer be in the same position to take advantage of it, thanks to NDP policies.



I do not follow your logic. You seem to be under the impression that the PC government were the sole reason Alberta has been successful since the oil boom. You also seem to be under the impression that environmental concerns are not important, when it is likely Alberta's "dirty oil/tar sands" reputation that killed ventures such as the Keystone XL pipeline deal. 

Also you like to use the word "straw man" a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Then discuss it!

How do you fly passenger & freight aircraft without fossil fuel?
How do you cost effectively & in a timely fashion transport goods across either ocean or land without fossil fuel?
What are the backup systems to the electrical grid going to be and what are they going to cost when then sun goes down & the wind is not blowing, in the dead of winter?
How does the military run on electric batteries?
Whose going to pay for it all? 

These are five simple, off the cuff questions among a veritable plethora of issues that bring into sharp relief the downfalls, shortfalls & impossibilities of going to 100% renewables.



fjnmusic said:


> It's fair game for discussion.


----------



## FeXL

First off, politics, pure & simple, killed KXL. There were thousands of miles of pipelines constructed in the US while KXL was in waiting.

Second, they're oil sands, not tar sands. Tar sands is a pejorative used by the left because it sounds worse. We aren't extracting tar, we're extracting oil.

Third, Alberta's "dirty oil/tar sands" has been proven to be much cleaner than, say, Venezuela's oil and on a par with much of conventional oil. I've posted an article examining that topic on these boards before. Anybody who says that is either ignorant, lying or misinformed.

Fourth, pipelines are the safest method of petroleum transportation we have. Why does the left endorse less safe methods like truck & rail?



fjnmusic said:


> You also seem to be under the impression that environmental concerns are not important, when it is likely Alberta's "dirty oil/tar sands" reputation that killed ventures such as the Keystone XL pipeline deal.


----------



## Macfury

No, the PC government is not the sole reason Alberta was successful during the oil boom. However, the Notley government is ensuring that it will become less successful over the long term. 



> ...when it is likely Alberta's "dirty oil/tar sands" reputation that killed ventures such as the Keystone XL pipeline deal.


It was passed by Congress and the Senate in the US--and then cancelled by one man, who hates fossil fuels on principle.



> Also you like to use the word "straw man" a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.


"Straw man" means what I think it means. It involves refuting an easily defeated argument that has not actually been offered by the other side. In your case: "People blame Notley for low oil prices."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No, the PC government is not the sole reason Alberta was successful during the oil boom. However, the Notley government is ensuring that it will become less successful over the long term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was passed by Congress and the Senate in the US--and then cancelled by one man, who hates fossil fuels on principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Straw man" means what I think it means. It involves refuting an easily defeated argument that has not actually been offered by the other side. In your case: "People blame Notley for low oil prices."



You should read some of the comments boards that I do, from the newspapers or on Facebook. There are PLENTY of people who blame Notley for low oil prices. These would be the type that I call low information voters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

When you recount those arguments here, it appears that you're associating them with normal people. I can find any nutty opinion I might look for in the marshaling ground for the unhinged underneath most articles.



fjnmusic said:


> You should read some of the comments boards that I do, from the newspapers or on Facebook. There are PLENTY of people who blame Notley for low oil prices. These would be the type that I call low information voters.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> When you recount those arguments here, it appears that you're associating them with normal people. I can find any nutty opinion I might look for in the marshaling ground for the unhinged underneath most articles.



Well there sure are a lot of unhinged nut balls posting on forums in Alberta then. I respond to what I see, just as you do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I tend not to refer to article comments on anything--for or against. Too easy to pick out the worst comments on any side.



fjnmusic said:


> Well there sure are a lot of unhinged nut balls posting on forums in Alberta then. I respond to what I see, just as you do.


----------



## fjnmusic

Apparently the Mexicans aren't so keen to pay for Trump's F**king wall. 

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...can+presidents+bash+trump/11746584/story.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

And in local news, there's progress on the Calgary flood plain front. 











Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And in local news, there's progress on the Calgary flood plain front.


That's just a continuation of a program initiated by the PCs. Nothing wrong with continuing it though.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Apparently the Mexicans aren't so keen to pay for Trump's F**king wall.


Whats' salient about that article is that Fox knows that Trump is going to build the wall. What he doesn't seem to know is that Mexicans will pay for it indirectly. Trump doesn't expect them to cut him a cheque.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Whats' salient about that article is that Fox knows that Trump is going to build the wall. What he doesn't seem to know is that Mexicans will pay for it indirectly. Trump doesn't expect them to cut him a cheque.



Yeah, and if he gets any back talk it'll now be ten feet taller. This guy is too emotional knee jerk reaction to ever be a stable leader for a nation. Many comparisons can be drawn between Trump's tactics and Hitler's tactics prior to WW2. Did you know that Hitler, for example, never visited the gas chambers nor the concentration camps? Much easier to inflict the damage when you're barking orders from afar. Anyway, the Repubs seem to be spellbound by this guy right now. I hope they wake up from their trance before the actual election takes place, because he looks like the shoo-in for the Republican nominee (even though he's not actually Republican in his views). He's just a racist xenophobe campaigning on fear and hatred—exactly the qualities that sunk Stephen Harper.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

Want to see what a progressive California University looks like. Pathetic!!!!
This happened yesterday. Watch the fascists kids cry a river and put on the brown shirts to keep their University a "Safe Space" for the leftist ideology. Scared ****less of having to defend their dogma against criticism.
Ben Shapiro at CSU-LA on Livestream


----------



## Macfury

I've often seen "progressives" resort to this sort of low comparison. I can draw a whole list of comparisons between Hitler and Obama/Clinton/Sanders--they are all socialists to begin with, so it's easy. However, I'm not a "progressive" so I won't engage in such embarrassing rhetoric.



fjnmusic said:


> Yeah, and if he gets any back talk it'll now be ten feet taller. This guy is too emotional knee jerk reaction to ever be a stable leader for a nation. Many comparisons can be drawn between Trump's tactics and Hitler's tactics prior to WW2. Did you know that Hitler, for example, never visited the gas chambers nor the concentration camps? Much easier to inflict the damage when you're barking orders from afar. Anyway, the Repubs seem to be spellbound by this guy right now. I hope they wake up from their trance before the actual election takes place, because he looks like the shoo-in for the Republican nominee (even though he's not actually Republican in his views). He's just a racist xenophobe campaigning on fear and hatred—exactly the qualities that sunk Stephen Harper.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I've often seen "progressives" resort to this sort of low comparison. I can draw a whole list of comparisons between Hitler and Obama/Clinton/Sanders--they are all socialists to begin with, so it's easy. However, I'm not a "progressive" so I won't engage in such embarrassing rhetoric.













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

> “Well, you know, I am who I am. And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we’re all in this together. That I think it is not a good thing to believe that, as human beings, we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people.”


Part of Bernie Sanders' reply when asked about his spirituality. Thanks for the link, 
Dr. G. I believe this man embodies the essence of progressive thinkers.


http://reverbpress.com/politics/bernie-sanders-cnn-sc-spirituality/









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Anybody here ever heard of the Koch brothers? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Part of Bernie Sanders' reply when asked about his spirituality. Thanks for the link,
> Dr. G. I believe this man embodies the essence of progressive thinkers.
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders Makes Stunning Statement On His Spirituality
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very true. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Anybody here ever heard of the Koch brothers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Ying to George Soros/Rochefellers Yang.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Anybody here ever heard of the Koch brothers?


The prolific philanthropists who donate billions of dollars to social and environmental causes? Sure, I've heard of them.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> The prolific philanthropists who donate billions of dollars to social and environmental causes? Sure, I've heard of them.



Well I suppose that's one way you could describe them. Ever heard of a book called Dark Money?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Well I suppose that's one way you could describe them. Ever heard of a book called Dark Money?


Yes, they support a wide variety of worthy causes.


----------



## fjnmusic

Gotta love trickle fown economics, which might be more aptly described as "**** flows downhill" or "it's lonely at the top."



> Oil CEO takes home $18 million after cutting 20% of workers
> 
> Profits for CEO Paal Kibsgaard’s company, which operates in more than 85 countries, were down 40% as prices for black gold continued the downward slide beginning two years ago.
> 
> Schlumberger, the world's largest oil field service, cut 25,000 jobs last year, or 20% of its workforce, according to CNN.
> 
> Profits for CEO Paal Kibsgaard’s company, which operates in more than 85 countries, were down 40% as prices for black gold continued the downward slide beginning two years ago.


http://m.nydailynews.com/news/nawti...cutting-20-worker-article-1.2538309?cid=bitly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Well I suppose that's one way you could describe them. Ever heard of a book called Dark Money?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Here is a short synopsis: 



> When libertarian ideas proved decidedly unpopular with voters, the Koch brothers and their allies chose another path. If they pooled their vast resources, they could fund an interlocking array of organizations that could work in tandem to influence and ultimately control academic institutions, think tanks, the courts, statehouses, Congress, and, they hoped, the presidency. Richard Mellon Scaife, the mercurial heir to banking and oil fortunes, had the brilliant insight that most of their political activities could be written off as tax-deductible “philanthropy.”
> 
> These organizations were given innocuous names such as Americans for Prosperity. Funding sources were hidden whenever possible. This process reached its apotheosis with the allegedly populist Tea Party movement, abetted mightily by the Citizens United decision—a case conceived of by legal advocates funded by the network.
> 
> The political operatives the network employs are disciplined, smart, and at times ruthless. Mayer documents instances in which people affiliated with these groups hired private detectives to impugn whistle-blowers, journalists, and even government investigators. And their efforts have been remarkably successful. Libertarian views on taxes and regulation, once far outside the mainstream and still rejected by most Americans, are ascendant in the majority of state governments, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Meaningful environmental, labor, finance, and tax reforms have been stymied.
> 
> Jane Mayer spent five years conducting hundreds of interviews-including with several sources within the network-and scoured public records, private papers, and court proceedings in reporting this book. In a taut and utterly convincing narrative, she traces the byzantine trail of the billions of dollars spent by the network and provides vivid portraits of the colorful figures behind the new American oligarchy.
> 
> Dark Money is a book that must be read by anyone who cares about the future of American democracy.


http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Here is a short synopsis:
> Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists


Good for them!


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

No, I haven't noticed that at all.



fjnmusic said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Between November 1962, when he became president, and November 1966, Lyndon Johnson spearheaded one of the most transformative agendas in American politics since the New Deal. In just three years, he drove the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the War on Poverty, and Medicare and Medicaid, all very progressive initiatives. Dubbed the "Great Society", it was an agenda whose ambition and achievement have never been matched, and it remains largely intact fifty years on. Not sure if Bernie Sanders could pull off this sort of progressive agenda today. Such is Life.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Between November 1962, when he became president, and November 1966, Lyndon Johnson spearheaded one of the most transformative agendas in American politics since the New Deal. In just three years, he drove the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the War on Poverty, and Medicare and Medicaid, all very progressive initiatives. Dubbed the "Great Society", it was an agenda whose ambition and achievement have never been matched, and it remains largely intact fifty years on. Not sure if Bernie Sanders could pull off this sort of progressive agenda today. Such is Life.



I don't think anybody except Bernie Sanders could pull it off, to tell the truth, because all of the candidates, including Hillary, appear to have big money in their pockets. Dark Money even, in many cases. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I don't think anybody except Bernie Sanders could pull it off, to tell the truth, because all of the candidates, including Hillary, appear to have big money in their pockets. Dark Money even, in many cases.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


True. But LBJ, as well as FDR, had Congress supporting their progressive policies. I don't think that Bernie Sanders would have this support. Sad ...........


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> True. But LBJ, as well as FDR, had Congress supporting their progressive policies. I don't think that Bernie Sanders would have this support. Sad ...........



America is a bizarre land of extreme opposites. You have the far right and far left as prime contenders to the throne, with the electorate polarized possibly more than they ever have been before. A Trump presidency to me is scary, especially given what Republicans have come to represent, but Bernie Sanders won't be able to accomplish much more than Obama if he gets hamstrung by a Repub Congress and/or Senate. Unless of course the US collectively wakes up from the stupor they've fallen into and realizes the danger of a Trump presidency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> America is a bizarre land of extreme opposites. You have the far right and far left as prime contenders to the throne, with the electorate polarized possibly more than they ever have been before. A Trump presidency to me is scary, especially given what Republicans have come to represent, but Bernie Sanders won't be able to accomplish much more than Obama if he gets hamstrung by a Repub Congress and/or Senate. Unless of course the US collectively wakes up from the stupor they've fallen into and realizes the danger of a Trump presidency.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Valid points, Frank. Be prepared for the backlash that is forthcoming due to our views. Keep the Faith. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Valid points, Frank. Be prepared for the backlash that is forthcoming due to our views. Keep the Faith. Paix, mon ami.



Always. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Always.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I said, "Keep the faith, mon ami. Paix." Let the onslaught begin.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> America is a bizarre land of extreme opposites. You have the far right and far left as prime contenders to the throne, with the electorate polarized possibly more than they ever have been before. A Trump presidency to me is scary, especially given what Republicans have come to represent, but Bernie Sanders won't be able to accomplish much more than Obama if he gets hamstrung by a Repub Congress and/or Senate. Unless of course the US collectively wakes up from the stupor they've fallen into and realizes the danger of a Trump presidency.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually Trump is more Liberal than pretty much every other Republican candidate. Many prominent social conservative pundits are shaking their heads. Historically he's been a Democrat supporter $$, supports Planned Parenthood and in reality, religion has absolutely no influence on his decision making. God means nothing to him, he doesn't like the competition for top deity. He's supporting Obama Care or an Obama Care 2.0. Anything coming out of his mouth that sounds socially conservative is BS window dressing to sell himself to the gullible. It seems to be working. That said he probably has the best chance of beating the Democrats and people seem willing to sell their soul to do it. Polls also show he's extremely popular with minorities where Democrats have been strongest. Even Latinos. Crazy times. As demonstrated in Canada, celebrity in the absence of substance can win you an election.


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> Actually Trump is more Liberal than pretty much every other Republican candidate. Many prominent social conservative pundits are shaking their heads. Historically he's been a Democrat supporter $$, supports Planned Parenthood and in reality, religion has absolutely no influence on his decision making. God means nothing to him, he doesn't like the competition for top deity. He's supporting Obama Care or an Obama Care 2.0. Anything coming out of his mouth that sounds socially conservative is BS window dressing to sell himself to the gullible. It seems to be working. That said he probably has the best chance of beating the Democrats and people seem willing to sell their soul to do it. Polls also show he's extremely popular with minorities where Democrats have been strongest. Even Latinos. Crazy times. As demonstrated in Canada, celebrity in the absence of substance can win you an election.


Here is a perfect example of why 'Murika will elect Trump.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> Actually Trump is more Liberal than pretty much every other Republican candidate. Many prominent social conservative pundits are shaking their heads. Historically he's been a Democrat supporter $$, supports Planned Parenthood and in reality, religion has absolutely no influence on his decision making. God means nothing to him, he doesn't like the competition for top deity. He's supporting Obama Care or an Obama Care 2.0. Anything coming out of his mouth that sounds socially conservative is BS window dressing to sell himself to the gullible. It seems to be working. That said he probably has the best chance of beating the Democrats and people seem willing to sell their soul to do it. Polls also show he's extremely popular with minorities where Democrats have been strongest. Even Latinos. Crazy times. As demonstrated in Canada, celebrity in the absence of substance can win you an election.



I see what you mean. He is an enigma. And rich, so he doesn't have to worry about being financed by the Koch brothers. And I see what you mean about being godless; most narcissists are. The problem is that his ideas about politics are so vacuous, due to lack of experience, that he seems to believe he just has to hire the right people (and presumably fire the right people) and he can bully the nation into obeying his command. I wouldn't want to see someone like Trump with his finger on the red button. He's much too volatile and emotionally driven. Also, his lips are permanently pursed like Walter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

That guy was an ass as is Trump to make the some of the remarks he has. That said, the opposite end of the spectrum is equally ridiculous. The often repeated appologist mantra that "Islam is a religion of Peace" after every suicide bombing and decapitation doesn't play out in the real world. Clearly there is a problem within a population of Islam. Labeling anyone a racist that has the slightest of hesitation about unfettered Muslim immigration is to live in a world of sunshine and lollypops. There is a problem that needs to be addressed.


----------



## FeXL

I'm sorry. Is this the Anti Progressive thread, talking about PM Pompadour?



fjnmusic said:


> The problem is that his ideas about politics are so vacuous, due to lack of experience...


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> That guy was an ass as is Trump to make the some of the remarks he has. That said, the opposite end of the spectrum is equally ridiculous. The often repeated appologist mantra that "Islam is a religion of Peace" after every suicide bombing and decapitation doesn't play out in the real world. Clearly there is a problem within a population of Islam. Labeling anyone a racist that has the slightest of hesitation about unfettered Muslim immigration is to live in a world of sunshine and lollypops. There is a problem that needs to be addressed.



Touché. There are definitely wolves among the sheep in Islam. However, there are also wolves among the sheep in many religions and organizations, including Christianity. You know what you don't hear about though? Zen Buddhist terrorists and Hindu terrorists. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

You may not have heard about it but its happening. Buddhist and Hindus are not exempt. A quick google search will bring up lots of stories. 
And yes I'll agree there are wolves in every religious and non religious group/ideology. But in this present era, nothing comes close statistically to the threats of random violence posed by followers of Mohammed. The troubling fact being that their attacks and the barbarity of them can be completely justified in the texts of their religion. Thankfully many of them ignore those texts and are peaceful people. I don't think Islam deserves a pass either because of some false equivalency argument.


----------



## Macfury

Problem is that the majority of Republicans no longer believe that their candidates will do ANYTHING they promise to do--given a majority in the House and Senate, folks like Rubio simply rubber stamp legislation that they were elected to defeat. That leaves Trump, Cruz and Carson. Carson seems out of his depth while Cruz appears unelectable. Only Trump is left.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Problem is that the majority of Republicans no longer believe that their candidates will do ANYTHING they promise to do--given a majority in the House and Senate, folks like Rubio simply rubber stamp legislation that they were elected to defeat. That leaves Trump, Cruz and Carson. Carson seems out of his depth while Cruz appears unelectable. Only Trump is left.


You're absolutely correct. I like Ted Cruz myself but sadly I don't think the social conservative brand will win an election. I think social Conservatives supporting Trump are selling out their souls for a guy that can beat the Democrats. It just sucks that that guy is Donald Trump. I've read quite a few Conservative commentators that said they would be plugging their nose to vote Trump but they feel he's better than the alternative.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Problem is that the majority of Republicans no longer believe that their candidates will do ANYTHING they promise to do--given a majority in the House and Senate, folks like Rubio simply rubber stamp legislation that they were elected to defeat. That leaves Trump, Cruz and Carson. Carson seems out of his depth while Cruz appears unelectable. Only Trump is left.





MacGuiver said:


> You're absolutely correct. I like Ted Cruz myself but sadly I don't think the social conservative brand will win an election. I think social Conservatives supporting Trump are selling out their souls for a guy that can beat the Democrats. It just sucks that that guy is Donald Trump. I've read quite a few Conservative commentators that said they would be plugging their nose to vote Trump but they feel he's better than the alternative.


Ironically *Billion's* unlimited spending has taken the heart out of The Republican Party.

How has this turn of events have anything to do with anything Progressive? 

Why has this discussion landed in "The Progressive Thread?" 

Wouldn't "The Anti-Progressive Thread" be far more appropriate for this kind of discussion?

Or has "The Anti-Progressive Thread" become too much of echo chamber for any sort of meaningful discussion?


----------



## fjnmusic

Excellent discussion lately. It is important to get past semantics and attacks and actually discuss concepts for any meaningful dialogue or multilogue to take place. I'm impressed. As the OP, all I was looking for was a way to get past all the polarization I was seeing, BigDL, so branching out is no big deal so long as the conversation is respectful. I'd call that making progress. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

It doesn't. However, FJN thinks that by creating his own little "safe space" that the big meanies who ask all the tough questions that he can't/won't answer won't continue to ask them here.

He also thinks that the big meanies who ask all the tough questions (like, "Why is Rachel smart, just because she turned 50?") are trolls and attention whores who will go away if he just ignores them.

They aren't & they won't. All they are looking for is someone to defend their position. With _facts._



BigDL said:


> How has this turn of events have anything to do with anything Progressive?


C'mon in, BigDL, the water's tepid. Bring some facts, some critical analysis (I know you have it in you. I've seen it.), have a discussion.

As far as being an echo chamber, the views per post there are significantly higher than here. Something's just terribly interesting about that thread. Just because few are responding doesn't mean there aren't many nodding their heads in tacit, silent agreement...



BigDL said:


> Or has "The Anti-Progressive Thread" become too much of echo chamber for any sort of meaningful discussion?


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> It doesn't. However, FJN thinks that by creating his own little "safe space" that the big meanies who ask all the tough questions that he can't/won't answer won't continue to ask them here.
> 
> 
> 
> He also thinks that the big meanies who ask all the tough questions (like, "Why is Rachel smart, just because she turned 50?") are trolls and attention whores who will go away if he just ignores them.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't & they won't. All they are looking for is someone to defend their position. With _facts._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon in, BigDL, the water's tepid. Bring some facts, some critical analysis (I know you have it in you. I've seen it.), have a discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as being an echo chamber, the views per post there are significantly higher than here. Something's just terribly interesting about that thread. Just because few are responding doesn't mean there aren't many nodding their heads in tacit, silent agreement...



Cling to your negativity if you feel you must, FeXL. You won't get any argument from me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

An article about a new film being released today on the Alberta election last May and the NDP victory over the PC dynasty. Haven't seen, don't know a lot about it, but it sounds interesting. Alberta's NDP: love 'em or hate 'em, they certainly made history less than a year ago. 



> The film uses cartoons by the Edmonton Journal’s Malcolm Mayes to paint a picture of the political landscape leading up to May 5, 2015.
> 
> “Those six months prior to the election, with basically new party leaders across the board and the drama that got them there, it was quite interesting,” Wolfert said.
> 
> Day of Change features several candidates who would go on to victory, including cabinet ministers Deron Bilous and Joe Ceci, Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark and NDP MLAs Heather Sweet and Barb Miller.
> 
> “We did focus a little bit more on the ground campaign of the NDP because I thought it was a major factor in why they were going to be successful,” Wolfert said.
> 
> Bilous, who now serves as economic development and trade minister in Notley’s government, said he is looking forward to seeing the film. During a race, candidates usually focus on their own ridings and don’t get much insight into how other campaigns are going, he said.
> 
> “We knew it was going to be historic, but to what extent, I wasn’t sure,” Bilous said Monday.
> 
> As someone who has always been interested in politics, Wolfert said the film gives people a look inside the political machine.


http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...cenes-look-at-albertas-historic-2015-election


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

First of all, I'd be more than willing to have you cite anything in that post that's negative and defend your opinion.

Second, from prior history on these boards, I know I won't get an argument from you 'cause you don't have one...



fjnmusic said:


> Cling to your negativity if you feel you must, FeXL. You won't get any argument from me.


----------



## FeXL

Yes, & history will be made again in 3 years when they prove to be the only single term political party in the province since 1905. :clap:



fjnmusic said:


> Alberta's NDP: love 'em or hate 'em, they certainly made history less than a year ago.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> First of all, I'd be more than willing to have you cite anything in that post that's negative and defend your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Second, from prior history on these boards, I know I won't get an argument from you 'cause you don't have one...



You won't get an argument from me because I'm not interested in arguing with you. You are too bossy. You want to dictate all the terms of the conversation, which is quite frankly, not a conversation. If you could learn to listen better, I might reconsider. No offense, but your style does not work for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Sorry to break this sad news but, there are certain conventions followed in the fine art of discussion & debate. For instance, I present my position & defend it with facts. You voice your position & defend it. With facts. Interesting you haven't run across this in your teaching, your students should be using the same technique in their papers. 

If asking you to defend your position with facts categorizes me as being bossy, so be it: mea culpa. That's all I've ever asked. Nothing more, nothing less. 

I have dozens of conversations, discussions, arguments, whatever throughout the course of any given month & everybody abides by (or is at least aware of it, as their argument folds) that one simple guideline. I know not why you have such issues with it, although I have my suspicions.

There is a woeful shortage of actual facts in any serious discussion with you. Again, that's not an issue. However, such conversations are better held in the Religion thread where all belief systems belong.

In addition, if all you want is beer talk, with little or no substance and zero actual debate, where everybody pats themselves on the back & nods their head in agreement, then go open your own thre...oh, wait. 



fjnmusic said:


> You are too bossy. You want to dictate all the terms of the conversation, which is quite frankly, not a conversation.


I listen & hear just fine. And, trust me, I'm not waiting with bated breathe for you to reconsider. Frankly, I don't care if you engage me (or anybody else, for that matter) or not. I'd just like to see you take your discussion to the next level, where you actually defend your position.



fjnmusic said:


> If you could learn to listen better, I might reconsider.


That's OK. No offense taken. Most people find it difficult to articulate a discussion when coming from a defenceless position.



fjnmusic said:


> No offense, but your style does not work for me.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Sorry to break this sad news but, there are certain conventions followed in the fine art of discussion & debate. For instance, I present my position & defend it with facts. You voice your position & defend it. With facts. Interesting you haven't run across this in your teaching, your students should be using the same technique in their papers.
> 
> 
> 
> If asking you to defend your position with facts categorizes me as being bossy, so be it: mea culpa. That's all I've ever asked. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> I have dozens of conversations, discussions, arguments, whatever throughout the course of any given month & everybody abides by (or is at least aware of it, as their argument folds) that one simple guideline. I know not why you have such issues with it, although I have my suspicions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a woeful shortage of actual facts in any serious discussion with you. Again, that's not an issue. However, such conversations are better held in the Religion thread where all belief systems belong.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, if all you want is beer talk, with little or no substance and zero actual debate, where everybody pats themselves on the back & nods their head in agreement, then go open your own thre...oh, wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listen & hear just fine. And, trust me, I'm not waiting with bated breathe for you to reconsider. Frankly, I don't care if you engage me (or anybody else, for that matter) or not. I'd just like to see you take your discussion to the next level, where you actually defend your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK. No offense taken. Most people find it difficult to articulate a discussion when coming from a defenceless position.



You are under the illusion that everything must be a debate. Sometimes people just like to share stuff, no commentary necessary. There's certainly not a lot of commentary going on in the echo chamber. You need to learn to back off and just let people talk without attacking them for what you perceive to be their lack of willingness to argue with you. You're not the boss. You're not even a moderator. Stop acting like a self-appointed one. 

This isn't a research paper. It's a conversation, and I've linked plenty of sources for you to read and consider, and discard if you don't like them. If I had time or interest to bring an army of facts and figures, I would, but I prefer the Socratic method. I like asking questions to find out what people think. It's not easy to get the far left and the far right to agree on much, but at least people are beginning to talk to each more respectfully on this thread. Well, most. This ain't no echo chamber. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Not even close. However, when you start spewing crap like, "Rachel's really smart! She's 50 & a lawyer!" I'm going to call you on it every time. And, that's just one of your shining examples in recent history.



fjnmusic said:


> You are under the illusion that everything must be a debate.


And I share it right back.



fjnmusic said:


> Sometimes people just like to share stuff, no commentary necessary.


Wait, let me see, I know it's here somewhere. Oh yeah!

"Sometimes people just like to share stuff, no commentary necessary."

You miss my point entirely. It doesn't matter to me if there is an absence of commentary. What matters to me is the quality of the commentary that exists. Is the position defensible? That's what's important.

There are fluff threads on these boards but there are serious topical threads, too. I guess I just expect that if you're going to throw down an opinion in the Science thread, the GHG thread, or one of the Political threads, you should be able to back it up. I don't see the issue in asking people to do that.



fjnmusic said:


> There's certainly not a lot of commentary going on in the echo chamber.


I'm not attacking. I'm asking people to defend their position. It's what adults do.



fjnmusic said:


> You need to learn to back off and just let people talk without attacking them for what you perceive to be their lack of willingness to argue with you.


Jeezuz, here we go with the sandbox logic again. Are you going to hold your bref 'til you turn blue, too?



fjnmusic said:


> You're not the boss.


Wouldn't want the job. Especially on these boards.



fjnmusic said:


> You're not even a moderator. Stop acting like a self-appointed one.


Yea, & I've gone & read some of them & when I come back asking for clarification I either get ad homs or fluff or detraction from the topic or logical fallacies or a whole host of reasons why you don't/can't/won't further the conversation. 

That's your shortfall, not mine.



fjnmusic said:


> This isn't a research paper. It's a conversation, and I've linked plenty of sources for you to read and consider, and discard if you don't like them.


Pretty sure if Socrates had been asked a question, he'd have answered.



fjnmusic said:


> If I had time or interest to bring an army of facts and figures, I would, but I prefer the Socratic method.


Hey, me, too!!! So, answer some questions...



fjnmusic said:


> I like asking questions to find out what people think.


You keep bringing up respect. Part of that is also answering people's questions...



fjnmusic said:


> ...but at least people are beginning to talk to each more respectfully on this thread.


----------



## fjnmusic

And on the Progressive side of the PC party in Alberta, looks like there's a little trouble in paradise regarding the unite the right movement. And things were starting off so well, too...



> 'Over my dead body': Alberta PC leader denies urging people to also join Wildrose Party
> 
> Interim Tory Leader Ric McIver is now rebuffing a claim he is urging Alberta conservatives to buy party memberships in both his Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose.
> 
> Wildrose Leader Brian Jean told the Herald Monday that McIver is “encouraging everybody to buy both a Wildrose membership and a PC membership” as talk continues around the idea of uniting the provincial right.
> 
> In an interview the same day, McIver would not directly answer whether he had made the comments, repeating several times that he has been telling people to participate in every conversation they can.
> 
> On Tuesday however, McIver released a statement saying Jean had “attempted to make hay with an outrageous statement about selling WRP memberships.”
> 
> “Make no mistake, I am all in with regard to my commitment to the (Progressive Conservatives.) My response to Mr. Jean’s suggestion that I am a (Wildrose) supporter has not changed. ‘Over my dead body!'”
> 
> Both Jean and McIver were in Ottawa last week for the Manning Centre’s annual conference on the state of conservatism in Canada. Bridging the divide between Alberta’s right-of-centre parties was a topic of conversation in the nation’s capital and both men attended a reception hosted by federal Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose, who is a backer of uniting the right.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...enies+telling+people+also/11755134/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's a good thing. Uniting the right is a terrible idea. One party needs to crush the other.



fjnmusic said:


> And on the Progressive side of the PC party in Alberta, looks like there's a little trouble in paradise regarding the unite the right movement. And things were starting off so well, too...
> 
> 
> 
> 'Over my dead body': Alberta PC leader denies urging people to also join Wildrose Party
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's a good thing. Uniting the right is a terrible idea. One party needs to crush the other.



Or maybe like the Borg collective; you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. WR has bigger numbers (at the moment), but the PC's have history on their side. Normally that would be an advantage, but in Alberta, no political party has ever regained power after being defeated. So who would assimilate whom? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I hope Wild Roses simply crushes the PCs. Might be too much to ask for though.




fjnmusic said:


> Or maybe like the Borg collective; you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. WR has bigger numbers (at the moment), but the PC's have history on their side. Normally that would be an advantage, but in Alberta, no political party has ever regained power after being defeated. So who would assimilate whom?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Rachel Notley just posted this on Facebook regarding Trans Canada and Energy East pipelines.



> Today, Quebec’s Minister of the Environment said that he would be filing court papers against Energy East.
> 
> After lengthy discussions with Quebec, the federal government and TransCanada today, it would appear that what is being contemplated here is a review similar to the one Ontario conducted last fall to inform their provincial presentation to the NEB.
> 
> Our government has been in contact with TransCanada, who tell us today they are willing to go through this process.
> We would be very concerned if this was about a new, competing, parallel process that requires that projects that cross provincial lines go through multiple hearings, and then multiple sets of conditions and formal consent, from both the federal government and from each local jurisdiction along the route.
> If that is what this turns into, we will vigorously oppose it. We’ll be monitoring this matter very closely.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Rachel Notley just posted this on Facebook regarding Trans Canada and Energy East pipelines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lip service is all she can deliver? Pretty much. Threatening to withhold transfer payments would be a much bolder statement.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Lip service is all she can deliver? Pretty much. Threatening to withhold transfer payments would be a much bolder statement.



Perhaps she's trying the diplomatic approach first. No need for a nuclear option when talks may achieve a better result. I do agree with you about transfer payments however. And Alberta does hold the cards where that is concerned. Why didn't the PC's ever play that card?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> That's a good thing. Uniting the right is a terrible idea. One party needs to crush the other.


Exactly.

Just because we got rid of the Progressive leader doesn't mean there aren't dozens more entitled darlings waiting in the wings to fill his shoes.


----------



## fjnmusic

Notley's gun is holstered—for the moment. 



> Editorial: Notley's restraint in face of Quebec's Energy East injunction the right play
> 
> ...The temptation for a knee-jerk reaction to Quebec’s injunction play is indeed powerful.
> 
> Who doesn’t want to question the seeming self-righteousness of a province that recently saw its biggest city dump billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River to accommodate Montreal’s sewer pipeline repairs? (Yes, yes, Canada’s environment minister did sign off on this.) Minds also might turn to the flooding decades ago of more than 11,000 square kilometres for the James Bay hydroelectric project. Renewable energy, yes, but at what cost?
> 
> That kind of finger pointing, however, will not be productive at this moment for Alberta, which rarely wins on energy issues by playing the bully or offended party.
> 
> Notley said her initial reaction was to show up to the news conference with “guns blazing.” Instead, she said the guns are holstered — for now — after working the phones at the federal and provincial levels. That is the right play — at this moment.
> 
> Alberta is going to have to be the grownup in the room this week as it works long-term with pipeline companies to convince the national energy regulator that appropriate measures are in place to turn an existing pipeline into a safe conduit for Western Canadian energy. This meeting is an opportunity to build goodwill.
> 
> But Notley also needs to stick to her pledge to stand up for Alberta’s interests if this turns out to be a bold move by Quebec to infringe on the existing pipeline approval process, duplicate the National Energy Board’s environmental hearings and demand right of approval.


http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-restraint-the-right-play


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Notley's gun is holstered—for the moment.


Yep, right alongside her brain.


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Yep, right alongside her brain.


Agreed. While Brad Wall is buy making his province as economically attractive as he can, Rachel is sitting on her hands waiting for the Good Ship Lollipop to show up.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Agreed. While Brad Wall is buy making his province as economically attractive as he can, Rachel is sitting on her hands waiting for the Good Ship Lollipop to show up.













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

"Authoritarians obey." An article that tries to identify the biggest single factor that seem to influence Trump's success so far. If you're a progressive-minded liberal democrat, this should concern you. It should concern everybody.



> Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.
> 
> Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533#ixzz41nHwLIYN



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Just look at Obama ruling by fiat and Executive Order.



fjnmusic said:


> "Authoritarians obey." An article that tries to identify the biggest single factor that seem to influence Trump's success so far. If you're a progressive-minded liberal democrat, this should concern you. It should concern everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Massive tax increase under Notley in the first year.

No carbon taxes in SK.

No borrowing billions to pay for increased program spending.

I'd give the nod to SK as a better bet.





fjnmusic said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

We're talking specifically corporate investment but, seeing as you brought it up, it doesn't matter what the personal rate is if half the province is unemployed. 





fjnmusic said:


>


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well I guess then every political party around the world is authoritarian based on that criteria. The current Liberal government included.

That is a very bad definition AFAIC.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Well I guess then every political party around the world is authoritarian based on that criteria. The current Liberal government included.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very bad definition AFAIC.



As I understand the article, it's not about the government; it's about the people. Did you take a look at the questions about what kind of children do you prefer? Quite revealing actually. The authoritarian voter tends to be pretty black and white from what I can gather here. You're either for us or against us kind of thinking. Seems to typify a great many Republicans but also a great many Democrats. Maybe not do surprising for a two party representative democracy, for for all intents and purposes there really are only two choices. Black or white. I think the author may be on to something. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> We're talking specifically corporate investment but, seeing as you brought it up, it doesn't matter what the personal rate is if half the province is unemployed.



Touché. Looks like us public sector workers are now supporting the laid off private sector workers through EI. Shoe's on the other foot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> As I understand the article, it's not about the government; it's about the people. *Did you take a look at the questions* about what kind of children do you prefer? Quite revealing actually. The authoritarian voter tends to be pretty black and white from what I can gather here. You're either for us or against us kind of thinking. Seems to typify a great many Republicans but also a great many Democrats. Maybe not do surprising for a two party representative democracy, for for all intents and purposes there really are only two choices. Black or white. I think the author may be on to something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No I did not. I just responded to the quote that you highlighted and disagreed with it.

I will have a closer read and get back to you.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Touché. Looks like us public sector workers are now supporting the laid off private sector workers through EI. Shoe's on the other foot.


Public sector workers are supporting nobody. Their EI was paid for by the taxpayer.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Public sector workers are supporting nobody. Their EI was paid for by the taxpayer.



Bull****e. If it's deducted from my paycheque, it's coming from me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

If your position were eliminated, the government would still have the same amount of money to put in the EI pool.



fjnmusic said:


> Bull****e. If it's deducted from my paycheque, it's coming from me.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If your position were eliminated, the government would still have the same amount of money to put in the EI pool.



Yeah, well my after tax money pays your salary, so by the same reasoning, I'm paying your taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Yeah, well my after tax money pays your salary, so by the same reasoning, I'm paying your taxes.


When does your tax money pay my salary?


----------



## FeXL

Yes, I did. I don't see a black & white issue among the choices. 

I want my children to have all of those traits, ultimately. We've raised our own with an emphasis on the most of the first as they were younger and mostly an emphasis on the second as they grew older. None of them is exclusive of the other. In many cases I'd say the first will lead to the second.

That said, from the outside in, I like Trump. Largely because he's a **** disturber and not answerable to any donors. He's not a "yes" man like nearly every other extant American politician. He's not a member of the good ol' boy's club. He's a breath of fresh air in a hallway that's been dank far too long.

American politics needs a shake up. Trump is just the guy to do that.



fjnmusic said:


> Did you take a look at the questions about what kind of children do you prefer?


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Yes, I did. I don't see a black & white issue among the choices.
> 
> 
> 
> I want my children to have all of those traits, ultimately. We've raised our own with an emphasis on the most of the first as they were younger and mostly an emphasis on the second as they grew older. None of them is exclusive of the other. In many cases I'd say the first will lead to the second.
> 
> 
> 
> That said, from the outside in, I like Trump. Largely because he's a **** disturber and not answerable to any donors. He's not a "yes" man like nearly every other extant American politician. He's not a member of the good ol' boy's club. He's a breath of fresh air in a hallway that's been dank far too long.
> 
> 
> 
> American politics needs a shake up. Trump is just the guy to do that.



Oddly enough, I agree with you on this point. Alberta and Canada politics also needed a shake up, but as the right-of-centre thinkers often point out, be careful what you wish for. I am concerned because I think at the most basic level, Trump is out of touch. He actually has zero experience in politics. That's going to be a problem. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> When does your tax money pay my salary?



Every time I spend my earnings on things that are not part of the public sector, my earnings pay your salary. Food, clothing and shelter. All goods and services that I pay for. I didn't say my taxes pay your salary, I said my after tax earnings do. Since taxes are deducted from your salary, by your logic I am therefore indirectly paying your taxes as well. Pretzel logic. I don't know, what do you do for a living?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Every time I spend my earnings on things that are not part of the public sector, my earnings pay your salary. Food, clothing and shelter. All goods and services that I pay for. I didn't say my taxes pay your salary, I said my after tax earnings do. Since taxes are deducted from your salary, by your logic I am therefore indirectly paying your taxes as well. Pretzel logic. I don't know, what do you do for a living?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Keep in mind that you also do a service for the public, and thus, earn your salary.


----------



## Macfury

All tax money. Again, if your position was eliminated, the money would still be there.

It doesn't matter if you do your job well, a public sector employee does not expand the tax base or stimulate the net economy. The money you spend after taxes was taken from other people who would have stimulated the economy with it. 



fjnmusic said:


> Every time I spend my earnings on things that are not part of the public sector, my earnings pay your salary. Food, clothing and shelter. All goods and services that I pay for. I didn't say my taxes pay your salary, I said my after tax earnings do. Since taxes are deducted from your salary, by your logic I am therefore indirectly paying your taxes as well.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> All tax money. Again, if your position was eliminated, the money would still be there.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you do your job well, a public sector employee does not expand the tax base or stimulate the net economy. The money you spend after taxes was taken from other people who would have stimulated the economy with it.


Not so, Macfury. When my wife was working for Stella Burry Community Services, a non-profit group in NL that provided a wide range of services for the homeless in NL, they were given a stipend from the provincial government and she was called upon to raise money to fund the programs. She was able to raise $14 million in her nearly 10 years working for them. Thousands of people were helped who would have slipped through the cracks. Industry and private foundations were the source of these funds. 

So, the homes that they built, the social programs that they offered, and most importantly, the people they helped actually saved the taxpayers of NL millions of dollars according to the studies conducted by outside reviewers and the government of NL itself.

Granted, helping people might not be a tangible asset to you. So, imagine if you and me and Frank all worked for the city of Toronto and it was our job to go out each day and fill pot holes. We are paid by the taxpayers of TO, and we do our job well. The only people we might be hurting are the auto repair companies who lose business because our filled-in potholes prevent damage to cars. That is a tangible vision of where the taxpayer's money has been spent on a positive manner. Added to this, the three of us go out for dinner after a long day of filling potholes, thus spreading around our well-earned paychecks. We buy groceries produced in ON, thus helping out farmers outside of the GTA. The Cafe Chez Marc, where we went for dinner, and keep going each Friday for dinner, is able to hire more staff, since we convinced the rest of our crew of 10 men and women, to join us. This is job creation at a small business level.

Paix, mon ami. Keep the faith and share the wealth.


----------



## Macfury

Not so Dr. G. You assume potholes would not be filled and roads would not be built without government. Government can fill the gap where people cannot be billed directly for the services consumed, but it is now possible to do just that--bill people for every mile they drive on city roads.

The money you spent as pothole fillers would have been spent by others instead. Although you may find a few examples of public servants who create wealth, the net effect of government does not create wealth. It makes it harder for wealth creators to operate.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Not so Dr. G. You assume potholes would not be filled and roads would not be built without government. Government can fill the gap where people cannot be billed directly for the services consumed, but it is now possible to do just that--bill people for every mile they drive on city roads.
> 
> 
> 
> The money you spent as pothole fillers would have been spent by others instead. Although you may find a few examples of public servants who create wealth, the net effect of government does not create wealth. It makes it harder for wealth creators to operate.



So what do you do for a living if I may ask, Macfury? You already know I'm a teacher and part-time musician. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

I disagree. He's appealing to the masses. That alone tells me that many people are identifying with his personality, perspective, position, hairdo, something.



fjnmusic said:


> I am concerned because I think at the most basic level, Trump is out of touch.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the problem with most politicians is exactly that: They're politicians!!! I consider Trump's lack of experience in that field as a feature, not a bug.



fjnmusic said:


> He actually has zero experience in politics. That's going to be a problem.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> I disagree. He's appealing to the masses. That alone tells me that many people are identifying with his personality, perspective, position, hairdo, something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the problem with most politicians is exactly that: They're politicians!!! I consider Trump's lack of experience in that field as a feature, not a bug.



As a friend of min likes to say, We shall see. Trudeau is often criticized for a lack of experience, and he's been a politician for a few years now. I am concerned about exactly which "experts" Trump has in mind because he has failed to name any so far. He answers with vague statements, like experts you've never heard of. I get the feeling the guy is all bluster. He says what he think authoritarian type of voters want to hear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> "Authoritarians obey." An article that tries to identify the biggest single factor that seem to influence Trump's success so far. If you're a progressive-minded liberal democrat, this should concern you. It should concern everybody.





fjnmusic said:


> As I understand the article, it's not about the government; it's about the people. Did you take a look at the questions about what kind of children do you prefer? Quite revealing actually. The authoritarian voter tends to be pretty black and white from what I can gather here. You're either for us or against us kind of thinking. Seems to typify a great many Republicans but also a great many Democrats. Maybe not do surprising for a two party representative democracy, for for all intents and purposes there really are only two choices. Black or white. I think the author may be on to something.





screature said:


> No I did not. I just responded to the quote that you highlighted and disagreed with it.
> 
> I will have a closer read and get back to you.


Ok. 

I read the article and the basis for his "statistical" analysis. It seems to hinge on *four* questions. To begin with, that is hardly a statistically valid questionnaire. To be statistically valid there should be a lot more "dummy" questions (i.e. create a control group) to weed out the respondents who are obviously biased in one way or another to begin with right away.

Secondly why should the questionnaire only pertain to child rearing?

I don't know about you but I disagreed with almost everything my parents taught me despite their best efforts.

So all these 4 questions reveal is the biases of certain parents and not necessarily their children's opinion at all.

The way I see it this "study" is fundamentally flawed and was designed to bring about the desired results that the client was looking for...

For anyone new to thread here are the relevant questions:



> These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
> 
> Read more: Donald Trump 2016: The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You're a Trump Supporter - POLITICO Magazine


So let us begin to pick these questions apart:



> whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is *respectful or independent*


Well it depends on what age your child is doesn't it? When they are less that 16 or so parents, for their own sanity, want their children to be respectful. After that they would like them to be independent so they can fly the coup successfully. 



> obedient or self-reliant


Same as above.



> well-behaved or considerate


Bad question to begin with and I see no bearing on how this question relates to a tendency towards authoritarianism. All good parents want their children to be both, it is not an either or question. In fact well-behaved or considerate is a false duality, they are not different as one is intrinsic to the other. In other words, you cannot be well-behaved without being considerate and you cannot be considerate without being well-behaved. 



> well-mannered or curious


Again another false duality. One can be both well-mannered and curious at the same time. I was when I was a child. Once again it is not an either or situation. I think most parents would want their children to be both, well mannered and curious.

So I think this "study" is so flawed on so many levels that one can simply disregard it as having any scientific or statistical merit.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> I read the article and the basis for his "statistical" analysis. It seems to hinge on *four* questions. To begin with, that is hardly a statistically valid questionnaire. To be statistically valid there should be a lot more "dummy" questions (i.e. create a control group) to weed out the respondents who are obviously biased in one way or another to begin with right away.
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly why should the questionnaire only pertain to child rearing?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but I disagreed with almost everything my parents taught me despite their best efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> So all these 4 questions reveal is the biases of certain parents and not necessarily their children's opinion at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it this "study" is fundamentally flawed and was designed to bring about the desired results that the client was looking for...
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone new to thread here are the relevant questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let us begin to pick these questions apart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it depends on what age your child is doesn't it? When they are less that 16 or so parents, for their own sanity, want their children to be respectful. After that they would like them to be independent so they can fly the coup successfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad question to begin with and I see no bearing on how this question relates to a tendency towards authoritarianism. All good parents want their children to be both, it is not an either or question. In fact well-behaved or considerate is a false duality, they are not different as one is intrinsic to the other. In other words, you cannot be well-behaved without being considerate and you cannot be considerate without being well-behaved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again another false duality. One can be both well-mannered and curious at the same time. I was when I was a child. Once again it is not an either or situation. I think most parents would want their children to be both, well mannered and curious.
> 
> 
> 
> So I think this "study" is so flawed on so many levels that one can simply disregard it as having any scientific or statistical merit.



Fair enough. You argue your points well. But it got me to consider the concept of authoritarianism not from the POV of the government but rather of the voter or citizen. I think that's worth considering. Those who are Trump supporters strike me as the kind of "low information voters" often referred to in these forums. Have you seen the one where the interviewer asks Trump supporters about quotes that came from Adolph Hitler but presents them as coming from Trump? Interesting. 

http://youtu.be/5NzhQWcc7h4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

More on authoritarianism. A long read, but informative.



> The Rise of American Authoritarianism
> 
> 
> The American media, over the past year, has been trying to work out something of a mystery: Why is the Republican electorate supporting a far-right, orange-toned populist with no real political experience, who espouses extreme and often bizarre views? How has Donald Trump, seemingly out of nowhere, suddenly become so popular?
> 
> What's made Trump's rise even more puzzling is that his support seems to cross demographic lines — education, income, age, even religiosity — that usually demarcate candidates. And whereas most Republican candidates might draw strong support from just one segment of the party base, such as Southern evangelicals or coastal moderates, Trump currently does surprisingly well from the Gulf Coast of Florida to the towns of upstate New York, and he won a resounding victory in the Nevada caucuses.
> 
> Table of contents
> I. What is American authoritarianism?
> II. The discovery
> III. How authoritarianism works
> IV. What can authoritarianism explain?
> V. The party of authoritarians
> VI. Trump, authoritarians, and fear
> VII. America's changing social landscape
> VIII. What authoritarians want
> IX. How authoritarians will change American politics
> Perhaps strangest of all, it wasn't just Trump but his supporters who seemed to have come out of nowhere, suddenly expressing, in large numbers, ideas far more extreme than anything that has risen to such popularity in recent memory....


http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It's informative alright--informative regarding how completely the writer misunderstands the nature of what is happening here. Incredibly, the writer does not see Obama's bullying "leadership" at all.

It is all based on that same deeply flawed study you cited earlier.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It's informative alright--informative regarding how completely the writer misunderstands the nature of what is happening here. Incredibly, the writer does not see Obama's bullying "leadership" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> It is all based on that same deeply flawed study you cited earlier.



Deeply flawed because you happen not to agree with the findings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Deeply flawed because you happen not to agree with the findings.


Deeply flawed, because—as screature pointed out—the study doesn't remotely adhere to the scientific method. Its terms of reference are so vague that almost any conclusion could have been drawn from the results.


----------



## FeXL

Those who are Trump supporters are those who have finally realized that they're tired of being gamed by the system. And, while they may have taken a long time to realize that, they are far ahead of those who still don't realize they're being played.



fjnmusic said:


> Those who are Trump supporters strike me as the kind of "low information voters" often referred to in these forums.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Those who are Trump supporters are those who have finally realized that they're tired of being gamed by the system. And, while they may have taken a long time to realize that, they are far ahead of those who still don't realize they're being played.



You don't think Trump is himself the system under a different guise and that he is in fact gaming people quite successfully? What some of us might call a bull****e artist? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> You don't think Trump is himself the system under a different guise and that he is in fact gaming people quite successfully? What some of us might call a bull****e artist?


I totally agree.


----------



## FeXL

Look, let's be honest with ourselves. Nearly anybody who runs for public office is a bull**** artist of some sort.

However, for me, the mere fact that he is not a <spit> politician ranks him head & shoulders above anybody else. In this day & age of universal political deceit, the fact that he's willing to call a spade a spade is remarkably...refreshing.

The US does not need another politician right now. They need a leader. Right now Trump comes closer than any of them.



fjnmusic said:


> You don't think Trump is himself the system under a different guise and that he is in fact gaming people quite successfully? What some of us might call a bull****e artist?


----------



## Macfury

No. If he is, I agree with his brand of bull****e.



fjnmusic said:


> You don't think Trump is himself the system under a different guise and that he is in fact gaming people quite successfully? What some of us might call a bull****e artist?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Great article:

How Progressives Drive Income Inequality - WSJ


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Look, let's be honest with ourselves. Nearly anybody who runs for public office is a bull**** artist of some sort.
> 
> 
> 
> However, for me, the mere fact that he is not a <spit> politician ranks him head & shoulders above anybody else. In this day & age of universal political deceit, the fact that he's willing to call a spade a spade is remarkably...refreshing.
> 
> 
> 
> The US does not need another politician right now. They need a leader. Right now Trump comes closer than any of them.



I'll agree that he calls a spade a spade, but only a spade as he defines it. He will brook no dissent. He is very closed-minded, which is fine if you agree with his views, but if you don't, you'll find Trump's America a very inhospitable place. He doesn't seem to understand that a President represents ALL citizens, even the ones he doesn't like. Diplomacy is not a part of his genetic makeup. I don't think you want a hothead like Trump with his finger on the red button.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I don't see the conundrum.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I don't see the conundrum.



Wouldn't an American seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government be not much different from a Syrian seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government? Aren't they both refugees?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

I read all your criticisms of Trump & there isn't a single one where you couldn't substitute Obama's name & have it apply equally.

I've read any number of articles recently about why Trump's campaign has been so successful. This is one of the best summaries I've come across:



> Whatever weapon or tool we use to characterize Trump, the driving force behind the voters’ anger is clear: *they are fed up with not being listened to by a national government that is supposed to operate constitutionally according to the people’s bidding, not as a federal ruling class that governs the people one way and themselves another.* If anything, the conservative citizenry is even angrier at the liberal mainstream media that has served to enable the dissembling, disloyal, and dishonest leaders of both political parties. Had they done their jobs as political watchdogs, this country would not be in the mess it is. For certain, we wouldn’t have an affirmative action president hell-bent on dismantling this constitutional republic and remaking it into another Third World hellhole.


M'bold.



fjnmusic said:


> He is very closed-minded, which is fine if you agree with his views, but if you don't, you'll find Trump's America a very inhospitable place.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Wouldn't an American seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government be not much different from a Syrian seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government? Aren't they both refugees?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No. Having a tyrannical government (thought his would not be the case with Trump) would classify all of China as refugees. In the case you are describing, one would be an immigrant and the other a refugee.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Wouldn't an American seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government be not much different from a Syrian seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government? Aren't they both refugees?


No. They are very different.

Resettlement from outside Canada



> To come to Canada as a refugee, *you must be*:
> 
> 
> referred by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) or another designated referral organization, or be sponsored by a private sponsorship group.
> You cannot apply directly for resettlement to Canada at any embassy or a visa office.
> 
> *Eligibility for resettlement*
> 
> People who can be resettled from outside Canada fall into two classes.
> 
> *1) Convention Refugee Abroad Class*
> 
> You may be in this class if you:
> 
> 
> *are outside your home country*; and cannot return there due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on:
> race,
> religion,
> political opinion,
> nationality, or membership in a particular social group, such as women or people with a particular sexual orientation.
> *
> You must also be*:
> 
> 
> referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or another referral organization, or be sponsored by a private sponsorship group, and
> selected as a government-assisted or privately sponsored refugee, or have the funds needed to support yourself and any dependants after you arrive in Canada.
> 
> *2) Country of Asylum Class*
> 
> You may be in this class if you:
> *
> are outside your home country or the country where you normally live and have been, and continue to be*, seriously and personally affected by civil war or armed conflict, or have suffered massive violations of human rights.
> 
> *You must also be*:
> 
> 
> referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or another referral organization or be sponsored by a private sponsorship group, and
> privately sponsored, or have the funds needed to support yourself and any dependants after you arrive in Canada.
> 
> You will have to pass a medical exam and security and criminal checks.


US citizens still living in the US would definitely not be considered for refugee status in Canada... and that is just the first hurdle that they could not pass.

In plain and simple language, you cannot claim refugee status if you are living in your home country, i.e. even Syrians who are still living in Syria cannot apply for refugee status in Canada.

I hope this information answers your question.


----------



## fjnmusic

Irony; a rhetorical art lost when one takes things too seriously. 

Obviously the US now would not be considered a tyrannical state. However, if Trump is elected and carries through on the promises he has made so far, many people will have much too fear. "All those refugees? I'm sending 'em back." Statements like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Irony; a rhetorical art lost when one takes things too seriously.
> 
> Obviously the US now would not be considered a tyrannical state. However, if Trump is elected and carries through on the promises he has made so far, many people will have much too fear. "All those refugees? I'm sending 'em back." Statements like that.


I do not understand your post.

Was:



> Wouldn't an American seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government be not much different from a Syrian seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government? Aren't they both refugees?


not meant to be taken as a serious post? If so it certainly was made clear, it seemed like you were genuinely asking a question or at least postulating.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I do not understand your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not meant to be taken as a serious post? If so it certainly was made clear, it seemed like you were genuinely asking a question or at least postulating.



Well, I was actually, like the original source, pointing out some of the hypocrisy of the American mind set: "we don't want any damn refugees, but if the guy we don't like becomes president, we're moving to Canada." It's more of a tongue in cheek response, and I know the actual process for both refugees and immigrants is far more complicated. I'm also aware that those don't want any damn refugees would probably be just fine with Trump as their leader. Sorry for any confusion.









ETA: Apparently the number of enquiries from US citizens seeking more information about moving to Canada has risen exponentially of late. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> ETA: Apparently the number of enquiries from US citizens seeking more information about moving to Canada has risen exponentially of late.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Going my way ............


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Well, I was actually, like the original source, pointing out some of the hypocrisy of the American mind set: "we don't want any damn refugees, but if the guy we don't like becomes president, we're moving to Canada." It's more of a tongue in cheek response, and* I know the actual process* for both refugees and immigrants is far more complicated. I'm also aware that those don't want any damn refugees would probably be just fine with Trump as their leader. Sorry for any confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: *Apparently the number of enquiries from US citizens seeking more information about moving to Canada has risen exponentially of late. *


What original source? You linked to nothing. Not quite sure what you are talking about...



> the hypocrisy of the American mind set


What "American mind set" are you talking about? The GOP or the Democrats? With your post you seem to be willing to blend them all into one.

I don't think you do otherwise you would not have posted what you did. You can purport knowledge after I posted the facts, but I have no reason to believe that you knew them before I posted them. You are doing a lot of back peddling now it seems to me. Your posts grow more and more questionable the more you post.

Source? Maybe so, but as long as they are US citizens living in the US they cannot be considered for refugee status in Canada.


----------



## fjnmusic

The source is the Twitter post that I had originally posted and re-posted just now for you again. A source can be an article, a quote, a cartoon, a meme, a chart, a graph, or what have you. At least that's what a source is according to the Social Studies curriculum. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the term? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Going my way ............



Exactly. This would also be an example of a source in the scholastic sense of the word, for what it's worth. Political cartoons are a great and succinct way of making a political observation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

> Economists Who Bashed Bernie Sanders’ Tax Plan Admit They’re Clueless: “We’re Not Really Experts”


http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. This would also be an example of a source in the scholastic sense of the word, for what it's worth. Political cartoons are a great and succinct way of making a political observation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


True. Then there are also the creations of governments to serve as progressive monuments of remembrance and welcome. 

As the inscription reads at the base of Mother Canada here in Nova Scotia -- "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free of The Donald. My hands reach out to you in peace."


----------



## Macfury

No, the report did not say that the economists were not experts, nor did they say they themselves were clueless.



fjnmusic said:


> Economists Bashing Sanders's Tax Plan Admit They're Clueless
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No, the report did not say that the economists were not experts, nor did they say they themselves were clueless.



Then tell me, O Wise One, what did you understand the report to say? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Please stay on topic, Zurich Prime.

ETA: never mind, it's gone now. These ads are getting pretty intrusive when they appear as a post. Thanks, ehMac.com.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The report accurately assessed the costs of Sanders' proposed programs and their effects on tax rates. 



fjnmusic said:


> Then tell me, O Wise One, what did you understand the report to say?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The report accurately assessed the costs of Sanders' proposed programs and their effects on tax rates.



You're nitpicking about the title, which is perhaps a little misleading. The conclusion seems to be that the report had it wrong and the net effect of Sander's proposals on tax rates was a positive one, save for the top 1%. Call it the Robin Hood strategy. 



> “Sanders has a plan to create and maintain at least 13 million jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. It is widely accepted among many economists that rebuilding roads, bridges, drinking water facilities, airports and other infrastructure needs creates jobs for Americans in the short-term while allowing commerce to flow more smoothly in the long-term, a win-win for prosperity in the U.S. The Tax Policy Center did not look at that.
> 
> “Sanders has a plan to make public colleges and universities tuition free that would save the typical middle class family $9,400 a year. Creating a workforce that is more educated and less bogged down in student debt would benefit the economy immensely. The Tax Policy Center did not look at that.
> 
> “Sanders’ has a plan to extend and expand Social Security boosting the income of senior citizens by an average of about $1,600 a year. The Tax Policy Center did not look at Bernie’s plan to expand Social Security."



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> The source is the Twitter post that I had originally posted and re-posted just now for you again. A source can be an article, a quote, a cartoon, a meme, a chart, a graph, or what have you. At least that's what a source is according to the Social Studies curriculum. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the term?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is the original post that I am talking about, not someone's else words:



fjnmusic said:


> Wouldn't an American seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government be not much different from a Syrian seeking to move to Canada because of a tyrannical government? Aren't they both refugees?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Initially you were quoting someone who was misguided and does not understand how things work. Then you followed up with the post above, so it seemed you were in agreement, with your question/postulation, it seemed you were genuine and not being ironic. If not then you need to make it clear.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> This is the original post that I am talking about, not someone's else words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initially you were quoting someone who was misguided and does not understand how things work. Then you followed up with the post above, so it seemed you were in agreement with your question/postulation, it seemed you were genuine and not ironic. If not then you need to make it clear.



Whatever. It was trite little observation about the irony of the entitled American persona, despising immigrants unless one needs to become one themselves. I never intended it to be quite as serious as you have taken it. I apologize if I misled you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Whatever. It was trite little observation about the irony of the entitled American persona, despising immigrants unless one needs to become one themselves. I never intended it to be quite as serious as you have taken it. I apologize if I misled you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't read it that way. Time to move on...


----------



## fjnmusic

Only half an hour until the big Kudatah at the Alberta Legislature! Expect hundreds of thousands of Albertans to come and show their support! Well, hundreds anyway....










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Only half an hour until the big Kudatah at the Alberta Legislature! Expect hundreds of thousands of Albertans to come and show their support! Well, hundreds anyway....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Well that came and went rather uneventfully, and doggone it, the NDP are still the government. Apparently that $27,000 that George Clark collected from his well-meaning but simple-minded followers wasn't enough to topple a government after all. It was nice to see some protesters out anyway, hundreds of them even, even if many didn't know how to spell on their placards. It seems to me that Ralph used to be quite pleased with himself whenever he attracted protesters. It meant he was doing something right in his mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sunny ways. Prime Minister Pompadour certainly has a lot of admirers south of the border, including President Obama. 



> “We’ve faced many challenges over the course of our shared history, and while we have agreed on many things and disagreed on a few others, we remain united in a common purpose,” Trudeau said.
> 
> “Whether we’re charting a course for environmental protection, making key investments to grow our middle class or defending the rights of oppressed peoples abroad, Canada and the United States will always collaborate in partnership and good faith.”
> 
> He added: “There is no relationship in the entire world like the Canada-U.S. relationship.”
> 
> Afterward, the two leaders returned inside for a meeting where they are expected to discuss plans for deals to co-operate on climate change, the Arctic and the shared Canada-U.S. border.
> 
> A U.S. statement said the leaders have already agreed to new steps to curb methane gas emissions; co-ordinate with aboriginal peoples in Arctic development; and support cleaner energy.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...white+house+amid+sunshine/11775659/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Always bad news when you've got Obama on your side.



fjnmusic said:


> Sunny ways. Prime Minister Pompadour certainly has a lot of admirers south of the border, including President Obama.


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Sunny ways. Prime Minister Pompadour certainly has a lot of admirers south of the border, including President Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> ‘It's about time, eh?' Justin Trudeau arrives at the White House amid sunshine and spectacle
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wonder how he'll get along with President Trump?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I wonder how he'll get along with President Trump?



No better than the liberal left wing leader of any democratic country, I imagine. I read an article about how the traditional Republicans of the GOP are very concerned about a potential Trump presidency and are considering overriding the democratic nomination process to try to take him out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's what I would expect of the left-leaning types--overthrowing democracy to get their way.



fjnmusic said:


> No better than the liberal left wing leader of any democratic country, I imagine. I read an article about how the traditional Republicans of the GOP are very concerned about a potential Trump presidency and are considering overriding the democratic nomination process to try to take him out.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's what I would expect of the left-leaning types--overthrowing democracy to get their way.



Funny you should say that after the George Clark kudatah on Tuesday. Sure it didn't succeed, of course, but there were an awful lot of right wing protesters that sincerely believed it would.

And Grand Ol' Party members are right-leaning Republicans last time I checked. Kind of blows your theory about left-leaning types trying to undermine democracy all to hell. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Staking government money in private business is a terrible idea. If the product has merit, why can't it attract capital?


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Sorry--no pride here.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Sorry--no pride here.


.


----------



## Macfury

You would think they were celebrities.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> You would think they were celebrities.


Trudeaumania is alive and well in Washington, DC.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> .



Exactement, as the French would say. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Sorry--no pride here.


Here neither.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> You would think they were celebrities.


They're like our very own Kardashians. Completely useless, but famous just the same.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:greedy:


----------



## MacGuiver

heavyall said:


> They're like our very own Kardashians. Completely useless, but famous just the same.


We live in a era of celebrity worship and it trumps reason and common sense. How else would we have our current snowboard instructor PM? The Americans that showed up fawning over Trudeau, what do they really know about him other than his glamour shots in Vogue?


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> We live in a era of celebrity worship and it trumps reason and common sense. How else would we have our current snowboard instructor PM? The Americans that showed up fawning over Trudeau, what do they really know about him other than his glamour shots in Vogue?



I think you underestimate both the intelligence and the capabilities of our current prime minister. He has the ability to engage people and gain respect in a way that Stephen Harper never could. He is not afraid of the crowds. He does not avoid media scrums. Apart from saying "uh" too many times for my liking, he is an effective communicator. Harper had nine years to get the Keystone XL approved and failed. Perhaps by impressing people like Obama and hopefully President Sanders after that, Canada can make some headway on other projects it needs the cooperation of the US on. Being good looking is usually an asset, not a liability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

I don't think I'm underestimating his intelligence. I'll grant you the point that he has the charm offensive for people that can't look beyond that. And he has absolutely no reason to avoid the media since they're like his groupies. Pumping him up at every turn. I assure you when things get ugly and if hard questions start flying he'll be as elusive as bigfoot. 
Regarding Keystone, Obama pulled the plug on Keystone within weeks of Trudeau pulling the plug on the CF18 mission. That and Trudeau is really anti-oilsands anyhow so he's certainly not going to fight for it. He's also dragging his feet on Energy East trying to kill that while tankers of Saudi oil fill refineries that could be processing Canadian oil.
And yes good looks are an asset, which was pretty much the point I was trying to make. Its sad we've become so shallow that it matters so much.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> I don't think I'm underestimating his intelligence. I'll grant you the point that he has the charm offensive for people that can't look beyond that. And he has absolutely no reason to avoid the media since they're like his groupies. Pumping him up at every turn. I assure you when things get ugly and if hard questions start flying he'll be as elusive as bigfoot.
> 
> Regarding Keystone, Obama pulled the plug on Keystone within weeks of Trudeau pulling the plug on the CF18 mission. That and Trudeau is really anti-oilsands anyhow so he's certainly not going to fight for it. He's also dragging his feet on Energy East trying to kill that while tankers of Saudi oil fill refineries that could be processing Canadian oil.
> 
> And yes good looks are an asset, which was pretty much the point I was trying to make. Its sad we've become so shallow that it matters so much.



We'll have to agree to disagree on his shallowness or lack thereof. As far as Energy East, why on earth didn't PM Harper push for it while he was in office? I don't remember reading anything on his desire for that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I don't think I'm underestimating his intelligence. I'll grant you the point that he has the charm offensive for people that can't look beyond that. And he has absolutely no reason to avoid the media since they're like his groupies. Pumping him up at every turn. I assure you when things get ugly and if hard questions start flying he'll be as elusive as bigfoot.


Agreed. Often, he looks for all the world like a ventriloquist's dummy waiting for someone to stick his hand up his ass to give him voice.

Having seen him first hand, I could only say that he came off as an affable goof.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Agreed. Often, he looks for all the world like a ventriloquist's dummy waiting for someone to stick his hand up his ass to give him voice.
> 
> 
> 
> Having seen him first hand, I could only say that he came off as an affable goof.



Don't hold back, MF; tell us how you really feel. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 18m2

Macfury said:


> Agreed. Often, he looks for all the world like a ventriloquist's dummy waiting for someone to stick his hand up his ass to give him voice.
> 
> Having seen him first hand, I could only say that he came off as an affable goof.


Can I use that?


----------



## Macfury

18m2 said:


> Can I use that?


Absolutely!


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on his shallowness or lack thereof. As far as Energy East, why on earth didn't PM Harper push for it while he was in office? I don't remember reading anything on his desire for that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


He was definitely on board.

Stephen Harper says pipelines ‘safest way you can go’ when transporting oil | Financial Post

That said, I think Trudeau has a better chance of getting it done if he so chooses for the simple fact that it would be a liberal selling it rather than a conservative. Eco warriors will be silent when one of their own is selling it. Sorta like the silence we saw when Liberals green lighted the dumping of tanker loads of crap into the St. Lawrence River from Montreal. Or the absence of outrage with Trudeau's spiralling deficit numbers while Liberals were rending their garments over Harpers deficits.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> He was definitely on board.
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen Harper says pipelines ‘safest way you can go’ when transporting oil | Financial Post
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I think Trudeau has a better chance of getting it done if he so chooses for the simple fact that it would be a liberal selling it rather than a conservative. Eco warriors will be silent when one of their own is selling it. Sorta like the silence we saw when Liberals green lighted the dumping of tanker loads of crap into the St. Lawrence River from Montreal. Or the absence of outrage with Trudeau's spiralling deficit numbers while Liberals were rending their garments over Harpers deficits.



Excellent point, mon ami. And they sure seem to like him in Washington right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

George Clark on the Ryan Jesperson Show on 6:30 CHED, originally broadcast March 10, 2016. Illuminating background info about the man who started the "kudatah" and the Albertans First party.

http://omnyapp.com/shows/ryan-jespersen-show/jespersen-george-clark-in-the-hot-seat


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

European "progressivism" is in retreat:

5 takeaways from Merkel’s election drubbing – POLITICO



> For years, Germany appeared to be an island in Europe as the only major country without a strong far-right populist movement. Political scientists and columnists debated the degree to which the German anomaly was rooted in the trauma of the country’s 20th century history.
> 
> Turns out these voters were always there, they just weren’t voting. In all three states that held elections Sunday, the main source of the AfD’s support was from voters who hadn’t cast a ballot in the last election. It also poached hundreds of thousands of voters from the established parties, in particular, Merkel’s CDU. The AfD’s strong showing reflects deep dissatisfaction in many parts of Germany with the political establishment.


----------



## fjnmusic

For the naysayers who say 'Who would invest while Notley is in charge'? 



> Imperial Oil seeks approval for a new $2B Alberta oilsands project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imperial Oil is seeking approval for a new $2 billion oilsands project on its Cold Lake lease area in northeastern Alberta.
> 
> The company says it has filed the regulatory paperwork with Alberta Energy Regulator for the Cold Lake Expansion project, but Imperial spokeswoman Lisa Schmidt said development is not guaranteed.
> 
> "This is a preliminary and very important step in the regulatory process," Schmidt said Friday.
> 
> "Overall, we take a long-term approach to resource development, and an ultimate investment decision will be based on a variety of factors including regulatory approvals, market conditions and economic competitiveness," she said.
> 
> Imperial, majority owned by U.S. energy giant ExxonMobil, is taking the next step in the process as other oilsands developers delay or even shelve expansion projects in the face of low oil prices.
> 
> The steam-assisted gravity drainage project would tap into the Grand Rapids formation, which Imperial says has roughly 550 million barrels of potential resources.
> 
> New technology
> 
> It would use solvent to ease the flow of the thick bitumen, a process that the company says will reduce green house gas emissions and water use per barrel by around 25 per cent compared with conventional steam-assisted extraction.
> 
> Imperial says the technology has been used in pilot projects at its current Cold Lake operation since 2010.
> 
> Construction could start as early as 2019 assuming Imperial gets timely regulatory approvals.
> 
> If developed, the new oilsands project would produce about 50,000 barrels per day of bitumen starting in about 2022.
> 
> Cold Lake Mayor Craig Copeland welcomed the news that Imperial was taking the next step in the process.
> 
> "For us, it's very exciting news for our community. We desperately need good news right now, so I'm really happy to hear that Imperial Oil's going to move forward," Copeland said.
> 
> Imperial says the Cold Lake expansion is one of several oilsands opportunities it's considering.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/imperial-oil-oilsands-cold-lake-plant-1.3486949


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

> "Overall, we take a long-term approach to resource development, and an ultimate investment decision will be based on a variety of factors including regulatory approvals, market conditions and economic competitiveness," she said.


I think they're waiting for the next government to be elected. 2019 to 2022 indeed.


----------



## fjnmusic

Well that was not so complicated after all, though I imagine haters will still find their reasons to hate. 



> Notley cleared of ethics breach after Ontario NDP fundraiser
> 
> Alberta Premier Rachel Notley has been cleared of any wrongdoing after attending a big-ticket Ontario NDP fundraiser in February, the premier’s office said Monday. At the time, the Wildrose claimed she solicited donations from companies doing business in Alberta, and called for an investigation.
> 
> “I’m happy to see the ethics commissioner’s ruling and she’s made it clear that the premier was exonerated of any wrongdoing, that we operated within the Act and within the legislation and unfortunately, it seems like the Wildrose keeps slinging partisan mud,” Health Minister Sarah Hoffman said Monday. “We’re focused on jobs and the economy and trying to make sure that we’re governing and not making up personal attacks.”
> 
> The Opposition had asked ethics commissioner Marguerite Trussler to look into Notley’s involvement in the Feb. 19 event.
> 
> ....Notley previously addressed the issue while speaking to the media four days after the event. She said as the leader of a provincial party, it’s not uncommon for party leaders to ask leaders of other sections of the party to attend events.
> 
> “All of the money, of course, raised from that goes to Miss Horwath and the Ontario NDP,” Notley said. “As far as being a provincial leader that attends fundraising events in other provincial sections, that’s been going on in all parties by pretty much all provincial leaders for a very, very long time. I simply did it as a favour and I did not do any evaluation of where these people were from. ”
> 
> Notley’s spokeswoman, Cheryl Oates, previously said the premier cleared the event beforehand with Trussler.
> 
> Oates said Notley did not travel at the government’s expense, and that none of the donation money went to the Alberta NDP.


http://globalnews.ca/news/2577638/notley-cleared-of-ethics-breach-after-ontario-ndp-fundraiser/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Hate? Why do you keep harping about hate? There is no hate at all, at least on my part. I knew Notley's father well and thought highly of him thus no hate towards her whatsoever. I will admit to telling him often he was the right man in the wrong party for Alberta.

What I hold her and her Dippers in contempt for, is their completely irresponsible social policies that are destroying Alberta. One nail at a time in our coffin kind of thing. And most of all adding a completely unnecessary and regressive carbon tax on us in the middle of the biggest recession in over 30 years is completely and utterly destructive.

To penalize Albertans to heat and power their homes is a violation of the basic human right to exist.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Hate? Why do you keep harping about hate? There is no hate at all, at least on my part. I knew Notley's father well and thought highly of him thus no hate towards her whatsoever. I will admit to telling him often he was the right man in the wrong party for Alberta.
> 
> 
> 
> What I hold her and her Dippers in contempt for, is their completely irresponsible social policies that are destroying Alberta. One nail at a time in our coffin kind of thing. And most of all adding a completely unnecessary and regressive carbon tax on us in the middle of the biggest recession in over 30 years is completely and utterly destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> To penalize Albertans to heat and power their homes is a violation of the basic human right to exist.



Not sure which comment you're responding to Don, but I sense a kind of frustrated helplessness in your words. As a teacher and public sector worker, I have lived with much the same kind of frustration pretty much since I began my profession 27 years ago. Particularly under the Klein regime, I felt we teachers were particularly singled out as scapegoats for whatever economic problems the gov't faced and we couldn't do much about it. That is, not until an impartial arbitration board awarded us 14% to make up for lost wages—about half of what we'd actually sacrificed. I understand your frustration, although from the other side of the fence, and it's good to know you're not a hater, particular with all the bull****e going down south of the border right now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> *Not sure which comment you're responding to Don,* but I sense a kind of frustrated helplessness in your words. As a teacher and public sector worker, I have lived with much the same kind of frustration pretty much since I began my profession 27 years ago. Particularly under the Klein regime, I felt we teachers were particularly singled out as scapegoats for whatever economic problems the gov't faced and we couldn't do much about it. That is, not until an impartial arbitration board awarded us 14% to make up for lost wages—about half of what we'd actually sacrificed. I understand your frustration, although from the other side of the fence, and it's good to know you're not a hater, particular with all the bull****e going down south of the border right now.


I was responding to this comment, Frank.



fjnmusic said:


> Well that was not so complicated after all, *though I imagine haters will still find their reasons to hate.*


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> I was responding to this comment, Frank.


Don't worry Sinc. Overuse and inappropriate use of words like racist, homophobe and hater have made them lose all meaning.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Don't worry Sinc. Overuse and inappropriate use of words like racist, homophobe and hater have made them lose all meaning.


I always find it hilarious that they add "phobe" as a suffix if you simply disagree with something or someone. That would make "progressives" "freedomphobic."


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I always find it hilarious that they add "phobe" as a suffix if you simply disagree with something or someone. That would make "progressives" "freedomphobic."


LOL. Yes imagine if the right used the same formula the fun we'd have making up fake mental conditions for our friends on the left.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Well that was not so complicated after all, *though I imagine haters will still find their reasons to hate.*
> 
> Notley cleared of ethics breach after Ontario NDP fundraiser | Globalnews.ca
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:lmao: A completely laughable and hypocritical post.

You were one of the many haters here over the last 10 years so don't try and pretend now that your party of choice is in power that you were not a *hater*.

You were one of the worst even turning your hatred toward members here and not only the government but those here who supported the previous government.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> :lmao: A completely laughable and hypocritical post.
> 
> 
> 
> You were one of the many haters here over the last 10 years so don't try and pretend now that your party of choice is in power that you were not a *hater*.
> 
> 
> 
> You were one of the worst even turning your hatred toward members here and not only the government but those here who supported the previous government.



Something upsetting you today, Screature? That seemed a little personal and unnecessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

screature is absolutely correct, fjn--you were the very model of a CPC "hater."



fjnmusic said:


> Something upsetting you today, Screature? That seemed a little personal and unnecessary.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Something upsetting you today, Screature? That seemed a little personal and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nope I stand by my post. You were being "personal and unnecessary" all the time to anyone here who defended the previous government either directly or indirectly.

The chickens have come home to roost.


----------



## fjnmusic

I cannot express how little interest I have in this particular conversation. I am back at work now and only have so much time to spend on forum stuff. I will pick conversations carefully.

Yes I really hated the PC's. So? Haters gonna hate. The statement is still true. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's rich. You have a lot of time for conversations in which you accuse others of being "haters." Suddenly you're the too busy for this sort of nonsense!



fjnmusic said:


> I cannot express how little interest I have in this particular conversation. I am back at work now and only have so much time to spend on forum stuff. I will pick conversations carefully.
> 
> Yes I really hated the PC's. So? Haters gonna hate. The statement is still true.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That's rich. You have a lot of time for conversations in which you accuse others of being "haters." Suddenly you're the too busy for this sort of nonsense!


+1. 

What a Hypocrite. He seems not willing to admit to it because just now he is too "busy to deal with it".

How sweet is life for him that the only thing he has to worry about is where he gets his next pay cheque from.

If only life were that simple for me.

How surprising is it that he has no interest in the real lives of others here... That is his MO... "I'm Ok so I don't give a rat's ass about the rest of you, until I feel the need to pretend that I care about other people."... Just not me or anyone else here.

fjn you seem to have a life now so how about you just go back to attending to your own affairs and leave the rest of us alone. I think it would be for the best, seeing as you have no compassion or understanding of those who you communicate with here who happen to disagree with you.

Just stick to your own group of people who agree with you no matter what you have to say. It will make you feel more comfortable and relaxed.


----------



## fjnmusic

Hey boys: go make your own thread if you don't like the one I set up. You spend so much energy being negative that it really does become quite boring. Big sign of immaturity: talking about him in the third person. I mean, really, don't you kids have something better to do? Screature, you already admitted on that other thread that you totally misread a comment I made that wasn't even to you. Let it go, buddy. Your negativity isn't helping anyone, especially yourself. "He" has interest "in the real lives of others here," but if all you have to offer is insults, then buh-bye. Stop feeling sorry for yourself. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Hey boys: go make your own thread if you don't like the one I set up. You spend so much energy being negative that it really does become quite boring. Big sign of immaturity: talking about him in the third person. I mean, really, don't you kids have something better to do? Screature, you already admitted on that other thread that you totally misread a comment I made that wasn't even to you. Let it go, buddy. Your negativity isn't helping anyone, especially yourself. "He" has interest "in the real lives of others here," but if all you have to offer is insults, then buh-bye. Stop feeling sorry for yourself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't feel sorry for myself, I feel sorry for you and those that think like you.

Here is a News Flash for you... Just because you start a thread it does not mean you own it.

It is open to the public and it can go in unexpected directions... unless you have totalitarian tendencies and feel the need to be in control all the time... Being a "teacher" that would not surprise me.


----------



## fjnmusic

Good night, Steve. I hope you wake up in a better mood tomorrow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Gary Lamphier's take on how the Americans are gaming the system with respect to oil and how we're going to have step up our game if we don't want to get shut out. 



> While Canada’s oil and natural gas remains virtually landlocked and hostage to a single customer — the U.S. — producers south of the border are pumping, pipelining and exporting as much oil and gas as they possibly can.
> 
> Canada’s oil has successfully been branded as “bad” by eco-activists and their political pals, but the U.S. and the rest of the world continues to produce and consume more oil than ever.
> 
> Indeed, after lifting its 40-year ban on crude exports, the U.S. is now freely shipping its oil globally, while ramping up liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. As competitive marketing strategies go, it’s brilliant. One set of rules for us, another for them.
> 
> While eco-activists and Hollywood celebs such as Leonardo DiCaprio have done a masterful job of demonizing Alberta’s oil, “they have done absolutely nothing to curtail oil production in places like North Dakota and Texas,” says Vivian Krause, a Vancouver blogger who has reported extensively on the funding of Canadian eco-activist groups by wealthy U.S. foundations.
> 
> “Texas oil production has increased fourfold and in North Dakota it’s up seven-fold. So they ain’t keeping oil in the ground in the U.S. This campaign is not about keeping oil in the ground at all. The world is producing more of it and we’re using more of it than we ever have. It’s just about keeping Alberta’s oil out of global markets.”


http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...-the-mend-but-oilpatch-faces-fierce-headwinds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sad, but all too true, Frank. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Sad, but all too true, Frank. Paix, mon ami.


Yes, I note that no matter how Obama characterizes his political opponents, no "progressive" said a word.


----------



## SINC

About right . . .


----------



## fjnmusic

> Land of the Free
> 
> When I was a kid, my brothers and sister and I spent a lot of time on our grandparents' farm.
> 
> One of our favourite things to do was play in the granary full of canola, or rapeseed as we called it then. We would climb up the homemade ladder on the outside of the wooden building, climbing far over our own heads, jumping into the pile of shiny little black seeds. We would see how far down we could wiggle and still pull ourselves out again. It was a ton of fun. We didn't think of the danger. Every now and then Granddad would say, "You kids aren't playing in the rapeseed, are you?" "No," we would say. Thinking we weren't supposed to be in there because we might reduce the quality of his harvest.
> 
> So when I heard about the three little girls who were killed, it was chilling. I knew that could have been me slipping down under the seeds, unable to pull myself up. My brothers following in a desperate attempt to save me, perishing in the same way, suffocating under all those little black seeds.....


http://progressivelyirrelevant.blogspot.ca/2015/12/land-of-free.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Just substitute excessive spying on citizens in the name of fighting terrorism and you wouldn't have to change much else in this essay.



> W*e give up our right to hold private telephone conversations*, so others will be free from *terrorist activities*. We give up privacy every time a CCTV camera is focused our way. It's part of living in a civilized society where the rights of the community take precedence over the freedoms of a few.
> 
> We also look at positive and negative freedoms. Freedom from and freedom to.* We *may want freedom from government interference. But a *victim of terrorism* deserves the freedom to be safe.





fjnmusic said:


> Confessions of a Progressively Irrelevant Teacher: Land of the Free
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Just substitute excessive spying on citizens in the name of fighting terrorism and you wouldn't have to change much else in this essay.



I think you pretty much missed the point of the article, Macfury. While fighting terrorism is a noble pursuit, this essay is about farm safety. You're putting words in the author's mouth without acknowledging the merit or lack thereof of the original essay. This author supports Bill 6 and explains why, but makes no reference to anything regarding terrorism. It's a free world, but if you were to focus on this topic before going tangential, we could probably have a more meaningful conversation. Just sayin'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Her argument is that security is more important than freedom. It's the argument used by all statists who areenemies of freedom.



fjnmusic said:


> I think you pretty much missed the point of the article, Macfury. While fighting terrorism is a noble pursuit, this essay is about farm safety. You're putting words in the author's mouth without acknowledging the merit or lack thereof of the original essay. This author supports Bill 6 and explains why, but makes no reference to anything regarding terrorism. It's a free world, but if you were to focus on this topic before going tangential, we could probably have a more meaningful conversation. Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Her argument is that security is more important than freedom. It's the argument used by all statists who areenemies of freedom.



Not at all. Her argument is that family farms, while they are homes, are also dangerous workplaces, something that many kids don't realize. When I was a kid we used to crawl inside the threshing machine and pretend it as a spaceship. Her article has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist connections you are trying to make, which are a tenuous stretch at best. I think you've jumped the shark with this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Her argument is that the Farm Bill should pass because security is more important than freedom.



fjnmusic said:


> Not at all. Her argument is that family farms, while they are homes, are also dangerous workplaces, something that many kids don't realize. When I was a kid we used to crawl inside the threshing machine and pretend it as a spaceship. Her article has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist connections you are trying to make, which are a tenuous stretch at best. I think you've jumped the shark with this one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Her argument is that the Farm Bill should pass because security is more important than freedom.



Nope. You're analysis is too simplistic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Nope. You're analysis is too simplistic.


Her essay is simplistic.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Her essay is simplistic.


I find government intrusion into our lives is out of control. We'll have mandatory bathtub safety courses with state issued shower helmets soon to save us from slipping and hitting our heads.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver

fjnmusic said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If not socialism, how do you propose fixing it?


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Those who "feel the Bern" today shall be burned at the stake tomorrow in a Trump administration ................ either that, or forced to build a wall and a pyramid. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

The socialist looks at ways to divide a shrinking pie. Those on the other side looks for ways to produce more pie. 

I notice the source of your meme is Oxfam:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...mments/the_strange_business_of_oxfam_charity/



> Like other charities, Oxfam outsources this type of fundraising because it is currently the most cost-effective way to engage new supporters.* There is not a company in Australia that provides this service without charging a once only payment, which is usually equivalent to around 85 – 95% of the donor’s first year gift.* Of course we would prefer not to pay a fee, but nothing comes for free, and we are paying for a service that helps us raise funds and saves us money. Indeed street fundraising and telemarketing is a vital source of reliable and predictable income and accounts for around 25% of Oxfam’s total income on average each year. The average supporter pledge period of supporters retained through these measures is around three years, and many givers continue to donate for 5 or even 10 years.


Call centre tactics used by charities like Oxfam, CRUK and the RSPCA exposed | Daily Mail Online



> Britain’s biggest charities including Oxfam, Cancer Research UK and the RSPCA are funding a money-raising call centre where staff are trained how to cynically squeeze cash from potential donors including 98-year-olds and cancer sufferers.


----------



## fjnmusic

Interesting developments in Alberta. 



> It would seem Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives are coming back to life.
> What we don’t know yet is whether the party’s animation is genuine or illusory. Politically speaking, we don’t know yet whether we have a real live body or merely a zombie.
> 
> What we know at this point is the PC’s candidate, Prab Gill, won Tuesday’s byelection fight in Calgary-Greenway. That’s good news for the PCs. In fact, it’s the best news the party has had since losing last May’s general election after 44 years in power.
> 
> But the PCs didn’t win Greenway by a large margin, capturing about 28 per cent of the vote compared with 24 per cent for the Wildrose, 23 per cent for the Liberals and 20 per cent for the NDP.


http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...victory-evidence-of-life-returning-to-the-pcs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Were you surprised?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Were you surprised?



By which part? There are many parts to the article. Which part are you referring to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The part you found interesting.



fjnmusic said:


> By which part? There are many parts to the article. Which part are you referring to?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The part you found interesting.



Please elaborate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting developments in Alberta.


Which part of the development did you find interesting?


----------



## fjnmusic

I added an edit to the original post to widen the scope of this thread to include progressive governments beyond Canada's boarders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Very true.


----------



## Macfury

Kennedy was right. It is not achieved by a large and overbearing federal government of the type championed by Bernie Sanders.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Kennedy was right. It is not achieved by a large and overbearing federal government of the type championed by Bernie Sanders.




Wrong again. Bernie Sanders and John F Kennedy are both Democrats, upholding the principles of liberalism. Different eras, but same values.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Wrong again. Bernie Sanders and John F Kennedy are both Democrats, upholding the principles of liberalism. Different eras, but same values.


No, they are "progressives" not liberals. JFK was a classical liberal.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No, they are "progressives" not liberals. JFK was a classical liberal.




Who belonged to the Democrat party. You keep telling yourself he wasn't, but history knows better.


----------



## Macfury

Of course. The Democrat party became debased over time. I would consider JFK the last of the classic liberals.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Of course. The Democrat party became debased over time. I would consider JFK the last of the classic liberals.




So what's going on in your head overrides any sort of objective reality. Difficult to argue with that.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Of course. The Democrat party became debased over time. I would consider JFK the last of the classic liberals.


FDR would be the last of the true "classical liberals" who were presidents, following in the footsteps of FDR. Truman and JFK would be moderate liberals, in my opinion. Bobby Kennedy would have been a great classical liberal president had he not been killed.


----------



## Macfury

You have no objective reality to offer, fjn. Only the name "Democrat Party" is what binds these polar extremes.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> You have no objective reality to offer, fjn. Only the name "Democrat Party" is what binds these polar extremes.


Interesting, when you think that back in 1948 you had the "dixiecrats" on the right of the Democrats after they split away from Truman, Wallace who was to the left of Truman, and Dewey, the Republican. Luckily, Truman lived up to his "give 'em hell" motto and won.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> You have no objective reality to offer, fjn. Only the name "Democrat Party" is what binds these polar extremes.


You could say the same for the Liberal Party in Canada. They've gone so far Left from where they were just 20 years ago. A liberal supporter of the 60s early 70s wouldn't recognize the party today.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver said:


> You could say the same for the Liberal Party in Canada. They've gone so far Left from where they were just 20 years ago. A liberal supporter of the 60s early 70s wouldn't recognize the party today.




I dunno, MacGuiver. The 60's early 70's were more than 20 years ago. More like 40-50 years ago. Just how do you figure Liberal values have changed in that time?


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> You have no objective reality to offer, fjn. Only the name "Democrat Party" is what binds these polar extremes.


Indeed. You can't judge a party's policy by it's name. People of one party often have policies much more in line with another, and party platforms change over time.

You see a lot of that in Canada too. People who mistakenly refer to Joe Clark or Jean Charest as "conservative" for instance.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> Indeed. You can't judge a party's policy by it's name. People of one party often have policies much more in line with another, and party platforms change over time.
> 
> 
> 
> You see a lot of that in Canada too. People who mistakenly refer to Joe Clark or Jean Charest as "conservative" for instance.



I see what you're saying. So what do you think Joe Clark or Jean Charest represented that today's Conservatives do not? Did the influence of the Reform/Alliance movement change the principles of Conservatism in Canada?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I see what you're saying. So what do you think Joe Clark or Jean Charest represented that today's Conservatives do not?


The slow and steady decline of freedom and personal initiative.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The slow and steady decline of freedom and personal initiative.



Not to be annoying, but that's a pretty general blanket statement. Can you give an example or two?


----------



## Dr.G.

For my old friend, Macfury. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

It will be interesting to see if Bernie Sanders can raise the spirit of "Fighting Bob" La Follette Sr. in today's Wisconsin primary. "Fighting Bob" actually started off as was a Republican, but later switched to become a great Progressive politician. He served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, was the Governor of Wisconsin, and was a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin from 1906 to 1925. He ran for President of the United States as the nominee of his own Progressive Party in 1924, carrying Wisconsin and winning 17% of the national popular vote.

He is best remembered as a proponent of progressivism and a vocal opponent of railroad trusts, bossism, World War I, and the League of Nations. In 1957, a Senate Committee selected La Follette as one of the five greatest U.S. Senators, along with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Robert A. Taft. 

We shall see if Wisconsin once again "feels the Bern".


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> We shall see if Wisconsin once again "feels the Bern".


It doesn't matter if they feel the Bern. The party doesn't want him, so his support will not translate into enough delegates to overthrow Clinton.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> It doesn't matter if they feel the Bern. The party doesn't want him, so his support will not translate into enough delegates to overthrow Clinton.


We shall see, mon ami. However, I do feel that the unelected super delegates will eventually give the nomination to Clinton in the end. Still, she will have to pay more than lip service to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If she does, then I feel she will be able to defeat whomever in nominated by the Republicans.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> It doesn't matter if they feel the Bern. The party doesn't want him, so his support will not translate into enough delegates to overthrow Clinton.


Imagine if Sanders wins today in Wisconsin, and then again wins in New York State two weeks from today????????? That will make things really interesting. We shall see.

If you were in the US, who would you be voting for either in the primary contests or in the general election, assuming that there was a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot in your state? Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates 2016

Out of curiosity, in what state in the US would you want to live if you had the desire/chance?


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> We shall see, mon ami. However, I do feel that the unelected super delegates will eventually give the nomination to Clinton in the end. Still, she will have to pay more than lip service to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If she does, then I feel she will be able to defeat whomever in nominated by the Republicans.


I hope she does--it will further alienate voters from the Democrats. And while Bernie has some personality, Hillary Clinton has none. Of course, that won't matter if she is indicted for divulging state secrets.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I hope she does--it will further alienate voters from the Democrats. And while Bernie has some personality, Hillary Clinton has none. Of course, that won't matter if she is indicted for divulging state secrets.


While I think that Clinton has the best chance of beating whomever the Republicans finally select as their candidate, I truly feel that Sanders could beat this person as well. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury, just read this in the NY Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/u...t_tnt_20160405&nlid=19590846&tntemail0=y&_r=0

As I asked you, what state would you choose if you were financially secure enough to move to the US and register to vote?


----------



## Macfury

Ideally, I would move into a rust belt community in either western Pennsylvania or Western New York and buy an industrial facility to live in.



Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, just read this in the NY Times.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/u...t_tnt_20160405&nlid=19590846&tntemail0=y&_r=0
> 
> As I asked you, what state would you choose if you were financially secure enough to move to the US and register to vote?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Ideally, I would move into a rust belt community in either western Pennsylvania or Western New York and buy an industrial facility to live in.


Interesting. I don't know much about PA, but I went to university just outside of Rochester, NY. Where in western New York would you settle?


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting. I don't know much about PA, but I went to university just outside of Rochester, NY. Where in western New York would you settle?


Some place like Olean or East Aurora. As long as I could find a good vintage house or industrial building.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Some place like Olean or East Aurora. As long as I could find a good vintage house or industrial building.


Interesting. I dated a girl in university from Cheektowaga, NY, which is near East Aurora. I have never been near the Olean area, but I know where it is located in NY State. Good choices.


----------



## Dr.G.

It was interesting to see Bernie Sanders raise the spirit of "Fighting Bob" La Follette Sr. in yesterday's Wisconsin primary. Not sure if he should have been able to vote, but it was a good feeling to see a once-progressive, who now has a very conservative governor, "feel the Bern".


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> It was interesting to see Bernie Sanders raise the spirit of "Fighting Bob" La Follette Sr. in yesterday's Wisconsin primary. Not sure if he should have been able to vote, but it was a good feeling to see a once-progressive, who now has a very conservative governor, "feel the Bern".



As the underdog, I think Bernie has a very good chance of emerging from all this as the champion, much the same way Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau came from behind to be victorious. Hillary I think is too presumptuous, basically gaming the system by lining up all the super delegates ahead of time. Depending on the mood of the American public come election time, if Trump and Sanders are the official delegates, we'd be looking at two very different visions for the future of America.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> As the underdog, I think Bernie has a very good chance of emerging from all this as the champion, much the same way Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau came from behind to be victorious. Hillary I think is too presumptuous, basically gaming the system by lining up all the super delegates ahead of time. Depending on the mood of the American public come election time, if Trump and Sanders are the official delegates, we'd be looking at two very different visions for the future of America.


While this would be a fine scenario, I have a feeling that the unelected super delegates will ultimately throw it to Clinton. Her claim will be that she has won more votes in the various primaries. Still, if she turns her back on the progressive wing of the Democratic party, a Republican will be elected, just like in 1968.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> As the underdog, I think Bernie has a very good chance of emerging from all this as the champion, much the same way Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau came from behind to be victorious. Hillary I think is too presumptuous, basically gaming the system by lining up all the super delegates ahead of time. Depending on the mood of the American public come election time, if Trump and Sanders are the official delegates, we'd be looking at two very different visions for the future of America.


His best use is making Hilary angry--I'm enjoying watching her fume over the delay of her coronation.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> His best use is making Hilary angry--I'm enjoying watching her fume over the delay of her coronation.


I have a feeling that she honestly felt that she would have it wrapped up by not. Everyone seems to have underestimated Trump and Sanders, in that everyone seemed to think that Jeb Bush had it wrapped up as well. Such is Life.


----------



## Dr.G.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waeXBCUkuL8

Feel the Bern ............. New York style.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waeXBCUkuL8
> 
> Feel the Bern ............. New York style.


Interesting and funny from a linguistic point of view but it has absolutely nothing to do with the election. Unless a person's vocal accent influences how people may vote. That may be the case, but if so it is really sad for the democratic process in the 21st century. If true, we as a species have not advanced much.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Interesting and funny from a linguistic point of view but it has absolutely nothing to do with the election. Unless a person's vocal accent influences how people may vote. That may be the case, but if so it is really sad for the democratic process in the 21st century. If true, we as a species have not advanced much.


Sad, but true, Steve. Today, some people will vote for or against a candidate based on what he/she looks like or sounds like (e.g. I knew a few Liberals who did not want to vote for S. Dion based on his English and how he looked when he ran for leader of the Liberal Party). Today, think of all the fuss being made over PM Trudeau's looks/hair, etc. One's beliefs and policies should be at the forefront, not other factors. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Sad, but true, Steve. Today, some people will vote for or against a candidate based on what he/she looks like or sounds like (e.g. I knew a few Liberals who did not want to vote for S. Dion based on his English and how he looked when he ran for leader of the Liberal Party). Today, think of all the fuss being made over PM Trudeau's looks/hair, etc. One's beliefs and *policies should be at the forefront* , not other factors. Paix, mon ami.


Exactement.

Beliefs are another matter. One can choose to believe whatever they want, that is their right and freedom and is personal to them. All that matter's is what their public policy is and subsequent legislation.

For example, Stephen Harper's personal beliefs were against abortion and same sex marriage.

He pushed aside his own beliefs (both losing and wining votes in the process) and did not make policy based on his own personal beliefs, at least in this regard. I mention these two issues becuase they are very personal beliefs... not like a pipeline for example.


----------



## Rps

Screature, I agree with you here. But, remember that it is easier to take a contrary position as leader in a parliamentary system than in a Presidential one. I applauded Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin for going along with their party's, and most certainly, Canadian's will as opposed to "just say no" we hear and see south of the border. But that said, the U.S. elects a leader where we elect a Parliament, not a subtle difference.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Exactement.
> 
> Beliefs are another matter. One can choose to believe whatever they want, that is their right and freedom and is personal to them. All that matter's is what their public policy is and subsequent legislation.
> 
> For example, Stephen Harper's personal beliefs were against abortion and same sex marriage.
> 
> He pushed aside his own beliefs (both losing and wining votes in the process) and did not make policy based on his own personal beliefs, at least in this regard. I mention these two issues becuase they are very personal beliefs... not like a pipeline for example.


Once again, valid points, Steve.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Screature, I agree with you here. But, remember that it is easier to take a contrary position as leader in a parliamentary system than in a Presidential one. I applauded Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin for going along with their party's, and most certainly, Canadian's will as opposed to "just say no" we hear and see south of the border. But that said, the U.S. elects a leader where we elect a Parliament, not a subtle difference.


Yes, a very big difference. I never fully accepted the reality that in the middle of a PM's term of office, he or she could be voted out as the leader of the party, and a new PM would take his/her place without being elected.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Screature, I agree with you here. But, remember that it is easier to take a contrary position as leader in a parliamentary system than in a Presidential one. I applauded Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin for going along with their party's, and most certainly, Canadian's will as opposed to "just say no" we hear and see south of the border. But that said, *the U.S. elects a leader where we elect a Parliament, not a subtle difference.*





Dr.G. said:


> Once again, valid points, Steve.





Dr.G. said:


> Yes, a very big difference. *I never fully accepted the reality that in the middle of a PM's term of office, he or she could be voted out as the leader of the party, and a new PM would take his/her place without being elected.*


Rps, my comments were not directed specifically to American politics. The case of Sanders just happens to be one example of such bias based on accent.

Of course it is not and it is one of our democratic failings IMO. We should vote separately (but at the same time) for a Parliament (our MP) and vote for PM cast on a separate ballot. It should not be up to card holding members of a political party to indirectly choose the leader of the country. That should be determined by a general election based on the will of the people at large.

Once again, exatement Marc.


----------



## Dr.G.

"It should not be up to card holding members of a political party to indirectly choose the leader of the country. That should be determined by a general election based on the will of the people at large."

Once again, Steve, we are in total agreement on this point. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Speaking about progressives in the Canadian government, I wonder who the NDP will eventually select as their leader this weekend? I feel that the Liberal Party is now more progressive than the NDP. We shall see.


----------



## Rps

Dr.G. said:


> "It should not be up to card holding members of a political party to indirectly choose the leader of the country. That should be determined by a general election based on the will of the people at large."
> 
> Once again, Steve, we are in total agreement on this point. Paix, mon ami.


Dr. G and Steve, I am not sure I agree. Failing party nomination you might as well have public elections for party leaders and then elections for leaders. What I would agree to is the caucus system as the U.S. has and not a primary. I would also like to have debates by potential party leaders as they do for the Presidential nomination. This would position the candidates politically in the minds of Canadian voters and Party policy developers. Maybe we would have better voting turn out under such an approach.

I don't mind party members electing party leaders, it is just the way they do it that bothers me. There was a time in this country that party conventions took over TV broadcasts for the whole convention.....today, not so much.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Dr. G and Steve, I am not sure I agree. Failing party nomination you might as well have public elections for party leaders and then elections for leaders. What I would agree to is the caucus system as the U.S. has and not a primary. I would also like to have debates by potential party leaders as they do for the Presidential nomination. This would position the candidates politically in the minds of Canadian voters and Party policy developers. Maybe we would have better voting turn out under such an approach.
> 
> I don't mind party members electing party leaders, it is just the way they do it that bothers me. There was a time in this country that party conventions took over TV broadcasts for the whole convention.....today, not so much.


Rps, respectfully, I think you miss the point.

In the US there is a system to vote for Representatives and there is also a vote by card holding members of a given party to vote for their choice of *candidate* for President. Then they win the nomination and then the public at large gets to vote for the President of their choice. It is completely different and IMO our system is far less democratic.

That is why in the US a President actually has much less power concentrated in his/her hands except in the case of Presidential veto, and then if he or she does the fallout whether good or bad is all on them.


----------



## Rps

Sorry Steve, I thought you were only talking about electing the Party leader, not the leader of the country. However, in electing the"nominee" in the U.S., some states are open and others are closed. Again, the view of democratic process is open to personal opinion. The U.S., like ourselves, have democratic processes but are not democracies. I do agree it would be nice to elect our PM. I have often thought that Cabinet Ministers and the PM should hold no ridings. Cabinet positions should be open to anyone of any party, but nominated by the PM and approved by an equal and elected Senate, or, the House in General.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Sorry Steve, I thought you were only talking about electing the Party leader, not the leader of the country. However, in electing the"nominee" in the U.S., some states are open and others are closed. Again, the view of democratic process is open to personal opinion. The U.S., like ourselves, have democratic processes but are not democracies. I do agree it would be nice to elect our PM. I have often thought that Cabinet Ministers and the PM should hold no ridings. Cabinet positions should be open to anyone of any party, but nominated by the PM and approved by an equal and elected Senate, or, the House in General.


I don't think we are too far off from being on the same page. The manner of discussion on a forum is often open to much more misunderstanding than when talking face to face where differences can be sorted out in a sentence or two in a fluid conversation.

You are one of the few people here who I would like to meet and have a face to face discussion with and although we may end up agreeing to to disagree I think it would be a fruitful and pleasant time.

Cheers,

All the best.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Rps, respectfully, I think you miss the point.
> 
> In the US there is a system to vote for Representatives and there is also a vote by card holding members of a given party to vote for their choice of *candidate* for President. Then they win the nomination and then the public at large gets to vote for the President of their choice. It is completely different and IMO our system is far more democratic.
> 
> That is why in the US a President actually has much less power concentrated in his/her hands except in the case of Presidential veto, and then if he or she does the fallout whether good or bad is all on them.


An accurate and valid point, Steve. :clap:


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Sorry Steve, I thought you were only talking about electing the Party leader, not the leader of the country. However, in electing the"nominee" in the U.S., some states are open and others are closed. Again, the view of democratic process is open to personal opinion. The U.S., like ourselves, have democratic processes but are not democracies. I do agree it would be nice to elect our PM. I have often thought that Cabinet Ministers and the PM should hold no ridings. Cabinet positions should be open to anyone of any party, but nominated by the PM and approved by an equal and elected Senate, or, the House in General.


Rp, say that PM Trudeau has a heart attack and dies. Who becomes the new PM? Now, let's say that this person is PM for a year but the Liberal Party do not like him/her. So, they hold a convention and boot him/her out, with a new PM taking his/her place. All this is done without the people of Canada having some sort of say in the matter. At least in the US the death of a president has a Constitutional direct line of succession. People in the US know that when you elect a president you are also electing a VP who is a heartbeat away from being president. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> *Rp, say that PM Trudeau has a heart attack and dies. Who becomes the new PM?* Now, let's say that this person is PM for a year but the Liberal Party do not like him/her. So, they hold a convention and boot him/her out, with a new PM taking his/her place. All this is done without the people of Canada having some sort of say in the matter. At least in the US the death of a president has a Constitutional direct line of succession. People in the US know that when you elect a president you are also electing a VP who is a heartbeat away from being president.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Well in the short term there is a process for that. The Deputy Leader becomes the PM, but that person is of the PM's choice in forming Cabinet, so not very democratic. But it is understood that this is a short term situation. But then again "electing" the new PM is left up to the governing party and will not be subject to a vote by the public at large.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Well in the short term there is a process for that. The Deputy Leader becomes the PM, but that person is of the PM's choice in forming Cabinet, so not very democratic. But it is understood that this is a short term situation. But then again "electing" the new PM is left up to the governing party and will not be subject to a vote by the public at large.


Interesting. Thanks for this info, Steve.


----------



## heavyall

screature said:


> Of course it is not and it is one of our democratic failings IMO. We should vote separately (but at the same time) for a Parliament (our MP) and vote for PM cast on a separate ballot. It should not be up to card holding members of a political party to indirectly choose the leader of the country. That should be determined by a general election based on the will of the people at large.


I've often has similar thoughts. But then I remember the corrupt clusterf**k that is the US system, and suddenly I'm glad we don't do that. A PM from one party with a parliament majority from another would just be a mess.

But, yes, replacing the PM in the middle of the term should NOT be allowed. A change of leadership for the ruling party should automatically trigger an election.


----------



## fjnmusic

Good discussion, folks. Myself, I see the advantages and disadvantages of both systems, but I'm not sure the American way with its endless election cycle is better than what we have in Canada. Our recent 77 day campaign was a record, twice the usual length. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

A small point, but we do not elect a PM, we elect a Parliament.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> A small point, but we do not elect a PM, we elect a Parliament.




True dat. The Westminster model is considerably different in many respects than the form of government used by the republic to the south of us.


----------



## heavyall

Rps said:


> A small point, but we do not elect a PM, we elect a Parliament.


Yes, that's exactly what we were just saying.


----------



## zen.state

Rps said:


> A small point, but we do not elect a PM, we elect a Parliament.


Are you saying people don't vote based on who the party leader is? If you like your local candidate in any particular party, but dislike their party leader, and don't want them running your country, would you vote for the local candidate still?


----------



## Rps

zen.state said:


> Are you saying people don't vote based on who the party leader is? If you like your local candidate in any particular party, but dislike their party leader, and don't want them running your country, would you vote for the local candidate still?


No, the reason people vote is personal, but the fact remains we do not vote for our PM ( unless the PM is in your riding ) we vote to elect a Parliament. Yes, the parties talk about the strength of their leadership, and that may influence your vote, but unless a party leader is in our riding you don't vote for him or her, only a member of their party.


----------



## Rps

heavyall said:


> I've often has similar thoughts. But then I remember the corrupt clusterf**k that is the US system, and suddenly I'm glad we don't do that. A PM from one party with a parliament majority from another would just be a mess.
> 
> But, yes, replacing the PM in the middle of the term should NOT be allowed. A change of leadership for the ruling party should automatically trigger an election.


Heavy all, we sort of do this with the leadership review which happens after an election. It is not often that a sitting PM is dumped prior to an election. But it is a valid point. In the case of the NDP in Quebec and Tom Mulcair, should we have had an election again after he took over , do we only extend reelections to PMs and not other party leaders?


----------



## screature

heavyall said:


> I've often has similar thoughts. But then I remember the* corrupt clusterf**k that is the US system*, and suddenly I'm glad we don't do that. A PM from one party with a parliament majority from another would just be a mess.
> 
> But, yes, replacing the PM in the middle of the term should NOT be allowed. A change of leadership for the ruling party should automatically trigger an election.


We have laws against that in this country.


----------



## Rps

Screature, was the Trudeau/Turner the only time of a change? I can't remember, was Turner defeated by Clark. Wasn't Mul/Campbell similar as well.


----------



## screature

zen.state said:


> Are you saying people don't vote based on who the party leader is? If you like your local candidate in any particular party, but dislike their party leader, and don't want them running your country, would you vote for the local candidate still?





Rps said:


> No, the reason people vote is personal, but the fact remains we do not vote for our PM ( unless the PM is in your riding ) *we vote to elect a Parliament. *Yes, the parties talk about the strength of their leadership, and that may influence your vote, but unless a party leader is in our riding you don't vote for him or her, only a member of their party.





Rps said:


> Heavy all, we sort of do this with the leadership review which happens after an election. It is not often that a sitting PM is dumped prior to an election. But it is a valid point. In the case of the NDP in Quebec and Tom Mulcair, should we have had an election again after he took over , do we only extend reelections to PMs and not other party leaders?





fjnmusic said:


> True dat. The Westminster model is considerably different in many respects than the form of government used by the republic to the south of us.





heavyall said:


> Yes, that's exactly what we were just saying.





Rps said:


> A small point, but we do not elect a PM, we elect a Parliament.


Rps, the reality is we do not by far and large. We vote for an MP based on whether or not the numbers will add up to get our leader of choice into power. That is the problem. Separate the two, one vote for an MP and another one for PM, on two different ballots. That would be more democratic.

fjnmusic, the Westminster system can be and has been reformed in individual Nations. We do not need to throw out the baby with the bath water. We need not blindly stick by tradition for the sake of it. Things can and do change, but only if we are willing to make it happen.

I am not suggesting that we fully adopt the US system of government, but on this particular issue they have strengths that we do not and we might want to consider some reform to make our system more democratic when it comes to how we elect our leader.


----------



## Rps

Screature, we have to separate the why we vote from the how we vote. You have outlined the why we vote.....a common question has been do I vote for the person or the party in this country. I do agree that we should vote for our leader. So, a two vote system makes sense..... That is until you ajudicate ballots and see how hard it is for some people to place an X in a circle. That said I think a system where you vote for a member and a PM makes a lot of sense......now if we can only get an equal and elected Senate............


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Screature, we have to separate the why we vote from the how we vote. You have outlined the why we vote.....a common question has been do I vote for the person or the party in this country. I do agree that we should vote for our leader. So, a two vote system makes sense..... That is until you ajudicate ballots and see how hard it is for some people to place an X in a circle. That said I think a system where you vote for a member and a PM makes a lot of sense......now if we can only get an equal and elected Senate............


Politics in general and democracy in particular, is a dirty, messy and imperfect game. All we can do is look at our past mistakes in order to try to improve our future. But only if we have the will.

"Democracy" as it exists now is for the most part ruling by *dictation* and not *negotiation*. That needs to change if we want to get any closer to the ideals of democracy.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Screature, was the Trudeau/Turner the only time of a change? I can't remember, was Turner defeated by Clark. Wasn't Mul/Campbell similar as well.


I'm not sure what you are asking or saying here. There are many, many times of change all based on the particulars in terms of a certain point in history and the individuals involved.

Can you please clarify what you mean and your point as I do not understand?


----------



## fjnmusic

There is evidence that not all progressive minded people think the same way. Hell, not even all socialists think the same way. 



> On Saturday, they embraced Premier Rachel Notley.
> 
> On Sunday, they stabbed her in the back.
> 
> Delegates to the federal NDP convention in Edmonton are a fickle lot.
> 
> They resoundingly rejected Thomas Mulcair, choosing instead to launch a leadership race to find his successor. And after listening to Notley give an impassioned speech about the need to help Alberta build more oil pipelines, delegates did the opposite.
> 
> They supported a motion involving the “Leap Manifesto,” a radical document from activists within the party calling on Canada to, among other things, wean itself off fossil fuels within a generation. The manifesto is not pipeline friendly, to put it mildly.


http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...-ndp-delegates-stab-rachel-notley-in-the-back


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

True ............


----------



## Dr.G.

The Republicans could use a progressive like TR these days. Imagine an election between TR and Bernie.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> True ............


Not true. America welcomes all... not just the destitute.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> The Republicans could use a progressive like TR these days. Imagine an election between TR and Bernie.


Too bad Franklin did not listen by creating just such an unholy alliance.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Too bad Franklin did not listen by creating just such an unholy alliance.


Ben or FDR?


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Ben or FDR?


Franklin's only unholy alliances were those that resulted in children out of wedlock!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Too bad Franklin did not listen by creating just such an unholy alliance.


Many "rich, elite aristocrats" hated FDR. Most of the "tired, poor and huddled masses", living in Hoovervilles and on farms loved him.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Many "rich, elite aristocrats" hated FDR. Most of the "tired, poor and huddled masses", living in Hoovervilles and on farms loved him.




Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!


In this case, the good story is that FDR supposedly helped end the Depression--when his ill-found policies extended it by many years.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> In this case, the good story is that FDR supposedly helped end the Depression--when his ill-found policies extended it by many years.


Nothing ends a depression quicker than a good sized war.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Nothing ends a depression quicker than a good sized war.


Exactly. FDR extended the Depression for more than a decade, while receiving the gratitude of others to for whom he created make-work projects. Only WWII succeeded in shaking the US economy out of the doldrums.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> In this case, the good story is that FDR supposedly helped end the Depression--when his ill-found policies extended it by many years.


Most historians would disagree with your point. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Most historians would disagree with your point. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. Paix, mon ami.


Yes, and many would also agree.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Yes, and many would also agree.


Way back when, I was a member of the American Historical Association. I recall a survey back in 1968 or 69 of the 250 leading historians of that period (e.g., Schlesinger jr., Lerner, Hofstadter, Degler, et al. They and the vast majority of historians polled would disagree with your contention. FDR had his faults, but prolonging the Depression was not one of them. Sorry.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Way back when, I was a member of the American Historical Association. I recall a survey back in 1968 or 69 of the 250 leading historians of that period (e.g., Schlesinger jr., Lerner, Hofstadter, Degler, et al. They and the vast majority of historians polled would disagree with your contention. FDR had his faults, but prolonging the Depression was not one of them. Sorry.


There's been a lot more objective analysis of FDR's record in the past 50 years since that poll was taken. People are now willing to look at FDR without the rose coloured glasses of older relatives who revered him.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> There's been a lot more objective analysis of FDR's record in the past 50 years since that poll was taken. People are now willing to look at FDR without the rose coloured glasses of older relatives who revered him.


True, and the more they look the more that historians and economists alike feel that FDR's policies were needed at the time.

Under FDR, the American federal government assumed new and powerful roles in the nation's economy, in its corporate life, and in the health, welfare, and well-being of its citizens. The federal government in 1935 guaranteed unions the right to organize and bargain collectively, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established a mechanism for putting a floor under wages and a ceiling on hours that continues to this day. It provided, in 1935, financial aid to the aged, infirm, and unemployed when they could no longer provide for themselves. Beginning in 1933, it helped rural and agricultural America with price supports and development programs when these sectors could barely survive. Finally, by embracing an activist fiscal policy after 1937, the government assumed responsibility for smoothing out the rough spots in the American economy. 

I agree that by 1940 there was still unemployment, just as there is today. However, when you think of the magnitude of what he faced, and look objectively at what he and his administration did for the people of the US, you may see why I feel he was the greatest president in US history (closely followed by Lincoln).

President Roosevelt expressed his vision for a country where each citizen was guaranteed a basic level of economic security most eloquently in his Economic Bill of Rights speech on January 11, 1944: 

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."


----------



## Macfury

We must agree to disagree. I see most of those "achievements" as developments with perverse consequences. Well-intentioned men often cause great harm.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> We must agree to disagree. I see most of those "achievements" as developments with perverse consequences. Well-intentioned men often cause great harm.


Fine with me, mon ami. Let us remain friends who agree to disagree. Paix, mon ami.

Well-intentioned men and woman can also do great things which help many, many people.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Most historians would disagree with your point. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. Paix, mon ami.



Deja vu, amigo.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Deja vu, amigo.


"Deja vu ......... all over again." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Don Quixote was a realist when compared to Bernie Sanders."

Rex Murphy | Bernie Sanders - CBC News | The National


----------



## fjnmusic

It's always fun when they underestimate you. 

"During a visit to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo on Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to a reporter's sarcastic comment about his knowledge of quantum computing by giving the reporter a quick lesson on it."

http://globalnews.ca/news/2641108/p...n-quantum-computing-during-visit-to-waterloo/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> It's always fun when they underestimate you.
> 
> "During a visit to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo on Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to a reporter's sarcastic comment about his knowledge of quantum computing by giving the reporter a quick lesson on it."
> 
> PM Justin Trudeau gives reporter quick lesson on quantum computing during visit to Waterloo - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just saw the clip on CBC National news. It lost me about half way through the explanation. Good to have an intelligent PM. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Not wrong, but not exactly deep either.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Not wrong, but not exactly deep either.


Still, not bad for a non-scientist. :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

Now that's progress! 












> Former Guantanamo Bay inmate Omar Khadr, out on bail in Edmonton since last year, is getting married.
> 
> Postmedia News has confirmed the 29-year-old former child soldier will marry Edmonton human rights activist Muna Abougoush, a longtime supporter who wrote and visited Khadr in prison during his time in Canadian custody.
> 
> Facebook posts congratulating the couple quickly spread online.
> 
> “I am so happy to think you will be sharing your future together after so many years of shared past,” reads one message.
> 
> Abougoush is one of several women who started an international campaign for Khadr’s freedom. She helped launched a website to keep his story in the news and later began corresponding and visiting with him behind bars.


http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/former-guantanamo-inmate-omar-khadr-getting-married


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

*Because it's 2015!*

It's even better when you can expose a fraud for what he is...

The North Koreanification of Canadian political reporting



> So, to summarize, the PM went to a place and learned about a thing. During the speech that followed, he excitedly suggested he wanted to talk about the thing he just learned. A reporter was disinterested in playing along, and tried to ask a more relevant question, but Trudeau ignored him and launched into what was clearly a pre-prepared treatise on the thing.
> 
> In the reporting that followed, the Canadian media deliberately and pointedly did not place Trudeau’s verbal essay on quantum computing in the context in which it occurred. They instead chose to present the story in a fashion that would ensure maximum PR benefit to the prime minister — namely, this idea that Trudeau confidently called the bluff of a patronizing reporter.
> 
> To put it another way, the Canadian media has actually reversed the realities of the story 180 degrees. What is being falsely presented as a story of a scrappy prime minister resisting a hostile press is actually a story of a slavishly subservient press who are actively shaping their reporting to suit the government’s needs.
> 
> *It is a disgrace.*


Emphasis mine.

Yes.

More (and when you've lost Gawker...):

Justin Trudeau’s Quantum Computing Explanation Was Likely Staged for Publicity



> Asked whether Trudeau has a pre-existing interest in quantum computing, Ahmad answered: “Yes, he does. And like I said, he had just completed a tour of the institute. ... *I just really wanted to emphasize that it was not staged.*”


M'bold.

Bull****...

Further (_and_ Jezebel):

Is Justin Trudeau Just a Big, Hot Phony?



> But is he possibly also a sensitive, deep-voiced, square-jawed, blue-eyed, well-dressed faker? *Yes. The answer is yes.*


M'bold.

No argument...

Even more:

Here’s The True Story Behind Trudeau’s ‘Explanation’ Of Quantum Computing



> Despite Trudeau’s reference to himself as a “geek,” he does not mention any interest in computers in his memoir. *Rather, he maintains a strong interest in science fiction like Star Wars, which many mistake for an interest in science, though the two, of course, are quite different.*


Yeah, an awful lot like the difference between a hairdo & a Prime Minister...



fjnmusic said:


> It's always fun when they underestimate you.


----------



## MacGuiver

What's funny is how this one act of political theatre "staged or not", now makes shiny pony a rocket scientist in the eyes of his supporters and media cheerleaders.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> What's funny is how this one act of political theatre "staged or not", now makes shiny pony a rocket scientist in the eyes of his supporters and media cheerleaders.


These are low-information voters for whom that pathetic "pensée" surrounding quantum computing represents deep thought.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> These are low-information voters for whom that pathetic "pensée" surrounding quantum computing represents deep thought.



To be honest, I have a harder time trying to take the low information commenters seriously.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> To be honest, I have a harder time trying to take the low information commenters seriously.


Great! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Aurora

fjnmusic said:


> To be honest, I have a harder time trying to take the low information commenters seriously.


Brainwashed?


----------



## fjnmusic

And it seems the hard times do not just affect Socialist Alberta, but conservative-minded Saskatchewan as well. And I thought Brad Wall was doing everything right. 



> Trades Struggle to Find Work in Saskatchewan
> 
> 'It’s very, very tough for us right now,' says Saskatoon business owner
> 
> Construction around Saskatchewan is slowing down and local businesses working in the trades are starting to feel the consequences.
> 
> "It's getting scary. There's a lot of people out of work [and] there's a lot of people looking for work," said Sandy Sairally, owner of her own tiling business in Saskatoon.
> 
> "This time of year, we shouldn't be having trouble finding work."
> 
> She told CBC's Saskatoon Morning that she started to see a change in pace in January 2015. Since then, her company's workload has been slowing down more and more as time progresses.
> 
> "It's been just OK but we're expecting it to get worse," Sairally said. "Our phones should be ringing off the wall [right now]."
> 
> Instead, she said she's been spending a lot of her time watching Kijiji for possible jobs.
> 
> "It's very, very tough for us right now," explained Sairally.
> 
> "We've had to take jobs for less money just because we needed the job."


http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatoon/trades-struggles-to-find-work-in-sask-1.3541251


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Slow... for Saskatchewan. Alberta would be champing at the bit for this.

Also, remember the monkey sitting on the back of small businesses... Justin Trudeau.



> Scott Werner, a site superintendent for a commercial construction company, said tradespeople who have joined the industry in the last decade have never experienced a slowdown like this.
> 
> "This is all new to them. So to not name your price and 'I'm working full-time hours plus overtime' was just an assumption before. Now you've got regular hours and no overtime in this job. Be efficient. There's nothing wrong with that," he said.
> 
> He said that despite the tough reality nowadays, it's an up and down industry.
> 
> "We've had swings like this in the past. We've gone on such a long positive streak that when we get a correction like we have now, people forget it's cyclical," said Werner.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> And it seems the hard times do not just affect *Socialist Alberta*, but conservative-minded Saskatchewan as well. And I thought Brad Wall was doing everything right.
> 
> Trades struggle to find work in Saskatchewan - Saskatoon - CBC News


You have got to be kidding, get a grip. One protest vote does not make Alberta in the least bit socialist. 40 years of consecutive Conservative governments and you think with one NDP election victory and you can call Alberta "socialist"?!! You my my friend are sadly mistaken if you truly believe that. Wait until the NDP rules Alberta for a decade or two and then maybe your statement could be credible.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You have got to be kidding, get a grip. One protest vote does not make Alberta in the least bit socialist. 40 years of consecutive Conservative governments and you think with one NDP election victory and you can call Alberta "socialist"?!! You my my friend are sadly mistaken if you truly believe that. Wait until the NDP rules Alberta for a decade or two and then maybe your statement could be credible.



Are the NDP a socialist party? Do they form the government in Alberta right now and for at least the next three years? Either they in are in charge or they are not. Make up your mind. If they are, then Alberta is currently being governed by a socialist party. Socialist Alberta. Nothing personal.


----------



## Macfury

That reasoning is a little embarrassing, fjn. You previously argued that Alberta was not conservative for the 40 years it was ruled by conservatives. It may not be personal but it makes no sense either.



fjnmusic said:


> Are the NDP a socialist party? Do they form the government in Alberta right now and for at least the next three years? Either they in are in charge or they are not. Make up your mind. If they are, then Alberta is currently being governed by a socialist party. Socialist Alberta. Nothing personal.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That reasoning is a little embarrassing, fjn. You previously argued that Alberta was not conservative for the 40 years it was ruled by conservatives. It may not be personal but it makes no sense either.




What makes no sense? The province was formerly ruled by a conservative government. Now it is ruled by a socialist government. For at least three more years. What's not to get? 

Please tell me where I said that Alberta was not conservative? It was VERY conservative and had been since, oh, about 1905. The election on May 5 of last year changed the established paradigm of the province in far reaching ways. Not quite sure what your point is. Forgive me if I'm not understanding you.


----------



## Macfury

You previously stated: "The myth of Alberta as this great conservative heartland needs to be put to bed."



fjnmusic said:


> What makes no sense? The province was formerly ruled by a conservative government. Now it is ruled by a socialist government. For at least three more years. What's not to get?
> 
> Please tell me where I said that Alberta was not conservative? It was VERY conservative and had been since, oh, about 1905. The election on May 5 of last year changed the established paradigm of the province in far reaching ways. Not quite sure what your point is. Forgive me if I'm not understanding you.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You previously stated: "The myth of Alberta as this great conservative heartland needs to be put to bed."



Well I guess I'd have to qualify that then. There were enough people who voted NDP in the previous election to give Rachel Notley and her people not only the power of government, but a majority government as well. With at least two viable options on the right, winning a majority gov't in such a formerly diehard conservative province was no small victory. It was no accident. Places like Edmonton have always had a significant socialist left leaning presence, marked for example by the many festivals that take place each summer. From the Folk Fest to Heritage Days, there was always been a large cultural component that is at least as important as the sports dynasties the city has spawned. From my POV, it is these culturally minded people who also form the base of supporters for the NDP party. 

However, the reaction, mainly from the vocal right, and from whom you often quote the critics of the NDP gov't, has been quite loud as well. Whether this represents an actual loss of support for Notley's gov't remains to be seen. If the price of oil improves and businesses return and people get their jobs back, people in general will be less likely to think poorly of the current gov't. People are suckers that way. When Ralph announced Alberta was "debt free" (it wasn't) people ate up that news like kids with candy. It is much more likely that the $58 billion or so deficit announced by the NDP gov't was there the whole time, building up, and the Prentice PC's didn't want to have to admit it. Perhaps that's why he called the election a year too early; let someone else deal with fallout of the bad news.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Well I guess I'd have to qualify that then. There were enough people who voted NDP in the previous election to give Rachel Notley and her people not only the power of government, but a majority government as well. With at least two viable options on the right, winning a majority gov't in such a formerly diehard conservative province was no small victory. It was no accident.


It was purely accidental and that will be proven in three years time. Notley will be crushed and the last remaining NDP government in Canada will be gone for a very long time. She is digging her grave with every policy.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> It was purely accidental and that will be proven in three years time. Notley will be crushed and the last remaining NDP government in Canada will be gone for a very long time. She is digging her grave with every policy.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


>


I've noticed a consistent pattern. Whenever you use that meme, it means you're the one who doesn't appear to understand the words being said.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> I've noticed a consistent pattern. Whenever you use that meme, it means you're the one who doesn't appear to understand the words being said.


I've noticed that too. It ranges from a complete misunderstanding of the word, to a consistent misreading of the message.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> I've noticed a consistent pattern. Whenever you use that meme, it means you're the one who doesn't appear to understand the words being said.



How do you figure? Accidental has a pretty clear meaning (you would think). A government elected with a sizeable majority is not accidentally elected. George Bush may have been accidentally elected even though Al Gore had more votes, but even then, there was purpose behind the decision. Bush as president was no accident.
People may certainly regret their choice afterward, but the win by the NDP last May 5 was absolutely no accident.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> I've noticed a consistent pattern. Whenever you use that meme, it means you're the one who doesn't appear to understand the words being said.


The same thing happened in Ontario with the election of Bob Rae. Individual intentions to punish David Peterson and the Liberals resulted in a horrifying accidental government--an NDP majority that most individual voters never intended.

The only good thing that came out of that was the election of Mike Harris, the best Premiere in decades.


----------



## SINC

heavyall said:


> I've noticed a consistent pattern. Whenever you use that meme, it means you're the one who doesn't appear to understand the words being said.


Yep, he just does not get it that his party was accidentally elected but will be forcefully ejected in due time.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Yep, he just does not get it that his party was accidentally elected but will be forcefully ejected in due time.


Like lancing a festering boil.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> The same thing happened in Ontario with the election of Bob Rae. Individual intentions to punish David Peterson and the Liberals resulted in a horrifying accidental government--an NDP majority that most individual voters never intended.
> 
> The only good thing that came out of that was the election of Mike Harris, the best Premiere in decades.


We desperately need a Mike Harris again if there is any hope of fixing the current mess the province is in.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> We desperately need a Mike Harris again if there is any hope of fixing the current mess the province is in.


Mike Harris should just come back.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Are the NDP a socialist party? *Do they form the government in Alberta right now and for at least the next three years? Either they in are in charge or they are not. Make up your mind. If they are, then Alberta is currently being governed by a socialist party. Socialist Alberta. Nothing personal.


I don't know what to say. The previous posts seem to have been deleted (mine included) by the the powers that be.

To answer you question it all depends on who you ask now doesn't it.



> EDMONTON — Federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair suffered an unprecedented defeat Sunday as 52 per cent of delegates at the party’s convention in downtown Edmonton voted in favour of naming a new leader. Though Mulcair will remain in charge until a replacement is chosen, his party has decided its future lies elsewhere.
> 
> It is the first example in history of a federal party leader failing to secure the minimum level of support from members of his party required to win a confidence vote.
> 
> The astonishingly low rate of support for Mulcair revealed a deep split in a party still reeling from last fall’s unexpected election loss. Though the NDP looked set to form government when the writ dropped last year, as the campaign wore on the New Democrats were outflanked on their left by the more telegenic Justin Trudeau, and ended up finishing a distant third.
> 
> An unusual confluence of factors in the last few months and through the weekend — open dispute between opposing factions within the party, a global swell of support behind anti-establishment politicians and the convention’s location, which encouraged a strong turnout from Alberta in a party otherwise dominated by central Canada — led to Mulcair losing support from both the radical left and the moderate wings of his party.
> 
> Tom Mulcair will be replaced as NDP leader
> 
> The poor result in October’s election gave new energy to factions within the party long unhappy with Mulcair’s more centrist approach. Further inspired by the successes of socialists like U.S. Democrat Bernie Sanders, and U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, they renewed a push to have the NDP adopt more aggressively left-wing policies, including the Leap Manifesto, endorsed by the likes of Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis.
> 
> Tensions ran high throughout the three-day convention, both on the convention floor and in the hallways behind it. The party’s activist wing found itself increasingly at odds with other factions, especially the sizeable Alberta delegation, which fears the Leap Manifesto’s anti-pipeline and anti-oil rhetoric will damage the provincial party and Premier Rachel Notley.
> Related
> 
> The full text of Tom Mulcair’s speech at the NDP convention
> NDP agrees to debate radical ‘Leap Manifesto’ that calls to wean country quickly off fossil fuels
> From socialists to good-old-boys: A taxonomy of the NDP’s Edmonton factions
> 
> Meanwhile, the Alberta faction seemed equally furious with Mulcair, who told the CBC last week he would support the Leap Manifesto if the party voted for it.
> 
> Within moments of the announcement of the leadership result, a motion was passed to give the party up to 24 months to hold a leadership race.
> 
> Mulcair took the stage shortly afterward, looking ashen-faced.
> 
> “The only thing that is important is that we leave here united,” he said in French. “With a vote like this one, it’s clear that we are deeply divided on this matter and I would like to say to each and every one of you that the person who replaces me must have the absolute and complete support of 100 per cent of the members of the NDP.”
> Ian Kucerak/Postmedia Network
> Ian Kucerak/Postmedia Network"You all give me a pain, right here. Good luck with the Leap Manifesto."
> 
> “There were tears,” said NDP MP Peter Julian. “I think there was the election, I think there’s a number of different feelings. Every delegate would have made their decision on a different basis.”
> 
> Support for Mulcair seemed to wane over the course of the three-day convention as a succession of union leaders and delegates openly declared against him. When the 1,800 delegates who trekked to the convention from across the country entered the hall on the final day, they were greeted by orange pamphlets encouraging them to vote to trigger a leadership contest.
> 
> When the results were announced, members of the Socialist Caucus — a fringe group that had agitated against Mulcair ahead of the convention — jumped into the air and pumped their fists.
> 
> The news was also welcomed by delegates who supported the Leap Manifesto. The controversial document became a point of contention here in the capital of oil country for its it condemnations of pipelines and call for a full transition away from fossil fuels within a decade.
> 
> Rachel Notley targets supporters of so-called 'Leap Manifesto'
> 
> Just before the party voted to dethrone Mulcair, it endorsed a resolution that will see the manifesto debated by individual riding associations.
> 
> It took only a few hours before the predictions of those who feared the impact of the Leap Manifesto were proven true. After the resolution’s adoption, Alberta’s Wildrose Party issued a statement linking it to Notley’s attempts to implement a strict climate-change policy in the province.
> 
> “Premier Notley sold her carbon tax, coal industry shutdown and a cap on oilsands development to Albertans with the promise that it would provide the credibility we need to get opponents of pipelines on board — that these policies would get ‘social licence,'” Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said. “Today Premier Notley’s social licence experiment was put to the test and it failed.”
> 
> It is going to ruin the NDP not just federally, but provincially as well. This is going to destroy all of us
> 
> The divisions exposed over the Leap Manifesto and its approach to resource extraction may prove the biggest single influence on the decisions the federal party now faces about leadership, and may affect the Notley government’s future in Alberta, as well. “It made me really disappointed to be a part of the federal New Democrats,”said Alberta delegate Bryce Kenzie. “I don’t think that the rest of the New Democratic caucus understands that voting for this Leap resolution will cause a huge backlash against the provincial NDP and all the hard work that 54 new MLAs have done.
> 
> “It is going to ruin the NDP not just federally, but provincially as well. This is going to destroy all of us,” Kenzie said.
> Ian Kucerak/Postmedia Network
> Ian Kucerak/Postmedia Network"You're all screwed. Thank you. Good bye."
> 
> Mulcair tried to rally support Sunday morning ahead of the vote with a tepid speech to delegates.
> 
> “We made mistakes that cost us a victory in October, and for that I take responsibility,” he said. As he spoke of the election defeat, he teared up, his voice breaking.
> 
> Most delegates offered applause, and even a few standing ovations during the speech, but the enthusiasm in the room came nowhere close to the level enjoyed by Notley, who delivered a rousing speech on Saturday.
> 
> “If you keep standing with me, then together, we will never stop fighting,” Mulcair said as party delegates briefly took to their feet. “So stand with me.”
> 
> In the end, not enough did.
> 
> National Post, with files from Tristin Hopper


It seems the left is not as united as you think but then again they never have been except in you own mind.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Yep, he just does not get it that his party was accidentally elected but will be forcefully ejected in due time.




They may or may not be forcefully ejected, but your understanding of the term "accidental" is clearly incorrect. Had everyone in the province intended to vote for someone else, but instead checked the wrong box, a la Florida 2000, the term would be correct. But if people intentionally chose not to vote PC or Wildrose and instead chose to vote NDP, that my friend is not an accidental win. It is absolutely intentional, even if the righties and the lefties had different intentions. It's called divide and conquer, and it worked very well.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> They may or may not be forcefully ejected, but your understanding of the term "accidental" is clearly incorrect. Had everyone in the province intended to vote for someone else, but instead checked the wrong box, a la Florida 2000, the term would be correct. But if people intentionally chose not to vote PC or Wildrose and instead chose to vote NDP, that my friend is not an accidental win. It is absolutely intentional, even if the righties and the lefties had different intentions. It's called divide and conquer, and it worked very well.


Sigh, I have no words for an educator who cannot grasp the political reality of what happened in the last election that accidentally brought the Dippers to power. Carry on with your delusion, it is fine by me.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Sigh, I have no words for an educator who cannot grasp the political reality of what happened in the last election that accidentally brought the Dippers to power. Carry on with your delusion, it is fine by me.



As an educator, I have no words for a journalist who cannot grasp the meaning of the words they use. Accidental is pretty much the opposite of intentional. You cannot tell me that a voter who wanted to punish the PC's and didn't trust the Wildrose bug was impressed with Ms. Notley's speaking abilities didn't intentionally vote for the party of their choice in the last election. If people had been voted in due to stray marks on voting cards, THAT would be accidental.


----------



## fjnmusic

A tale of two provinces and how to survive during tough economic times. 



> Alberta’s Budget Inspires, Newfoundland’s Does Not
> 
> Two of Canada’s provinces that rely heavily on oil revenues are responding in completely different ways to the drop in oil prices.
> 
> Both brought down new budgets last Thursday. One is looking after its people through the tough times. The other is turning the screws on its hardest hit, just when they can afford it least.
> 
> I know which one I prefer.
> 
> The NDP government of Rachel Notley is showing the rest of Canada, and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, that when tough times hit, we look after each other. Across the country, the Liberal government of Dwight Ball is showing no such compassion, bringing in tax hikes and service cuts that hurt those with the lowest incomes most.


http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/9737512?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's hilarious--that "article" was written by the president of Unifor--a union benefiting directly from Alberta's failure to live within its means! Nice catch, fjn!




fjnmusic said:


> A tale of two provinces and how to survive during tough economic times.


----------



## SINC

Yessir, all is good in Notley's Alberta as long as it benefits unions and to hell with non union residents.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Yessir, all is good in Notley's Alberta as long as it benefits unions and to hell with non union residents.


In all fairness, I hear that Notley is planning some folk festivals to stimulate the economy.


----------



## FeXL

You include a quote in your post that's critical of tax hikes elsewhere yet I have seen nothing reproachful from you regarding Rachel's billions of dollars/yr Carbon Tax.

Curious...



fjnmusic said:


> A tale of two provinces and how to survive during tough economic times.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> You include a quote in your post that's critical of tax hikes elsewhere yet I have seen nothing reproachful from you regarding Rachel's billions of dollars/yr Carbon Tax.
> 
> 
> 
> Curious...



I didn't write the article. I only offer it up as fodder for conversation. I am not crazy about the carbon tax either, but it's probably the fairest way to persuade people to use less fuel, carpool, that sort of thing. To be honest, if people would re-use their plastic water bottles even once, that would cut the waste from plastic water bottles in half. Plastic is a pretty big petrochemical industry, but I think we use and waste far too much of it personally.


----------



## eMacMan

Carbon tax is not intended to reduce CO2 emission. Its intent is to rob from the poor and give to the elite. NDP have as many greedy money sucking buds as their Con predecessors. 

Trouble is that mother nature is responsible for 90-95% of all atmospheric CO2. I still await a reasonable explanation as to why natures 95% does not cause climate catastrophe, whereas mans piddling output is going to flood Al Gore's recently purchased seaside compound.


----------



## FeXL

Yet you could easily have left it out of your quote.

And, yes, fodder it is. Any article that fawns over Rachel & the Knotheads is exactly that...



fjnmusic said:


> I didn't write the article. I only offer it up as fodder for conversation.


----------



## FeXL

Mere numbers matter not to true believers.



eMacMan said:


> Trouble is that mother nature is responsible for 90-95% of all atmospheric CO2.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Yet you could easily have left it out of your quote.
> 
> 
> 
> And, yes, fodder it is. Any article that fawns over Rachel & the Knotheads is exactly that...



A fairly empty and meaningless response.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I didn't write the article. I only offer it up as fodder for conversation. I am not crazy about the carbon tax either, but it's probably the fairest way to persuade people to use less fuel, carpool, that sort of thing. To be honest, if people would re-use their plastic water bottles even once, that would cut the waste from plastic water bottles in half. Plastic is a pretty big petrochemical industry, but I think we use and waste far too much of it personally.


Carbon taxes have never been shown to reduce the use of fossil fuels--just make life harder for people who rely on them. It is simply a tax on nothing. 

Plastics used in water bottles are made from a petro-chemical by-product, so they do not increase the use of petro-chemicals.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Carbon taxes have never been shown to reduce the use of fossil fuels--just make life harder for people who rely on them. It is simply a tax on nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Plastics used in water bottles are made from a petro-chemical by-product, so they do not increase the use of petro-chemicals.



Wouldn't you need to use petro-chemicals in order to create the petro-chemical by-product?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Wouldn't you need to use petro-chemicals in order to create the petro-chemical by-product?


Yes, but plastics do not drive demand for petro-chemicals. That is, you can satisfy all of the need for plastic raw materials without increasing demand, because these by-products represent less than 3 per cent of the total output of the industry.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Yes, but plastics do not drive demand for petro-chemicals. That is, you can satisfy all of the need for plastic raw materials without increasing demand, because these by-products represent less than 3 per cent of the total output of the industry.


Cut and dry, petrochemicals and their byproducts are why we are living the life we enjoy today, including the internet. They were a god send to modern society and not a pariah. If petrochemicals and their byproducts ceased tomorrow so would modern culture as we know it.

All the naysayers are just day dreamers without any real alternative. It is all based on hope and not science. Green Energy can only produce energy, not the byproducts of petrochemicals that are used in a multitude of products that we take for granted every day.


----------



## Macfury

Those solar powered jetliners are looking pretty good to me.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, but plastics do not drive demand for petro-chemicals. That is, you can satisfy all of the need for plastic raw materials without increasing demand, because these by-products represent less than 3 per cent of the total output of the industry.



OK, fair enough. I still think as a society we are incredibly wasteful when we do not reuse plastic bottles though.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Cut and dry, petrochemicals and their byproducts are why we are living the life we enjoy today, including the internet. They were a god send to modern society and not a pariah. If petrochemicals and their byproducts ceased tomorrow so would modern culture as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> All the naysayers are just day dreamers without any real alternative. It is all based on hope and not science. Green Energy can only produce energy, not the byproducts of petrochemicals that are used in a multitude of products that we take for granted every day.



Not gonna lie; I am very reliant on plastic myself. However, it would be good if we could waste less of it methinks.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> OK, fair enough. I still think as a society we are incredibly wasteful when we do not reuse plastic bottles though.


I'm not sure what it would achieve. Do you mean refill them with water a second time? I guess if it stops you from buying another bottle of water. I don't ever buy bottled water, so that makes my use zero.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm not sure what it would achieve. Do you mean refill them with water a second time? I guess if it stops you from buying another bottle of water. I don't ever buy bottled water, so that makes my use zero.



I don't buy bottled water either (if I can help it) because I think unless you're living in Flint, bottled water is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the public. I do not pop however (also a scam, I know), and I'll reuse a single bottle 50 times before throwing it out, refilling it with tap water. I'm cheap, but I'm also trying to do my part for the environment.


----------



## FeXL

Only to someone who is incapable of critically analyzing facts.

Fact 1) You included it in your quote. Nobody forced you to include that sentence. It must have held some meaning for you otherwise you would not have done so.

Fact 2) In nearly one year at the reins, Rachel & Crew have managed a single, solitary, one, piece of governance which has been positive. That was reversing the freeze on education spending that Prentice imposed. The rest (budget delay, royalty review delay, budgets, deficit, Bill 6, Carbon Tax, etc.) has been crap. If you don't believe so, I ask you to defend any of her policy decisions with _facts_.



fjnmusic said:


> A fairly empty and meaningless response.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Only to someone who is incapable of critically analyzing facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact 1) You included it in your quote. Nobody forced you to include that sentence. It must have held some meaning for you otherwise you would not have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact 2) In nearly one year at the reins, Rachel & Crew have managed a single, solitary, one, piece of governance which has been positive. That was reversing the freeze on education spending that Prentice imposed. The rest (budget delay, royalty review delay, budgets, deficit, Bill 6, Carbon Tax, etc.) has been crap. If you don't believe so, I ask you to defend any of her policy decisions with _facts_.



Well at least we agree on the reversal of the education funding freeze.


----------



## FeXL

I'm sure for completely polarized reasons...



fjnmusic said:


> Well at least we agree on the reversal of the education funding freeze.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Not gonna lie; I am very reliant on plastic myself*. However, it would be good if we could waste less of it methinks*.


I agree.


----------



## Macfury

Primarily, it's important that people dispose of plastic properly so that it doesn't wind up in the ecosystem. If some municipalities want to go through the charade of recycling it, then help them along.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Primarily, it's important that people dispose of plastic properly so that it doesn't wind up in the ecosystem. If some municipalities want to go through the charade of recycling it, then help them along.



You have heard if the floating island of plastic in the South Pacific bigger than the state of Texas? One must wonder if our reduce/re-use/recycle efforts are going do well, how does something like this happen? Regardless of one's views on global warming/climate change/greenhouse gasses, we would all benefit from decreasing the amount of pollution we make, or at least neutralize the effects of our own pollution.

Tragically, I believe, the radiation leaking from the Fukushima reactors has been buried in the news and is still leaking into the ocean several years after the event. It may never be contained. Certainly a bigger threat to the planet than Alberta's oil sands, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to clean up our environmental record as well. Cancerous growths on seafood scares the crap out of me. That's a reality no amount of denial is going to change.


----------



## Macfury

Yes, I've heard of it--that's why I said that proper disposal will end that problem. People are simply tossing the containers overboard or into water bodies that drain into the oceans. Throwing them in the trash/recycler would end that.

The Fukushima "radiation story" involves extremely low levels, about equivalent to current background radiation, so don't get your knickers in a knot. 





fjnmusic said:


> You have heard if the floating island of plastic in the South Pacific bigger than the state of Texas? One must wonder if our reduce/re-use/recycle efforts are going do well, how does something like this happen? Regardless of one's views on global warming/climate change/greenhouse gasses, we would all benefit from decreasing the amount of pollution we make, or at least neutralize the effects of our own pollution.
> 
> Tragically, I believe, the radiation leaking from the Fukushima reactors has been buried in the news and is still leaking into the ocean several years after the event. It may never be contained. Certainly a bigger threat to the planet than Alberta's oil sands, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to clean up our environmental record as well. Cancerous growths on seafood scares the crap out of me. That's a reality no amount of denial is going to change.


----------



## SINC

Guess no one thinks about the biggest offenders - cruise ships. Yeah I know they say they don't dump, but they do.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Guess no one thinks about the biggest offenders - cruise ships. Yeah I know they say they don't dump, but they do.



Old habits are hard to break. But the thing is, we pay the price in a big way if we don't learn to clean up after ourselves. There really is no excuse apart from laziness.


----------



## Captstn

SINC said:


> Guess no one thinks about the biggest offenders - cruise ships. Yeah I know they say they don't dump, but they do.


So what is your proof of this statement?
I have a very good friend who is a Captain on a cruise ship (a major line) and the the idea of dumping anything from the ship is an anathema to him and every ship he has worked on for this company. Please don't generalize.


----------



## SINC

Generally speaking, there are many ships at sea, including some cruise ships that dump garbage when no one is around to notice. I have a friend who claims he does not speed, but I have witnessed him doing just that when he thinks I am not around.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Generally speaking, there are many ships at sea, including some cruise ships that dump garbage when no one is around to notice. I have a friend who claims he does not speed, but I have witnessed him doing just that when he thinks I am not around.



So because your friend lies about speeding, therefore cruise ships lie about dumping garbage in the ocean. Not quite seeing the connection here...


----------



## Macfury

Depends on the shipping line. Lots of garbage is legally dumped at sea, but plastic dumping is not legal anywhere. Some of the violators are identified:

MSC Cruises crew member hurls garbage bags straight into ocean | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Captstn

The "point" is that you should not generalize no matter the subject.
By Sinc's logic if one person is a bigot then all people are bigots even if they don't admit it.
Sheesh, Sinc just say oops, point taken instead of try to justify your poor logic.


----------



## Macfury

Captstn said:


> The "point" is that you should not generalize no matter the subject.
> By Sinc's logic if one person is a bigot then all people are bigots even if they don't admit it.
> Sheesh, Sinc just say oops, point taken instead of try to justify your poor logic.


Absolutely. It's very clear that many cruise lines take their environmental responsibilities very seriously.


----------



## SINC

My point is that I can and do generalize when I feel it necessary. There is no rule I know of in either writing or grammar to prevent anyone from generalizing. Nor do I think anyone should tell others how to express themselves.


----------



## Dr.G.

This could drive many soft progressives and moderate Democrats away from Clinton. She wisely declined his support.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...t_tnt_20160424&nlid=19590846&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Charles Koch: 'Possible' Clinton could be better than GOP nominee - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> You have heard if the floating island of plastic in the South Pacific bigger than the state of Texas? One must wonder if our reduce/re-use/recycle efforts are going do well, how does something like this happen? Regardless of one's views on global warming/climate change/greenhouse gasses, we would all benefit from decreasing the amount of pollution we make, or at least neutralize the effects of our own pollution.
> 
> Tragically, I believe, the radiation leaking from the Fukushima reactors has been buried in the news and is still leaking into the ocean several years after the event. It may never be contained. Certainly a bigger threat to the planet than Alberta's oil sands, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to clean up our environmental record as well. Cancerous growths on seafood scares the crap out of me. That's a reality no amount of denial is going to change.


I don't disagree with anything you said. That being said the radiation from Fukushima is far less than that what we receive from space every day. That being said the radiation from Fukushima is concentrated in the Pacific Ocean, where as the radiation from the sun/space is spread globally on land and sea. So it becomes much more diluted.

Over time all life forms can adjust to chemical imbalances that they are not used to without very much ill affect. When it happens all at once or is a sudden sustained change, it is hard for adaptation to take place and organisms and species can die.


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> My point is that I can and do generalize when I feel it necessary. There is no rule I know of in either writing or grammar to prevent anyone from generalizing. *Nor do I think anyone should tell others how to express themselves.*


We ALL do it all the time. ehMac is a prime example. You have done it, I have done it, MF, fjynmusic... etc., etc. have as well plus a plethora of former members..

As far as generalization goes, I am guilty at times of doing so myself. But it has to be one of the weakest tactics when debating because it is always just too easy to come up with an exception to the rule.


----------



## fjnmusic

Wow! Some praise for Notley from the Edmonton Sun. 



> Hicks on biz: Reason for a little optimism
> Graham Hicks
> Friday, April 22, 2016, 3:41 PM
> 
> At last, a faint light at the end of a very dark tunnel.
> 
> I am slowly convinced the Notley government is saying the right things, making the right decisions to speed up the process of “diversifying” Alberta’s provincial economy.
> 
> There’s nothing like the sight of the guillotine to sharpen a person’s mind. Previous provincial governments paid lip-service to economic diversification. But as long as $10 billion a year in non-renewable energy revenues (i.e. oil and gas royalties, land sales) was gushing into the government’s coffers, nobody felt any particular urgency.
> Royalties this year will be less than $1 billion. Even if oil prices return to $50 to $60 US a barrel, the royalty gusher will never be the same.
> 
> Here’s the reason for a little, just a little, optimism.


http://m.edmontonsun.com/2016/04/22/hicks-on-biz-reason-for-a-little-optimism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Hicks is way off the mark and so is Notley. Only one Alberta-government supported line of research has ever borne fruit--the development of steam-assisted gravity drainage technology in the oil sands. Watch Notley pizz away billions on pet projects and party loyalists.




fjnmusic said:


> Wow! Some praise for Notley from the Edmonton Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> Hicks on biz: Reason for a little optimism | News | Edmonton Sun
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Did this whole forum shut down for about a day or so? I was seeing no updates yesterday to any thread on Tapatalk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Yep, it went down about noon yesterday and just came back up a while ago.


----------



## fjnmusic

Well okay then. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

All industrial tax beneficiaries are equal, but some are more equal than others. This proposal sure looks like progress to me.



> David Staples: Alberta government moves to end province's industrial tax fiasco
> 
> The Alberta government is moving to fix one of the great taxation inequities in the province.
> 
> Rachel Notley’s government will soon propose changes to more fairly share $1.9 billion in industrial taxes between the province’s cash-poor towns and cities and its cash-rich counties.
> 
> “We’ve signalled pretty strongly that we are not leaving collaboration up to chance, that it is not OK that there are such hard lines imposing significant disparities across the province,” Municipal Affairs Minister Danielle Larivee says.
> 
> Multiple measures to ensure a more co-operative approach between towns and cities and counties will be part of the new Municipal Government Act, which will be introduced in the legislature at the end of May, Larivee says.
> 
> Alberta’s towns and cities have been badly treated on taxes for decade. The counties have enjoyed an almost unfathomable taxation bounty, courtesy of their formerly powerful Progressive Conservative friends.
> 
> Industrial taxes from factories, plants, refineries and pipelines are one way for local governments to share in the province’s great industrial wealth. In 2014, these taxes amounted to $1.9 billion.
> 
> The problem? While a huge number of Albertans create industrial wealth, and while people in hamlets, towns and cities work in plants and build and maintain pipelines, if those plants and pipelines fall outside the town or city’s municipal boundaries, all the tax revenue goes to the county.
> 
> In 2014, this meant that out of the total of $1.9 billion, $1.8 billion went to county governments representing just 15 per cent of the population. The remaining $100 million was split between the 85 per cent of Albertans who live in towns and cities. Not only does this inequity exist, but it’s been rapidly growing. The counties now collect $1 billion more than they did in 1996, but the hamlets, towns and cities collect just about the same amount as in 1996...


http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...-moves-to-end-provinces-industrial-tax-fiasco


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I think the current system is fairer. Why should a city collect revenue from a plant that isn't located there--just because some of the city's citizens are lucky enough to be working outside the city?


----------



## fjnmusic

> Gray: $15 minimum wage gives dignity to working Albertans
> 
> By Christina Gray
> 
> Re: “Meddling with wages,” Editorial, April 22.
> 
> No one who works a full-time job in Alberta should have to go to a food bank to feed themselves and their families.
> 
> However, many of the roughly 300,000 Albertans who earn less than $15 per hour are forced to do just that, denying them the economic security that their employment should provide, and the basic human dignity that many of us take for granted.
> 
> Last October, our government raised Alberta’s minimum wage to $11.20 per hour as part of an election commitment to phase in a $15 per hour minimum wage during this mandate.
> 
> Research tells us who the people working for less than $15 an hour are. We know that around 55 per cent of those 300,000 people are one of the heads of their household and that their families count on that income to make ends meet.
> 
> We know that over 60 per cent of those 300,000 people are women. And we know that over 35 per cent of those 300,000 people have children. That means over 100,000 working parents, who are trying to raise children on an extremely fixed budget.
> 
> Working families are the backbone of this province’s economy, and we must ensure that the minimum wage is set to a level that benefits our communities the most. Families that see their wage increase will have more money to spend on meeting their basic needs, such as housing, clothing and groceries. That increased spending power will, in turn, help to stimulate our local economy.
> 
> Alberta is not alone in its pursuit. Governments across North America are looking to make meaningful enhancements to minimum wage so people can earn enough money to look after themselves and their families. The state of California and the City of Seattle are two examples of other major jurisdictions moving forward with plans to phase in a $15 per hour minimum wage.
> 
> We know the economic downturn has hit Alberta employers hard, and they also need help. That’s why, as a first step, we will lower the small business tax rate from three to two per cent in 2017. That’s a reduction of 33 per cent. We have also implemented new tax credits, provided more access to capital, increased funding to job grants and brought back the Summer Temporary Employment Program to assist employers with hiring summer students.
> 
> Alberta has very favourable tax rates, the highest productivity rate, and a skilled, educated, and ambitious workforce. It’s the best place to start a business and the best place to work. This will continue to be the case under our government.
> 
> In the coming weeks, you will be hearing more from me about the plan going forward and how we will be engaging with all Albertans on the best way to reach a $15 per hour minimum wage.
> 
> Our government will consult with employers, business and industry, as well as advocacy organizations, low-income earners, organized labour and the public interest community to gain a wide range of perspectives as we continue to monitor business confidence and overall economic conditions.
> 
> We have not yet announced any further minimum wage increases, but as we move towards a $15 minimum wage, rest assured that we will listen to all Albertans and we will get it right.
> 
> Christina Gray is Alberta’s minister of labour.


http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/gray-15-minimum-wage-gives-dignity-to-working-albertans


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Why should the government outsourcing welfare bonuses to businesses give any worker dignity? It's extra pay for no value. I would tend to be ashamed of that.

In jurisdictions experiencing this same level of minimum wage increases, prices rose making the gains negligible, jobs simply disappeared and workers were replaced with automation. 

Now that's some dignity!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why should the government outsourcing welfare bonuses to businesses give any worker dignity? It's extra pay for no value. I would tend to be ashamed of that.
> 
> 
> 
> In jurisdictions experiencing this same level of minimum wage increases, prices rose making the gains negligible, jobs simply disappeared and workers were replaced with automation.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some dignity!



You're missing the point. No one who's working a full time job should have to go to the food bank to supplement their income.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> You're missing the point. No one who's working a full time job should have to go to the food bank to supplement their income.


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury

Thread jump.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> My understanding is that the policies drivers need would cover _them_ if they are using the car in a commercial fashion. Uber's blanket policies cover the passengers.



Uh....wrong thread much?


----------



## Macfury

I didn't post it here. It jumped of its own accord. But I will remove it.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You're missing the point. No one who's working a full time job should have to go to the food bank to supplement their income.


That's simply nonsense. Some jobs have little value. They are being paid according to the value of their work. If an adult doing a job meant for a teenager finds themselves wanting, is that surprising?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's simply nonsense. Some jobs have little value. They are being paid according to the value of their work. If an adult doing a job meant for a teenager finds themselves wanting, is that surprising?



You should really read the article before you comment. These are not jobs meant for teenagers. Many primary wage earners do not make very much, because that's all that's available right now. Show some compassion.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You should really read the article before you comment. These are not jobs meant for teenagers. Many primary wage earners do not make very much, because that's all that's available right now. Show some compassion.


This is your problem. You think that employment is some sort of social program where you just pull a switch to "increase benefits." When you increase the cost of labour beyond its value you simply trigger the usual consequences. Your so-called solution will simply throw a lot of people out work entirely, destroy the youth job market, drive small businesses to bankruptcy, raise the price of goods and increase automation of a series of low-skilled jobs. Wal-Mart loves a hike in minimum wages because they can stomach it and pass costs on in price hikes, while the same policy drives local businesses to fold.

It happens time after time, and "progressives" simply howl: "Don't blame us--we meant well! We were being compassionate."

Take a look at Venezuela and you can see the full fruit of exactly this brand of "progressivism." Such compassion on parade!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is your problem. You think that employment is some sort of social program where you just pull a switch to "increase benefits." When you increase the cost of labour beyond its value you simply trigger the usual consequences. Your so-called solution will simply throw a lot of people out work entirely, destroy the youth job market, drive small businesses to bankruptcy, raise the price of goods and increase automation of a series of low-skilled jobs. Wal-Mart loves a hike in minimum wages because they can stomach it and pass costs on in price hikes, while the same policy drives local businesses to fold.
> 
> 
> 
> It happens time after time, and "progressives" simply howl: "Don't blame us--we meant well! We were being compassionate."
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at Venezuela and you can see the full fruit of exactly this brand of "progressivism." Such compassion on parade!



Then according to your logic, why don't we lower the minimum wage, or just abolish it entirely? The invisible hand of the market will take care of things. If people are paid less, that's fine, because their work has less value. Sure hope you have a valuable job that pays well so you never have to worry like the rest of us peons.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Then according to your logic, why don't we lower the minimum wage, or just abolish it entirely?


Abolish it entirely.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Abolish it entirely.



Well you've just spoken volumes. Maybe we should bring back the whole business of sending kids down coal mines too. They're small and expendable. 

Out of curiosity, what do you think about wages for women in today's world? Should women be paid the same as men are? As teachers on Alberta, we certainly are.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Well you've just spoken volumes. Maybe we should bring back the whole business of sending kids down coal mines too. They're small and expendable.


Fascinating. It was the labour movement that kept kids in coal mines, by preventing the adoption of automation that made miners more productive.



fjnmusic said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you think about wages for women in today's world? Should women be paid the same as men are? As teachers on Alberta, we certainly are.


All pay should be merit based, regardless of sex.


----------



## Macfury

Minimum wage causing major loss - The Orange County Register



> In December, The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a paper examining the current research on the impact of minimum wage increases. It stressed that the “most important” policy consideration was whether there would be “fewer jobs for the least skilled workers” because “they are the ones the minimum wage is intended to help.” It found that the “most credible” research showed minimum wage increases resulting in “job losses” for these workers and “with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested.”
> 
> In January of this year, Gov. Jerry Brown agreed, stating that raising “the minimum wage too much” would put “a lot of poor people out of work.” His conclusion: “There won’t be a lot of jobs.”
> 
> How much of an increase is too much? Brown’s Budget Summary for 2016-17, also released in January, stated that $15 would create “major increased costs, estimated at more than $4 billion annually,” sending “the state budget to annual deficits” and exacerbating a projected “recession by raising businesses’ costs, resulting in more lost jobs.”


Unemployment... with dignity!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Minimum wage causing major loss - The Orange County Register
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment... with dignity!



So it's the couple bucks an hour at the bottom end as opposed to the billions for CEO's at the top end that's doing it. Right.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So it's the couple bucks an hour at the bottom end as opposed to the billions for CEO's at the top end that's doing it. Right.


Yes, that's absolutely doing it! They're making their contributions obsolete and killing opportunity for low-skilled workers. The hardest hit will be the smaller businesses who have no rich CEO. They'll just close up shop and leave more market share for the rich guys.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, that's absolutely doing it! They're making their contributions obsolete and killing opportunity for low-skilled workers. The hardest hit will be the smaller businesses who have no rich CEO. They'll just close up shop and leave more market share for the rich guys.



If what you say is true, then I strongly advocate that instead of raising the minimum wage, we cut it to half its current value, take the savings in wages and add them on to the CEO's salary as a bonus for a job well done. Yup, that's got to help fix the economy.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If what you say is true, then I strongly advocate that instead of raising the minimum wage, we cut it to half its current value, take the savings in wages and add them on to the CEO's salary as a bonus for a job well done. Yup, that's got to help fix the economy.


Neither will "fix" the economy. That's a "progressive" mindset. Let wages float to their natural level, given the value of the work.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Neither will "fix" the economy. That's a "progressive" mindset. Let wages float to their natural level, given the value of the work.



Based on the assumption that everybody's pay is "worth" what they're actually getting paid. That's a faulty assumption.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Based on the assumption that everybody's pay is "worth" what they're actually getting paid. That's a faulty assumption.


They are worth whatever wages they attract. In many cases, government workers are not worth what they are getting--other people would do their jobs for less. Some teachers are worth more, but there is no adequate measurement for their merit in a unionized system.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> They are worth whatever wages they attract. *In many cases, government workers are not worth what they are getting--other people would do their jobs for less.* Some teachers are worth more, but there is no adequate measurement for their merit in a unionized system.


Sure of course, but would the government or the people of Canada be getting value for their money.

My case in point. I have over 13 years of service working at Parliament, I know the place inside out. But despite several interviews I do no yet have a job. It is not a matter of having less experience, quite the contrary, I have tons of experience, it is a matter that some people/MPs will hire inexperienced cheap labour and their constituents and the MP are less well served.

Cheap labour is basically learning on the job (I know of what I speak) whereas experienced well trained people are up and ready to go immediately, thus serving the constituent and the MP in a much more timely manner.

When it comes to $ values the savings the for average MP relative to his/her budget for hiring a junior vs. a seasoned vet is about 5%.

In fact in the rules of Parliament senior experienced staff are supposed be considered first...But it hardly ever happens and the rules are never upheld.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Sure of course, but would the government or the people of Canada not be getting value for their money.
> 
> My case in point. I have over 13 years of service working at Parliament, I know the place inside out. But despite several interviews I do no yet have a job. It is not a matter of having less experience, quite the contrary, I have tons of experience, it is a matter that some people/MPs will hire inexperienced cheap labour and their constituents and the MP are less well served.
> 
> Cheap labour is basically learning on the job (I know of what I speak) whereas experienced well trained people are up and ready to go immediately, thus serving the constituent and the MP in a much more timely manner.
> 
> When it comes to $ values the savings the for average MP relative to his/her budget for hiring a junior vs. a seasoned vet is about 5%.
> 
> In fact in the rules of Parliament senior experienced staff are supposed be considered first...But it hardly ever happens and the rules are never upheld.


An important first-hand perspective, Steve. You know the situation, and are experienced, yet this expertise is wasted with your not being hired by someone on The Hill. Sorry to hear this, mon ami. Bonne chance.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> An important first-hand perspective, Steve. You know the situation, and are experienced, yet this expertise is wasted with your not being hired by someone on The Hill. Sorry to hear this, mon ami. Bonne chance.


Thank you Marc.

It is what it is and I have to deal with it, so far not so well. I want to get back to doing the job that I know so well, but unless I take a 30% pay cut and being paid like a junior, there seems to be little to no hope for me getting a job let alone what I was being paid before because of experience and expertise.

That probably speaks to the reason for some of the bitterness contained in my posts lately.

It is all too easy for those that that have it relatively easy to ridicule those that are in distress even though it is not of their own making.

Some people here seem to think that their own lives are an example for others and they should just do the same. But the thing of it is we are all different with different experiences and skill sets. One shoe size does not fit all.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Thank you Marc.
> 
> It is what it is and I have to deal with it, so far not so well. I want to get back to doing the job that I know so well, but unless I take a 30% pay cut and being paid like a junior, there seems to be little to no hope for me getting a job let alone what I was being paid before because of experience and expertise.
> 
> That probably speaks to the reason for some of the bitterness contained in my posts lately.
> 
> It is all too easy for those that that have it relatively easy to ridicule those that are in distress even though it is not of their own making.
> 
> Some people here seem to think that their own lives are an example for others and they should just do the same. But the thing of it is we are all different with different experiences and skill sets. One shoe size does not fit all.


I see more frustration than "bitterness" in your recent posts, Steve. I would feel the same way if I tried to get back into university teaching and was told that after 38 1/2 years at the university level, I would have to start over again as an assistant professor at the base salary. Still, I am very lucky and am able to be a per-term sessional to teach my three grad web courses. They get my expertise at a fraction of the cost that I was being paid, the students get a quality course, and I get a bit of money to top up my pension and CPP each month.

Still, I wish you well in your search for employment. Any interesting leads as of late?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That's simply nonsense. Some jobs have little value. They are being paid according to the value of their work. *If an adult doing a job meant for a teenager finds themselves wanting, is that surprising?*


Really?! YES!!! If that is all an adult can get just keep their family alive and off of welfare (which would probably be worth more depending on how sick various members of the family are) then they are doing it for a reason and that reason is survival.

There are countless stories of immigrants and landed Citizens not being able to get the jobs that they are trained for in their home countries and can't gainful employment in their own fields in Canada.

They have to spend thousands of dollars to become "'accredited", money they do not often have and so will simply take *any* job to make ends meet. This is nothing new and you should know that, but why you support the status quo astounds me and I find baffling.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> I see more frustration than "bitterness" in your recent posts, Steve. I would feel the same way if I tried to get back into university teaching and was told that after 38 1/2 years at the university level, I would have to start over again as an assistant professor at the base salary. Still, I am very lucky and am able to be a per-term sessional to teach my three grad web courses. They get my expertise at a fraction of the cost that I was being paid, the students get a quality course, and I get a bit of money to top up my pension and CPP each month.
> 
> Still, I wish you well in your search for employment. *Any interesting leads as of late?*


One that I am still waiting to hear back from.


----------



## Macfury

A lot of bureaucratic positions could be eliminated and nobody would realize these people were gone. When I speak about value and productivity, there are many facets of government and business in which there is now a vast disconnect between the person hired and the purpose of the hiring and what that person does or produces. There is no sophisticated understanding of productivity. It has become less obvious as we move from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. 

I knew someone who survived at a business for 25 years by declining pay increases freely offered to her--she knew exactly what level of salary would attract efficiency experts to eliminate her position. At another company, I know someone who enjoyed providing customer service--however, she was chastised for not completing enough "work orders" which neither measured actual work done, productivity or customer satisfaction. If you could complete 10 small work orders a week and customers despised you, you were more valuable than someone who kept clients satisfied and did more actual work on eight work orders.

Sadly, if someone hires a person because their goal is to put an ass in a seat at $25,000 a year, then that is their notion of value. They may have achieved their goal of reserving money for a croney's consulting company instead. If that's their goal, then no amount of expertise will move them.

I have confidence that you will eventually find someone who values your productivity and expertise. It's certainly not a universal value in 2016.




screature said:


> Sure of course, but would the government or the people of Canada be getting value for their money.
> 
> My case in point. I have over 13 years of service working at Parliament, I know the place inside out. But despite several interviews I do no yet have a job. It is not a matter of having less experience, quite the contrary, I have tons of experience, it is a matter that some people/MPs will hire inexperienced cheap labour and their constituents and the MP are less well served.
> 
> Cheap labour is basically learning on the job (I know of what I speak) whereas experienced well trained people are up and ready to go immediately, thus serving the constituent and the MP in a much more timely manner.
> 
> When it comes to $ values the savings the for average MP relative to his/her budget for hiring a junior vs. a seasoned vet is about 5%.
> 
> In fact in the rules of Parliament senior experienced staff are supposed be considered first...But it hardly ever happens and the rules are never upheld.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *A lot of bureaucratic positions could be eliminated and nobody would realize these people were gone. *When *I speak about value and productivity, there are many facets of government and business in which there is now a vast disconnect between the person hired and the purpose of the hiring and what that person does or produces. There is no sophisticated understanding of productivity. It has become less obvious as we move from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.*
> 
> *I knew someone who survived at a business for 25 years by declining pay increases freely offered to her--she knew exactly what level of salary would attract efficiency experts to eliminate her position. At another company, I know someone who enjoyed providing customer service--however, she was chastised for not completing enough "work orders" which neither measured actual work done, productivity or customer satisfaction. If you could complete 10 small work orders a week and customers despised you, you were more valuable than someone who kept clients satisfied and did more actual work on eight work orders.*
> 
> Sadly, if someone hires a person because their goal is to put an ass in a seat at $25,000 a year, then that is their notion of value. They may have achieved their goal of reserving money for a croney's consulting company instead. If that's their goal, then no amount of expertise will move them.
> 
> I have confidence that you will eventually find someone who values your productivity and expertise. It's certainly not a universal value in 2016.


That may or may not be the case, it is simply your assertion.

Exactly no proof just an assertion. 

Your point is...? 

You seem to think you are telling me something in general that I did not already know.

I know life is not fair. But just as human beings, let alone politicians, it should be our job to make life better for others as well as ourselves. At least in my view.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Thank you Marc.
> 
> 
> 
> It is what it is and I have to deal with it, so far not so well. I want to get back to doing the job that I know so well, but unless I take a 30% pay cut and being paid like a junior, there seems to be little to no hope for me getting a job let alone what I was being paid before because of experience and expertise.
> 
> 
> 
> That probably speaks to the reason for some of the bitterness contained in my posts lately.
> 
> 
> 
> It is all too easy for those that that have it relatively easy to ridicule those that are in distress even though it is not of their own making.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people here seem to think that their own lives are an example for others and they should just do the same. But the thing of it is we are all different with different experiences and skill sets. One shoe size does not fit all.



Well that sucks, Steve. Hope the job prospects improve. This is a good example of how we are not necessarily paid what we are worth, and those who make more do not necessarily work harder.


----------



## Macfury

Of course it was my assertion--as are most posts on EhMac. I can't imagine what it would be like if people demanded some sort of proof for every post that appears on the site. I can't walk on eggshells because you decide a post doesn't meet your requirements! 



screature said:


> That may or may not be the case, it is simply your assertion.
> 
> Exactly no proof just an assertion.
> 
> Your point is...?
> 
> You seem to think you are telling me something in general that I did not already know.
> 
> I know life is not fair. But just as human beings, let alone politicians, it should be our job to make life better for others as well as ourselves. At least in my view.


----------



## fjnmusic

Freedom of speech once again.



> Nine Years of Censorship
> 
> Lesley Evans Ogden
> 03 May 2016
> 
> Canadian scientists are now allowed to speak out about their work — and the government policy that had restricted communications.
> 
> Early one Thursday morning last November, Kristi Miller-Saunders was surprised to receive a visit from her manager. Miller-Saunders, a molecular geneticist at the Canadian fisheries agency, had her reasons to worry about attention from above. On numerous occasions over the previous four years, government officials had forbidden her from talking to the press or the public about her work on the genetics of salmon — part of a broad policy that muzzled government scientists in Canada for many years. At one point, a brawny ‘minder’ had actually accompanied her to a public hearing to make sure that she didn’t break the rules....
> 
> .....The crackdown on government scientists in Canada began in 2006, after Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party was elected prime minister. During the nine-year Harper administration, the government placed a priority on boosting the economy, in part by stimulating development and increasing the extraction of resources, such as petroleum from the oil sands in Alberta. To speed projects along, the administration eased environmental regulations. And when journalists sought out government scientists to ask about the impacts of such changes, or anything to do with environmental or climate science, they ran into roadblocks....


http://www.nature.com/news/nine-years-of-censorship-1.19842?WT.mc_id=FBK_SB_NNews_0216


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Again, these are employees, not free agents. Either policy is fine.


----------



## Macfury

"Progressivism" in full flower! Complete equality... with dignity!

Venezuela is grinding to a halt amid chaos | Miami Herald


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Of course it was my assertion--as are most posts on EhMac. I can't imagine what it would be like if people demanded some sort of proof for every post that appears on the site. I can't walk on eggshells because you decide a post doesn't meet your requirements!


All I am saying is you offer no proof to back up your post. You offered a couple anecdotal cases which I have no reason to doubt. But there are thousands upon thousands on bureaucratic positions in the Government. All I am asking for is for some hard numbers to back up you statement.



> A lot of bureaucratic positions could be eliminated and nobody would realize these people were gone.


How do you know that?


----------



## screature

I remember a time when the terms "progressive" and "conservative" were not mutually exclusive. There used to be a Progressive Conservative Party of Canada not that long ago.

If the conservatives want to win power again they have to look back at their Canadian roots and not American style conservatism.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> How do you know that?


I have worked for various government departments, so it is anecdotal. I cannot prove it.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I have worked for various government departments, so it is anecdotal. I cannot prove it.


Fine. Thank you for your honesty.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Well that sucks, Steve. Hope the job prospects improve. This is a good example of how we are not necessarily paid what we are worth, and those who make more do not necessarily work harder.


Thank you for your post Peter. It means a lot.


----------



## screature

As I mentioned before "progressive" and "conservative" are not mutually exclusive terms. They can coexist. It is all up to us.

There are extremes on both sides, but there is common ground if we just stop being so partisan and acting like enemies where there is room for compromise.

Once again:




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## fjnmusic

James Taylor: the real thing. He will donate the proceeds of his two shows in Edmonton to the fire survivors of Fort Mac.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/ente...berta+shows+fort+mcmurray/11904380/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

screature said:


> I remember a time when the terms "progressive" and "conservative" were not mutually exclusive. There used to be a Progressive Conservative Party of Canada not that long ago.


There's a reason they're not around anymore.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> There's a reason they're not around anymore.



They're certainly around in Alberta. But they don't hold very many seats.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> There's a reason they're not around anymore.


I was never comfortable with the "P." Glad it's gone.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> They're certainly around in Alberta. But they don't hold very many seats.


The *Progressive Conservative Party of Canada* (which is what screature specifically referenced by name) does not exist anymore, they hold no seats anywhere.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> The *Progressive Conservative Party of Canada* (which is what screature specifically referenced by name) does not exist anymore, they hold no seats anywhere.



Yes, that is true, though the acronym CPC is a little misleading, since many would automatically associate it with Canadian Progressive Conservatives. But yes, they are now officially simply the Conservative Party of Canada. How long do you think they will continue to exist? Will they need to bring back the Progressive element that was a part of their makeup for so much of Canada's history? Or is that progressive element gone for good?


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> The *Progressive Conservative Party of Canada* (which is what screature specifically referenced by name) does not exist anymore, they hold no seats anywhere.


They're still too "progressive" for my liking.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> How long do you think they will continue to exist? Will they need to bring back the Progressive element that was a part of their makeup for so much of Canada's history? Or is that progressive element gone for good?


It should never come back. If anything, the current Conservative party needs to move still further to the right a bit. 

Besides, historically the 'Conservative' name was used longer than the 'Progressive' variant was anyway. John A MacDonald was a Conservative, not a PC.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> It should never come back. If anything, the current Conservative party needs to move still further to the right a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, historically the 'Conservative' name was used longer than the 'Progressive' variant was anyway. John A MacDonald was a Conservative, not a PC.



Actually, John A was the leader of both the Conservative and the Liberal Conservative parties (the Progressive wouldn't appear until many decades later). I suspect if the Conservative element would like to form the government again some day, they're going to need to be more centrist. Moving too far to the right, catering to the Reform/Alliance element, was ultimately the nail in their coffin. They lasted nine years that way, until people had had enough of them. I think there are far more citizens that would like to see a return to the PC party of old.


----------



## Macfury

Nine years was a great run. This affection for mealy-mouthed centrism prevented them from being greater.


----------



## fjnmusic

As you can see, the Liberal Conservatives remained as a party for the first nine elections in Canada, right into the start of the 20th century.






































Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It was a great time, when classical liberalism was a marvelous force, and "progressivism" hadn't yet co-opted it.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> I suspect if the Conservative element would like to form the government again some day, they're going to need to be more centrist. Moving too far to the right, catering to the Reform/Alliance element, was ultimately the nail in their coffin.


That isn't even remotely accurate. The biggest problem that the CPC had was they moved far too much to the left of the ideals of the Reform.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> That isn't even remotely accurate. The biggest problem that the CPC had was they moved far too much to the left of the ideals of the Reform.



I have a strong hunch that most of the country outside of Alberta would not agree with you. Stephen Harper was always a regional representative moreso than a national unifier. Beyond Alberta, the support was minimal in the last election. Nationally, Albertans backed the wrong horse. Unless, of course, there's something honourable about electing more Opposition MP's than any other province.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sometimes it's good to define your terms. This is what I mean when I use the term "progressive." For some silly reason, I thought this definition was pretty much universal.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That is what it used to be. "Progressivism" has now become the ugly stepchild of liberalism. I've met many liberals who finally understand that the "progressives" have destroyed their brand and are actively cutting them off.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That is what it used to be. "Progressivism" has now become the ugly stepchild of liberalism. I've met many liberals who finally understand that the "progressives" have destroyed their brand and are actively cutting them off.



Well I'm all for improvement and progress, and I'm not fond of eugenics. When you decide to respond to a thread, perhaps you should respect the terminology advocated by the OP. That would be me in this case.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Well I'm all for improvement and progress, and I'm not fond of eugenics. When you decide to respond to a thread, perhaps you should respect the terminology advocated by the OP. That would be me in this case.


I can't respect the terminology--it is not remotely accurate. You are simply listing some developments you like and ignoring "progressivisim."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I can't respect the terminology--it is not remotely accurate. You are simply listing some developments you like and ignoring "progressivisim."



Macfury: it was never called the "progressivism" thread. You made that association in your own mind. It was explained here long ago that it was referring to the progressive half of a term like progressive conservative: the school of thought believes in moving forward and evolving as opposed to staying stuck in the past. It rejects tradition simply for tradition's sake.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Less a flame than a pit of misery. If you want to highlight the marvels of "progressivism" I will be here to set the record straight. Nothing personal--I would do it for anyone.



This is the post where you switched the term from progressive to Progressivism, by the way. They are not equivalent.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

When capitalized, Progressivism refers to a specific type of movement. This was never what I was referring to, by the way, as I never used the term Progressivism. I think explains your confusion with the terminology quite well. You were arguing apples when this thread was set up for oranges (so to speak). 



> Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[1] Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five "crucial premises" of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past; nobility of Western civilization; worth of economic/technological growth; faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason; the intrinsic importance and worth of life on Earth.[2] The term is often used as shorthand for a more or less left-wing way of looking at the world. Beyond this, the meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives.[3]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Talk about a straw man argument. I will give you extra marks for creativity though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

So your terminology for "progressives"--one that is not really distinctive from the other IMHO--is supposed to be the broadening of government power to make people behave in certain ways?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> So your terminology for "progressives"--one that is not really distinctive from the other IMHO--is supposed to be the broadening of government power to make people behave in certain ways?



Is that even remotely close to what I submitted? You need to be a better listener and stop twisting.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Is that even remotely close to what I submitted? You need to be a better listener and stop twisting.


As I said, all of your examples of "progressivism" involve broadening government oversight of other people's lives or forcing them to behave in ways that you--fjn--could not convince them to do otherwise.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> As I said, all of your examples of "progressivism" involve broadening government oversight of other people's lives or forcing them to behave in ways that you--fjn--could not convince them to do otherwise.



Nope. Again, you're sadly mistaken. Again. I have not advocated Progressivism at all. Read up. Study. Learn the difference between the terms.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Nope. Again, you're sadly mistaken. Again. I have not advocated Progressivism at all. Read up. Study. Learn the difference between the terms.


There is no difference. All of your examples are no different from "progressivism."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> There is no difference. All of your examples are no different from "progressivism."



If you hate the term progressive so much, why are you a fan of the progressive conservatives?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If you hate the term progressive so much, why are you a fan of the progressive conservatives?


I have always hated the word "progessive" in their title. It has a stink about it. However, in the balance their conservativism generally makes them the best candidate. Your last premier was too "progressive."


----------



## fjnmusic

Wow! And this compliment courtesy of Lorne Gunter of the Edmonton Sun, no less. 



> Gunter: Alberta NDP is making good moves, while the right wing is being bone-headed
> 
> Lorne Gunter
> 
> Wednesday, May 18, 2016, 7:57 PM
> 
> Alberta NDP strategists will be rubbing their hands in delight.
> 
> Their party must still be considered a longshot to win re-election in 2019. But in the last month, their chances of winning a second term have probably doubled.
> This is partly because of things the Notley government has done, but mostly because Alberta’s two right-of-centre parties are too boned-headed to merge.
> 
> Premier Rachel Notley has handled the mass evacuation from Fort McMurray well. Her government’s real wildfire legacy will be determined in the years of rebuilding ahead, but so far, so good.
> 
> The NDP have also let it be known they are willing to re-examine their opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat, B.C. Most of their members even voted for a Wildrose motion in the legislature that called on Ottawa to lift its arbitrary ban on tanker traffic along the West Coast.
> 
> The Notley government has even announced a new round of consultations over its plan to boost the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2018.
> 
> While the announcement left little doubt the New Dems still see raising the base hourly rate as a social justice and women’s rights issue, they did crack open the door to slowing the introduction of their continent-high minimum if small businesses can show it is harming their ability to keep the doors open.
> 
> Of course, the Notley government will have huge political problems when its provincial-sales-tax-masquerading-as-a-carbon-levy takes effect next January 1. But for right now, the NDP are making moves that will help some voters warm up to them.
> As one NDP organizer confided in me, the party hopes by the next election in three years the price of oil will have risen enough to make the government’s finances look better. They also hope the economy will be on the mend. And, finally, they are confident at least one pipeline (Kinder Morgan, Energy East or Northern Gateway) will have received final approval, so they can claim their climate leadership approach has worked.
> 
> Even if all that happens, the NDP only have an outside shot. But that shot gets better and better the more the Wildrose and Tories refuse to make nice with one another.
> At their annual general meeting two weekends ago in Red Deer, the Progressive Conservatives voted to go it on their own. Delegates, including newly elected president Katherine O’Neill, seemed content with moving their party in a more “progressive” direction.
> 
> One of their mistaken beliefs seemed to be that they lost the 2015 election because Albertans had moved left, when in truth what happened was that after 44 years, voters could no longer stand the Tories’ guts.
> 
> Meanwhile, Wildrose Leader Brian Jean told followers via teleconference on Tuesday that there was no longer any point seeking common cause with the Tories. He would attempt to turn his party into “a bigger and broader coalition of conservatives,” perhaps under a new name. (He has already registered the Alberta Conservative Party, as well as other similar monikers.)
> 
> 
> While the Tories can’t bear the thought of sharing a party with the rubes and social conservatives of Wildrose, and many Wildrosers still see the Tories as unethical, power-hungry snobs, Alberta is sagging – big time – under the NDP.
> 
> Both parties need to get over themselves, put aside their disdain for each other and get together for the good of the province.
> They need to remember Ronald Reagan’s dictum that a 10% enemy is still a 90% friend.
> 
> And they need to keep in mind that the Chretien Liberals won three consecutive majorities because the right federally repeatedly split the vote because the Tories and Canadian Alliance took more than a decade to get over their differences.


http://m.edmontonsun.com/2016/05/18...es-while-the-right-wing-is-being-boned-headed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

> While the Tories can’t bear the thought of sharing a party with the rubes and social conservatives of Wildrose, and many Wildrosers still see the Tories as unethical, power-hungry snobs, *Alberta is sagging – big time – under the NDP.*


Glad you agree, fjn!


----------



## screature

*


Macfury said:



I have always hated the word "progessive" in their title. It has a stink about it. However, in the balance their conservativism generally makes them the best candidate. Your last premier was too "progressive."

Click to expand...

*
That is not how I see the the term. "The word conservative" has a "stink" about it as well to many, many people. For those people the word simply represents the status quo without any room for change. Now, I know and you know that is not necessarily the case, but that is what it means to a great number people correct or incorrect.

But when you add the word progressive to conservative it becomes a whole new ball game. PC's don't want change for change sake, they do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. They want to maintain what is working well but are also open to change, where change is needed in an ever changing world.


----------



## Macfury

Always open to change, but have not appreciated the statist undeprinnings of Brian Mulroney federally, or William Davis provincially. The "progressive" nature of their conservatism always seemed to result in less freedom and larger governments. Not so on the other hand with Mike Harris.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Glad you agree, fjn!



Never said I agree—just surprised that Lorne Gunter was actually criticizing the right and praising the left for a change. When I submit a link, it's meant for discussion purposes. Hopefully a discussion is more than just a quick one liner.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> *
> 
> *
> 
> That is not how I see the the term. "The word conservative" has a "stink" about it as well to many, many people. For those people the word simply represents the status quo without any room for change. Now, I know and you know that is necessarily the case, but that is what it means to a great number people correct or incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> But when you add the word progressive to conservative it becomes a whole new ball game. PC's don't want change for change sake, they do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. They want to maintain what is working well but are also open to change, where change is needed in an ever changing world.



 Makes sense to me, Steve.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Always open to change, but have not appreciated t*he statist undeprinnings of Brian Mulroney federally, or William Davis provincially.* The "progressive" nature of their conservatism always seemed to result in less freedom and larger governments. Not so on the other hand with Mike Harris.


Well I don't agree with you. 

Mulroney tried very hard to receive consensus. He did not receive it. But at least he tried to bring about reform. Chretien on the other hand was pleased as punch to maintain the status quo.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Well I don't agree with you.
> 
> Mulroney tried very hard to receive consensus. He did not receive it. But at least he tried to bring about reform. Chretien on the other hand was pleased as punch to maintain the status quo.


Mulroney was a monstrously big spender. His recognition of Quebec's "distinct society" made Meech Lake a non-starter for me, so his reforms were attached to too much baggage. Never been a fan of the GST. I had high hopes for Mulroney but ultimately found him very disappointing.


----------



## heavyall

screature said:


> Mulroney tried very hard to receive consensus. He did not receive it. But at least he tried to bring about reform. Chretien on the other hand was pleased as punch to maintain the status quo.


Too much compromise, too many concessions made for no reason. Like him or not, Mulroney was decidedly NOT a conservative. He was a liberal wearing a blue suit. He was the final straw that was the reason the Reform movement happened. People were tired of people latching on to the word conservative without actually offing conservative policies.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> Too much compromise, too many concessions made for no reason. Like him or not, Mulroney was decidedly NOT a conservative. He was a liberal wearing a blue suit. He was the final straw that was the reason the Reform movement happened. People were tired of people latching on to the word conservative without actually offing conservative policies.


I remember being so optimistic when he won a majority. He could have done ANYTHING, but chose instead to become the very definition of a big government overspender.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I remember being so optimistic when he won a majority. He could have done ANYTHING, but chose instead to become the very definition of a big government overspender.



Quite a change in support over his nine year reign as well. He painted the country Blue back in '84, but the PC's would up with only 2 seats left in '93. Those were the days. 






















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Yes, Kim Campbell was a pure "Progressive."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, Kim Campbell was a pure "Progressive."



Didn't matter. She was powerless. And the first female Prime Minister, though not elected to be such. That was the decade of the long slow devolution of the Conservative brand in Canada. I would argue it died in 1993 and has never really emerged since. Taken over by the a reform Alliance, certainly, but it wasn't the same after its "rebirth."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It was the death of "progressivism" and the rebirth of conservatism. As bad as the NDP and Liberals are today, they have both moved to the right significantly.



fjnmusic said:


> Didn't matter. She was powerless. And the first female Prime Minister, though not elected to be such. That was the decade of the long slow devolution of the Conservative brand in Canada. I would argue it died in 1993 and has never really emerged since. Taken over by the a reform Alliance, certainly, but it wasn't the same after its "rebirth."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Regressive is pretty much the opposite of progressive. If the Wildrose keep shooting their mouths off like this, the NDP aren't even going to need to try that hard to get re-elected in 2019. Holodomor? Now that's a stretch.



> Wildrose blog post that compares carbon tax to Ukrainian genocide requires apology, NDP cabinet minister says
> 
> Trevor Robb
> Published on: June 3, 2016 | Last Updated: June 3, 2016 9:54 PM MDT
> 
> An Edmonton NDP cabinet minister is calling for a public apology after nine Wildrose MLAs co-authored a blog post — which they have since apologized for — comparing the province’s carbon levy to the Holodomor genocide in Ukraine.
> 
> The blog post, titled “How Much is Too Much?” was posted two days ago on Wildrose MLA Rick Strankman’s website, and was co-compiled by eight of his colleagues: Grant Hunter, Dave Schneider, Wes Taylor, Ron Orr, Mark Smith, Dave Hanson, Don MacIntyre and Drew Barnes.
> 
> The post references American economist and author Thomas Sowell and how people are more inclined to produce and create their own wealth rather than contribute to the common good.
> 
> “Sowell points out how the early settlers to North America considered all lands common property with no incentive for an individual to produce,” reads the post. “The same situation existed in Russia during the 1930s resulting in the starvation of nearly six million people that lived on the most fertile land on the planet.”
> 
> “The Alberta government’s carbon tax in its current form will not and can not create incentive for anyone exporting products outside of Alberta.”
> 
> Economic Development Minister Deron Bilous, an Edmonton MLA, said Friday he was shocked by the comments referencing the Holodomor, a man-made famine that saw seven to 10 million Ukrainians starve to death in 1932 and 1933.
> 
> “Being of Ukrainian decent myself, I found their comments offensive,” said Bilous. “Comparing genocide through starvation to a policy that the (NDP) government is bringing forward is beyond bizarre — I think it’s absurd.”
> 
> Bilous said he’s already received comments from people from Alberta’s Ukrainian community expressing their concerns over the post.
> 
> “They’re quite hurt by this. This was an absolutely horrific time in history,” said Bilous. “We have a significant number of Albertans of Ukrainian decent and this goes far beyond disrespectful. It’s inexcusable.”
> 
> The post has since been deleted from Strankman’s blog and a written apology was issued by the Wildrose party.
> 
> “The Holodomor was an atrocious and intentional act that saw the deaths of millions upon millions of Ukrainians,” the statement said.
> 
> “Any interpretation of the column collaborated on by the nine Wildrose MLAs as dismissing the Holodomor as a horrendous act was completely unintentional, and we unreservedly apologize.”
> 
> Bilous described the apology as a step in the right direction, but is looking to party leader Brian Jean to publicly address the matter.
> 
> “There needs to be a recognition of the impact that the Holodomor had and continues to have on tens of thousands of Albertans,” said Bilous.


http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...de-requires-apology-ndp-cabinet-minister-says


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I'd be curious to read the original message.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'd be curious to read the original message.



Perhaps you should do that. If you can find it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Regressive is pretty much the opposite of progressive. If the Wildrose keep shooting their mouths off like this, the NDP aren't even going to need to try that hard to get re-elected in 2019. Holodomor? Now that's a stretch.


Well, lemme se, that's one WR blunder to what? A dozen or so by Knotheads?

NFW they will get re-elected.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Well, lemme se, that's one WR blunder to what? A dozen or so by Knotheads?
> 
> 
> 
> NFW they will get re-elected.




One blunder? Clearly you haven't been reading the news lately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

One blunder by WR versus a dozen by Knotheads every time. Yep read the news all the time. Even keep count.


----------



## heavyall

I don't see anything offensive in what Strankman wrote. Where does he even mention the Holodomor?

The article does reference Thomas Sowell -- his work is largely about wealth redistribution. He studies countries that have practiced nationalizing property, agrarian reforms, etc. He points out, quite accurately, that such policies were a disaster in Russia. Lysenkoism alone resulted in the death by starvation of millions of Russians.

edit: here's an article by Sowell. One might not agree with his conclusions, but it certainly doesn't offend any specific ethnic group.

The Fallacy of Redistribution - Thomas Sowell


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps you should do that. If you can find it.


I can't find it, and the article doesn't suggest anything patently offensive--it only says that some people were offended. I can't pass judgement on the Wild Rose statement on that level of information.


----------



## heavyall

Here is a cached version of the original Strankman blog:

How much is too much?



> *How much is too much?*
> 
> American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author Thomas Sowell was quoted saying “Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.”
> 
> What Sowell realized was that history had taught us that people would do more for their own good than for the common good. He also realized that giving people the incentive to produce and create their own wealth in turn would be even more beneficial for the common good.
> 
> Sowell points out how the early settlers to North America considered all lands common property with no incentive for an individual to produce, the results of which were disastrous to their survival. The same situation existed in Russia during the 1930s resulting in the starvation of nearly 6 million people that lived on some of the most fertile land on the planet.
> 
> Time and again the incentive of the citizenry translates into the production they need to sustain themselves. Ultimately the underlying secret to a society’s success is the individual incentive people have to produce for the good of everyone. The Alberta government’s movement to remove incentives through taxation in the name of “progressive policies” is in fact taking Alberta backwards.
> 
> History has shown us that the socialist collectivist mentality has failed over and over again in countries around the world, under both democratic and dictatorial rule. Prior to the end of the 20th century, the world witnessed both socialist and communist governments’ crumble as they were forced to abandon their socialist policies.
> 
> We all agree that government plays a necessary and important role in all of our every day lives; the debate is about “how much is too much?” Government’s role in our lives should be limited by what does and does not create incentive for people to produce. History tells us that removing incentive is not beneficial to the overall well-being of a society.
> 
> The Alberta government’s carbon tax in its current form will not and can not create incentive for anyone exporting products outside of Alberta. Adding to the input costs of production will have profound affects for anyone involved in competitive export markets. Alberta’s role as a net exporter must remain competitive through creating incentive to have any possibility of attracting investment.
> 
> Successive Alberta governments broached the subject of diversification in our economy; not one of which created any incentives for investors to make Alberta the place for them to invest. Not only does the carbon tax not give people incentive to invest in Alberta, it actually gives them incentive not to invest.
> 
> Thomas Sowell pointed out that “the ultimate irony was that an international survey of free markets found the world’s freest market to be in Hong Kong— in a country still ruled by a communist government.” It seems even the Chinese communist government has learned from the vast history of socialist policies.


That DEFINITELY is not talking about the Holodomor. It's about failed socialist economic policies.


----------



## Macfury

Thanks heavyall. That anyone should attack Wild Rose over a simple economic treatise is damning evidence as to how bankrupt "progressives" really are.


----------



## heavyall

Never underestimate the power of the media to flat out lie when they want to smear a Conservative's reputation.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> Never underestimate the power of the media to flat out lie when they want to smear a Conservative's reputation.


Worse--without even having read the post, our resident "progressive" fjnmusic was joining the anti-Wild Rose chorus. Such a mob mentality!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I can't find it, and the article doesn't suggest anything patently offensive--it only says that some people were offended. I can't pass judgement on the Wild Rose statement on that level of information.



Odd then that the nine Wildrose members themselves felt the need to apologize for their rather callous comparison. Shows us where your sensibilities lie I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

According to Macfury and Heavyall, there's nothing to apologize about. Interesting.

"The post has since been deleted from Strankman’s blog and a written apology was issued by the Wildrose party.

“The Holodomor was an atrocious and intentional act that saw the deaths of millions upon millions of Ukrainians,” the statement said.

“Any interpretation of the column collaborated on by the nine Wildrose MLAs as dismissing the Holodomor as a horrendous act was completely unintentional, and we unreservedly apologize.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjn as you well know, once the "progressives" have whipped up a media frenzy some people feel bullied into apologizing whether warranted or not.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> fjn as you well know, once the "progressives" have whipped up a media frenzy some people feel bullied into apologizing whether warranted or not.



It wasn't the "progressives," my learned friend, it was people of Ukrainian descent who were quite horrified by the cavalier comparison. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It wasn't the "progressives," my learned friend, it was people of Ukrainian descent who were quite horrified by the cavalier comparison.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nope. It was the "progressives" in the media who made it an issue. They nose out every perceived grievance against their political enemies and then escalate it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Nope. It was the "progressives" in the media who made it an issue. They nose out every perceived grievance against their political enemies and then escalate it.



Nope. It was MLA Deron Bilous who brought it to our attention, being of Ukrainian descent himself, after hearing the reaction of many other Ukrainian-Canadians. The Holodomor reference was just way over the top, and the WR MLA's knew it, which is why they backtracked and apologized. There's been a few missteps by the WR lately, which is one of the reasons the unite-the-right movement is failing. People may have misgivings about the NDP, but they're REALLY not impressed with the right right now. 

If you're going to try to comment on Alberta politics, you should really try staying informed on current events.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Do you want me to include how a member of Alberta's "progressive" class, _NDP_ MLA Deron Bilous brought it to the attention of the media?

Wild Rose MLAs did people a favour by reminding them how socialism and a planned economy can manifest itself. There was no reference to Holodomor--but you believed that there was and were already jumping on Wild Rose with "progressive" zeal. It doesn't matter whether Ukrainians, Russians or anyone else were the victims of "progressivism"--it was the fact that it occurred at all. History is completely fair game and the Wild Rose MLAs presented their thesis in a responsible way.





fjnmusic said:


> Nope. It was MLA Deron Bilous who brought it to our attention, being of Ukrainian descent himself, after hearing the reaction of many other Ukrainian-Canadians. The Holodomor reference was just way over the top, and the WR MLA's knew it, which is why they backtracked and apologized. There's been a few missteps by the WR lately, which is one of the reasons the unite-the-right movement is failing. People may have misgivings about the NDP, but they're REALLY not impressed with the right right now.
> 
> If you're going to try to comment on Alberta politics, you should really try staying informed on current events.


----------



## heavyall

So it was the NDP who lied, and the media just didn't bother to do any basic fact checking. And you think that makes it better, fjn?

It took me two minutes to find out that there was NO Holodomor reference whatsoever in the original article. Why couldn't either the AB NDP or the Edmonton Journal do it? I don't have anywhere near the level of resources that they do. It was either incompetence, or malice. Neither is excusable when you try to tarnish someone's reputation in public like that.

And for you to dig in and try to keep defending their actions fjn? Come on, that's beneath you.


----------



## Macfury

I guess we now know that under an NDP regime, history itself must be censored.



heavyall said:


> So it was the NDP who lied, and the media just didn't bother to do any basic fact checking. And you think that makes it better, fjn?
> 
> It took me two minutes to find out that there was NO Holodomor reference whatsoever in the original article. Why couldn't either the AB NDP or the Edmonton Journal do it? I don't have anywhere near the level of resources that they do. It was either incompetence, or malice. Neither is excusable when you try to tarnish someone's reputation in public like that.
> 
> And for you to dig in and try to keep defending their actions fjn? Come on, that's beneath you.


----------



## FeXL

Funny. I'm of Ukrainian descent & I wasn't horrified. As a matter of fact, I am still unable to see a connection between anything that was said/posted & Holodomor.

It. Ain't. There.

There's enough issues in the world today that require our attention. No need to make $h!t up...



fjnmusic said:


> it was people of Ukrainian descent who were quite horrified by the cavalier comparison.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Funny. I'm of Ukrainian descent & I wasn't horrified. As a matter of fact, I am still unable to see a connection between anything that was said/posted & Holodomor.
> 
> 
> 
> It. Ain't. There.
> 
> 
> 
> There's enough issues in the world today that require our attention. No need to make $h!t up...



Hmmm. If it wasn't there, then why are they apologizing? Perhaps you perceive it ain't there. Because. They. Retracted. It. 

But gee, turns out if you look a little, it's not really that hard to find at all. You just have to be prepared to look beyond your narrow confines of what constitutes news. 












> The article posted on a blog says socialist collective mentality has failed around the world and the carbon tax will give people an incentive not to invest in Alberta.
> 
> “The Holodomor was an atrocious and intentional act that saw the deaths of millions upon millions of Ukrainians,” reads the apology released by the Wildrose party on Friday.
> 
> “Any interpretation of the column collaborated on by the nine Wildrose MLAs as dismissing the Holodomor as a horrendous act was completely unintentional, and we unreservedly apologize.
> 
> “Out of an abundance of caution and respect for Ukrainian Albertans, the post was removed and a revised version has been posted.”
> Wildrose members involved in the post included Rick Strankman, Grant Hunter, Dave Schneider, Wes Taylor, Ron Orr, Mark Smith, Dave Hanson, Don MacIntyre and Drew Barnes.
> 
> The post quoted American economist Thomas Sowell, who wrote that people do more for their own good than for the common good.
> The Wildrose article refers to the famine, during which the Soviet government forced Ukrainian farmers to give up their own land to join collective farms.
> 
> “The same situation existed in Russia during the 1930s resulting in the starvation of nearly six million people that lived on some of the most fertile land on the planet,” reads the post.
> 
> “The Alberta government’s movement to remove incentives through taxation in the name of ”progressive policies“ is in fact taking Alberta backwards.”
> 
> Economic Development Minister Deron Bilous called the blog post offensive and said Wildrose leader Brian Jean should denounce the actions of the nine members.


[http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/wildrose-sorry-for-comparing-ndp-carbon-tax-to-ukraine-famine/

But I suppose that Maclean's is part of this vast left wing conspiracy too. One characteristic of conservatives: they really don't like to admit when they've made a mistake. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Hmmm. If it wasn't there, then why are they apologizing? Perhaps you perceive it ain't there. Because. They. Retracted. It.


I posted the original article. It isn't there.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> I posted the original article. It isn't there.


Exactly. Yet fjn is still yawping and yahooing as though he saw it there from the start.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> But I suppose that Maclean's is part of this vast left wing conspiracy too..


You mean the Justin Trudeau fanzine? The don't even try to pretend to be objective.



> One characteristic of conservatives: they really don't like to admit when they've made a mistake


You also have that part completely backwards too: what we are seeing is a group of conservatives bending over backwards to apologize for something that they didn't even do.


----------



## Macfury

Never write up to a conspiracy what can be achieved through simple prejudice.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> I posted the original article. It isn't there.




You didn't post the Wildrose blog based on that article. Also because it isn't there. Anymore. Do you know what "deliberately obtuse" means? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Yet fjn is still yawping and yahooing as though he saw it there from the start.



Odd that the news articles and the Wildrose members themselves all seem to be quite aware of what was posted on the blog, which has now been revised. Your stubborn refusal to admit your comprehension shortcomings are quite baffling. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

What part of "Heavyall posted the entirety of the blog here in this thread" can you not understand?



fjnmusic said:


> Odd that the news articles and the Wildrose members themselves all seem to be quite aware of what was posted on the blog, which has now been revised. Your stubborn refusal to admit your comprehension shortcomings are quite baffling.


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> What part of "Heavyall posted the entirety of the blog here in this thread" can you not understand?


Yes. Here it is again:



> Here is a cached version of the original Strankman blog:
> 
> How much is too much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How much is too much?*
> 
> American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author Thomas Sowell was quoted saying “Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.”
> 
> What Sowell realized was that history had taught us that people would do more for their own good than for the common good. He also realized that giving people the incentive to produce and create their own wealth in turn would be even more beneficial for the common good.
> 
> Sowell points out how the early settlers to North America considered all lands common property with no incentive for an individual to produce, the results of which were disastrous to their survival. The same situation existed in Russia during the 1930s resulting in the starvation of nearly 6 million people that lived on some of the most fertile land on the planet.
> 
> Time and again the incentive of the citizenry translates into the production they need to sustain themselves. Ultimately the underlying secret to a society’s success is the individual incentive people have to produce for the good of everyone. The Alberta government’s movement to remove incentives through taxation in the name of “progressive policies” is in fact taking Alberta backwards.
> 
> History has shown us that the socialist collectivist mentality has failed over and over again in countries around the world, under both democratic and dictatorial rule. Prior to the end of the 20th century, the world witnessed both socialist and communist governments’ crumble as they were forced to abandon their socialist policies.
> 
> We all agree that government plays a necessary and important role in all of our every day lives; the debate is about “how much is too much?” Government’s role in our lives should be limited by what does and does not create incentive for people to produce. History tells us that removing incentive is not beneficial to the overall well-being of a society.
> 
> The Alberta government’s carbon tax in its current form will not and can not create incentive for anyone exporting products outside of Alberta. Adding to the input costs of production will have profound affects for anyone involved in competitive export markets. Alberta’s role as a net exporter must remain competitive through creating incentive to have any possibility of attracting investment.
> 
> Successive Alberta governments broached the subject of diversification in our economy; not one of which created any incentives for investors to make Alberta the place for them to invest. Not only does the carbon tax not give people incentive to invest in Alberta, it actually gives them incentive not to invest.
> 
> Thomas Sowell pointed out that “the ultimate irony was that an international survey of free markets found the world’s freest market to be in Hong Kong— in a country still ruled by a communist government.” It seems even the Chinese communist government has learned from the vast history of socialist policies.
> 
> 
> 
> That DEFINITELY is not talking about the Holodomor. It's about failed socialist economic policies.
Click to expand...


----------



## Macfury

Why apologize? Once the "progressive" media and all of its acolytes sink their collective teeth into their leg, it becomes almost impossible to overcome the bullying without an apology. I wouldn't do it, but many people can't stand up to the pressure of the collective.


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> Why apologize? Once the "progressive" media and all of its acolytes sink their collective teeth into their leg, it becomes almost impossible to overcome the bullying without an apology. I wouldn't do it, but many people can't stand up to the pressure of the collective.


It's politics. Irrational shrieking drives the agenda. 

Read the "apology". They don't admit anything. In fact they very specifically state that is NOT what they wrote or intended anyone to infer. It was basically a "sorry that you were offended" statement:



> Any interpretation of the column collaborated on by the nine Wildrose MLAs as dismissing the Holodomor as a horrendous act was completely unintentional, and we unreservedly apologize.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> Yes. Here it is again:




Congratulations. You cached the revised version. The links I provided give you at least some of the text of the original version along with the WR's rationale for apologizing. Thick as a brick. And never wrong, at least in your own mind. Must be wonderful to be so infallible.

Again:



> "The post has since been deleted from Strankman’s blog and a written apology was issued by the Wildrose party.
> 
> “The Holodomor was an atrocious and intentional act that saw the deaths of millions upon millions of Ukrainians,” the statement said.
> 
> “Any interpretation of the column collaborated on by the nine Wildrose MLAs as dismissing the Holodomor as a horrendous act was completely unintentional, and we unreservedly apologize.”


And this from Huffpost:



> The Wildrose article refers to the famine, during which the Soviet government forced Ukrainian farmers to give up their own land to join collective farms.
> 
> “The same situation existed in Russia during the 1930s resulting in the starvation of nearly six million people that lived on some of the most fertile land on the planet,’’ reads the post.
> 
> “The Alberta government’s movement to remove incentives through taxation in the name of ‘’progressive policies” is in fact taking Alberta backwards.’’


See that middle paragraph? The one that's not in your version? That would be because it was REVISED. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> See that middle paragraph? The one that's not in your version?


Yes it is.



> That would be because it was REVISED.



No. I posted the original as it existed on June 02. Before it was pulled the first time, before the article you posted was even written. The revised version is substantially different.

Do you even know what Google cache is?


----------



## Macfury

fjn, do you need us to explain how this works? You seem a little out of your depth.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> fjn, do you need us to explain how this works? You seem a little out of your depth.



Good night. There's no point in trying to reason with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You haven't been reasoning with anyone, fjn. You keep referring to an imaginary document when the actual document has been presented by heavyall for everyone to see. 



fjnmusic said:


> Good night. There's no point in trying to reason with you.


----------



## fjnmusic

Hmmm. Be careful what you wish for. From the right leaning Winnipeg Sun, no less.



> Manitoba Tories making poor first impression: Brodbeck
> Tom Brodbeck
> Yesterday at 5:33 PM
> 
> It wasn't a good week for the Pallister government.
> 
> Their inaugural budget unveiled Tuesday went over like a lead balloon. They got raked over the coals for announcing they wouldn't balance the books for eight years. Their plan to claw back a school property tax credit for seniors, something they never mentioned during the last election, raised eyebrows. And their complete failure to even begin to tame government's out-of-control spending exposed a Tory administration that doesn't appear ready for primetime.
> 
> It wasn't exactly what Manitobans voted for in the April 19 election. And while the Tories still have plenty of time to do better in the coming months, their first impression wasn't a good one.
> 
> Finance Minister Cameron Friesen said this past week that the Tories found $122 million in savings in their first budget. But when asked repeatedly throughout the week for a list itemizing those savings, Friesen couldn't produce one. Not good.
> 
> Tory cabinet ministers -- including Premier Brian Pallister -- also thought, despite projecting an $890-million deficit, that it would be a good idea to accept a pay raise this year. When asked why they took the raise, they had no coherent answer, except to say the increases were the result of the province's balanced budget legislation.
> Which is true. But they could have said no to the raises -- just like they said no to the vote tax. Instead, they took the cash.
> 
> They also gave failed Tory candidate Audrey Gordon a political job as a special assistant to the health minister. That would be fine, except she was hired on secondment from the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, which means the Tories are using health care dollars to pay for political staff.
> The Tories also announced abruptly this week that their long-awaited value-for-money audit -- a key plank in their campaign platform -- will be mostly a confidential document for cabinet's eyes only, something they didn't tell voters about during the election. The impression they gave during the campaign was that it would be a public document.
> 
> Meanwhile, government officials couldn't explain why they didn't include the usual five-year economic plan in their budget, which has been in every previous budget for decades and shows spending and expenditure projections for the next four years. When asked why they removed it and where they came up with the eight-year deficit plan -- including what financial information they used to arrive at that time period -- they couldn't answer.
> 
> The communications strategy for the Tories so far has been somewhere between obfuscation and outright stonewalling. Tory communications handlers regularly cut short scrums between reporters and cabinet ministers for no apparent reason other than to limit access, barking out "last question" sometimes only a few minutes into an interview. It's a closed-government approach implemented by Pallister's director of communications Olivia Baldwin-Valainis, who worked for the former Harper government where that kind of arrogant, centrally-controlled approach was commonplace.
> 
> It's a far cry from the open and transparent government Pallister promised voters.
> Even something as simple as getting basic information about an issue like the proposed winding down of the East Side Road Authority, a government agency that's building all-season roads for First Nations communities on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, has been a struggle. Opposition MLAs have repeatedly asked Infrastructure Minister Blaine Pederson what his intentions are for the elimination of the government agency, and he's provided no information whatsoever.
> 
> The Winnipeg Sun requested an interview with Pederson on the subject this past week. After initially agreeing to one, the minister's office changed its mind and refused an interview, saying they had no information to share.
> 
> Either the minister is incompetent and can't do interviews or the premier's office is muzzling him because they're not interested in being open and accountable about their plans. Either way, it doesn't bode well for a government that promised greater transparency in office.
> 
> Unless Pallister wants more weeks like this past one, he may want to rethink this Harper-like, closed-door approach to governing. It didn't work well for the former federal administration. And it won't work well for this government.


http://m.winnipegsun.com/2016/06/04...Tories+making+poor+first+impression:+Brodbeck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You haven't been reasoning with anyone, fjn. You keep referring to an imaginary document when the actual document has been presented by heavyall for everyone to see.



With pieces missing, unless you're suggesting the Wildrose members are imagining that too. Give it up, Macfury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> With pieces missing, unless you're suggesting the Wildrose members are imagining that too. Give it up, Macfury.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Show us the missing pieces, fjn.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> With pieces missing,


What specifically is missing? I posted the entire original article, cached *the day before* it was pulled.


----------



## Macfury

Yep, The government is acting too much like "progressives."



fjnmusic said:


> Hmmm. Be careful what you wish for. From the right leaning Winnipeg Sun, no less.
> 
> 
> 
> Manitoba Tories making poor first impression: Brodbeck | Opinion | Winnipeg Sun
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> Yep, The government is acting too much like "progressives."


Exactly. Progressives, they certainly are. Conservatives, not so much.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> Exactly. Progressives, they certainly are. Conservatives, not so much.


I find it interesting that many "progressives" bray about how much they love the fact that the provinces field candidates who are "progressive" conservatives--then go after them like attack dogs when they begin to act like "progressives" and not conservatives.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I find it interesting that many "progressives" bray about how much they love the fact that the provinces field candidates who are "progressive" conservatives--then go after them like attack dogs when they begin to act like "progressives" and not conservatives.



Funny. That's not the tune I recall you whistling BEFORE the Manitoba election. You were all excited about turfing those NDP's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The province will be better off without the NDP, no doubt, If the PCs could drop the dead weight of being "progressive" they would soar.

My point is that you're attacking their "progressive" tendencies, not their conservative tendencies.



fjnmusic said:


> Funny. That's not the tune I recall you whistling BEFORE the Manitoba election. You were all excited about turfing those NDP's.


----------



## FeXL

Any time an NDP gov't gets turfed, it's an exciting time. As it will be for the remaining one in just 3+ years... :clap:



fjnmusic said:


> You were all excited about turfing those NDP's.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Any time an NDP gov't gets turfed, it's an exciting time. As it will be for the remaining one in just 3+ years... :clap:[
> 
> Generally we don't have to worry about the green party or the Marxists taking over from the NDP. Even going Liberal would be an improvement, though not much of one. Hell, Alberta would be better off with a PQ government right now--at least they'd make sure oil was flowing east.


----------



## fjnmusic

It's good to see someone else who sees the strengths of Alberta's Premier Notley. 



> First Year: Calm in crisis, strong in delivery
> 
> GARY MASON
> The Globe and Mail
> Last updated Thursday, May 05, 2016 5:31PM EDT
> 
> ...Leaders are often defined by how they perform in a time of crisis. If that is the case, Ms. Notley should receive high marks for the way in which she has conducted herself amid one of the most troubling 12 months Alberta has ever known.
> 
> The collapse in oil prices has brought the province to its knees, and yet, amid all the anxiety and legitimate fright the situation has incited, the Premier has been a picture of calm and strength.
> 
> And now she has to deal with one of the greatest natural disasters the country has ever seen, the devastating Fort McMurray wildfire.
> 
> In recent history, I can’t recall a rookie political leader, certainly one with so little previous governing experience, who has inherited a more brutal set of circumstances and yet performed with so much poise and natural authority. As much as anything, her job has been consoler-in-chief and she has performed it admirably....


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...in-crisis-strong-in-delivery/article29904241/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You'll find two or three more who were impressed. Nothing special to see here.

While the province is suffering under her regime, she keeps piling on the taxes and regulation, never mind the wildfires and low energy prices. Like a technocrat oblivious to the suffering she's causing, she keeps up the punishment--strong in delivering it.


----------



## Macfury

Lorne Gunter does a great job of delivering the speech that's being delivered between the lines:



> You and your family may be suffering. Maybe you’ve lost your job or are behind on your car loan, your credit cards, even your mortgage.
> 
> But not we in the provincial government! We haven’t laid off a single public servant! We’ve frozen a few salaries, but we haven’t cut anyone’s wages – and we have some of the highest-paid civil servants on the continent!
> 
> Maybe your business is on the verge of going under. Over the last few months you’ve had to lay off employees who were more like family. The seats in your restaurant aren’t full any more. There are vacancies in your hotel. Fewer people are buying your vehicles, your condos, your services.
> 
> But it’s party time if your work for the Alberta government or for a school board or the health authority. We’re sinking Alberta deep, Deep, DEEP into debt to make sure all the unionized public sector workers in the province don’t have to feel your pain.
> 
> We have increased a lot of Albertans’ taxes by over 10%. And when our carbon tax kicks in next January, we are going to whack every family in the province upside the head to fund our fantasies about saving the planet. And, of course, we are also going to use much of the $3 billion in extra taxes to pay for new contracts we are negotiating with five large public-sector unions to help keep our friends in governmentland immune from the recession.
> 
> As you can see, the lower price of oil is having a direct effect on jobs. Oh, not jobs in the public sector, of course. Thanks to your taxes – the higher taxes you’re paying now, the even higher ones you’ll be paying next year and the higher taxes your children will pay in the future – our jobs in the public sector are doing just fine.
> 
> Indeed, according to Statistics Canada, last year while the private sector in Alberta shed nearly 50,000 jobs, we in the public sector had a VERY good year. We expanded by 32,500 well-paid, secure employees.
> 
> Sure, the feds and municipalities contributed to that total. We at the province can’t take all the credit. Still, that is an 8.4% increase in public-sector workers in a single year – a single, awful, recessionary year for you, but not for us.
> 
> We’re dangerously dependent on the price of oil. My government could make us less dependent by spending less when our revenues go down. But what fun would that be? We’ve chosen instead to rack up enormous debts. So rather than being dependent on oil, we’ve made the province dependent on bankers, foreign investors and bondholders.
> 
> We could choose to slash public services, firing thousands of teachers and nurses … (but) reckless cuts only download the cost of deficits onto Albertans. Of course, we could fire thousands of bureaucrats, health care managers and educrats before even one teacher or nurse had to be laid off. But if we admitted that, we’d have to admit that at over 200,000 workers the provincial public-sector is hopelessly bloated.
> 
> And we wouldn’t want to admit that. Those are our core voters!
> 
> So rather than downloading the cost of today’s deficits on you through service cuts, we’ve chosen to download the cost onto your children who are going to have to pay off the massive debt we’re leaving behind.
> 
> Thank you and goodnight.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Hawwwwww--fjn! How many people in Seattle do you think had their salaries raised to $15? And what was the effect in that sector as compared to the performance of the overall economy?


----------



## Macfury

.


----------



## FeXL

You obviously have not read any of the analyses of Seattle's minimum wage increase I've posted.

Go learn something in the A-P thread, then come back & defend your meme...



fjnmusic said:


> Unsubstantiated, error ridden meme enclosed...


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> You obviously have not read any of the analyses of Seattle's minimum wage increase I've posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Go learn something in the A-P thread, then come back & defend your meme...




Touchy touchy! You're not the boss of me—not anyone else for that matter. If you don't like the meme, then don't look at it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Do you understand the meme and what it means?


----------



## FeXL

Brilliant defence! Bravo! Bravissimo!

I guessed wrong. I wasn't expecting the recalcitrant child until next time.

Are you going to hold you bref 'til you turn blue, too?



fjnmusic said:


> You're not the boss of me...


I think the meme's fantastic. It throws into sharp relief everything you don't know about the subject.



fjnmusic said:


> If you don't like the meme, then don't look at it.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Brilliant defence! Bravo! Bravissimo!
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed wrong. I wasn't expecting the recalcitrant child until next time.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to hold you bref 'til you turn blue, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the meme's fantastic. It throws into sharp relief everything you don't know about the subject.



Is there ever a time when you don't intentionally try to be an asshole? And you wonder why the other kids don't like to sit by you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Is there ever a time when you don't intentionally try to be an asshole? And you wonder why the other kids don't like to sit by you.


Pay not attention to that meme behind the curtain...


----------



## Macfury

I'll give ya hint, fjn, to show you how simply wrong this "progressive" meme is.

_Seattle's wage has not gone up to $15._ 

That enough for you?


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Is there ever a time when you don't intentionally try to be an asshole? And you wonder why the other kids don't like to sit by you.


For a guy who continues to promote moderation, respect etc., for this board, why are you always the first to call people names? You reap what you sew.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> For a guy who continues to promote moderation, respect etc., for this board, why are you always the first to call people names? You reap what you sew.


That was yesterday evening. He turned over a whole new leaf at about 11:45pm, so he can preach at you from the pulpit about how much more enlightened he is.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> For a guy who continues to promote moderation, respect etc., for this board, why are you always the first to call people names? You reap what you sew.



It seems the guys who respond here are the negative nellies—exactly the ones I was hoping not to attract. Seriously, so hear enough of the negativity in just about every other thread. It really does get quite predictable. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That was yesterday evening. He turned over a whole new leaf at about 11:45pm, so he can preach at you from the pulpit about how much more enlightened he is.



Again, Macfury, you offer nothing of substance. Only Disagreeableness. It's boring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> It seems the guys who respond here are the negative nellies—exactly the ones I was hoping not to attract. Seriously, so hear enough of the negativity in just about every other thread. It really does get quite predictable.


Fine, but you didn't answer my question. Once again in case you missed it, why are you always the first to call people rude names when you claim the board needs moderation? What motivates you to fall to that level?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Again, Macfury, you offer nothing of substance. Only Disagreeableness. It's boring.


Follow your own advice then... put me on "ignore" or don't read the posts.


----------



## FeXL

So ya wanna know why people on these boards from the political right crawl down your throat. Fine. I don't expect you to take this information to heart anymore than you take well any form of criticism but here goes...

First off, you posted your minimum wage meme, with no accompanying explanation, supporting or deriding text, nothing. Fine. At minimum, there are at least 4 things wrong with your meme. Subscribing to the notion that finding the solution to the problem yourself is far more lasting than me merely giving you the answer once more, I responded that you go look in the A-P thread for an explanation.

The answer is on these boards. Go look for it. It's a perfectly reasonable response & one that many people on these boards have used, and followed. What part of that is assholish?

Zero. As in, none. Nada. Zip.

The assholish part comes when you respond like a spoiled child, "You're not the boss of me!!!". That's where it starts. That's the cause. You. Look in the mirror. 

I responded in kind (the effect) and now you're playing the victim card & pointing your finder at everybody else. If you would have responded in any of a myriad of other positive ways, you wouldn't have gotten the response you did from me. You didn't. I did. You own this.

You're. The. Problem.



fjnmusic said:


> Is there ever a time when you don't intentionally try to be an asshole?


I've mentioned it on these boards before: I don't care if anybody agrees with me. I will not sacrifice my integrity to belong to some twisted version of an online social club where everybody nods their head in silent agreement. I don't like crowds in the first place.



fjnmusic said:


> And you wonder why the other kids don't like to sit by you.


Let's pursue a few of these little gems further, while we're on a roll.

The hypocrisy below is stunning. Exactly what part of "Rachel's smart. She's 50!" and "You're not the boss of me!!!", along with many others, is substantive?

Please, be specific.



fjnmusic said:


> Again, Macfury, you offer nothing of substance.


What's boring is everybody sitting around in a little circle nodding their heads. What discussion arises from that?

Also, please note that dissent is not disagreeableness.



fjnmusic said:


> Only Disagreeableness. It's boring.


So, what's the thrust here? You post something & it's not up for discussion? We're all just s'pose to fire our responses in, "Gawd, fjn, that meme was...beautiful. <sniff> You really touched me, man. Made my day..."

Where's the vomiting-in-technicolor emoticon when you need it?

Take a look. You're the negative one. You're the one who refuses to respond in a mature fashion. You're the one who first breaks your own rules & resorts to name calling when the thread doesn't go the way you think it should. You're the first one to offer criticism to everybody else because you perceive your little safe space to have been been violated. Your the last one to look in the mirror and ask, am I the cause?



fjnmusic said:


> It seems the guys who respond here are the negative nellies—exactly the ones I was hoping not to attract.


What's predictable is how you will respond on these boards. You avoid real discussion of the issues like the plague. You'll squirm all over the place, red herrings, logical fallacies, obfuscations, whatever, just to avoid actual discussion of the topic.

That's what's predictable.



fjnmusic said:


> It really does get quite predictable.


----------



## Macfury

Remember when people like fjn were gleefully pointing to a study that said that socially liberal people possessed desirable traits, while conservatives/Trump supporters were troglodytic authoritarians? I hope they still stand behind that study, because the researchers have pointed out an error--the results were accidentally reversed:

Epic Correction of the Decade | Power Line



> The authors regret that there is an error in the published version of “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1), 34–51. The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in *the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed.*
> 
> Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response. Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.


So essentially, "progressives" and social liberals are the psychotic authoritarians... as we always knew.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Follow your own advice then... put me on "ignore" or don't read the posts.



You're the one you responding to my thread, buddy. Just can't keep away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Are you kidding? I love this thread!



fjnmusic said:


> You're the one you responding to my thread, buddy. Just can't keep away.


----------



## SINC

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/140489-progressive-thread-75.html#post2246625


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/140489-progressive-thread-75.html#post2246625


.


----------



## fjnmusic

One trick ponies. Sad, because there is much good material to debate here. However, a good debate requires mutual respect on both sides of the argument—particularly with those with whom one disagrees. If you wonder why I don't bother addressing some of your questions, seriously consider the manner in which you're asking them. Ask in a respectful way and you shall receive a respectful answer. If you are expecting hours of research to satisfy a meaningless comment on a forum that hardly anyone reads...well, don't hold your breath. I have a day job that pays the bills. Light conversation is fine. Rude conversation is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

For those who forgot the intent of this thread, here it is again:


This thread is for forum members who would like to consider some of the positive aspects of progressive governments that have been elected in Canada and its provinces. It is not for the complainers. No trolls please.

ETA: This thread can also serve as a discussion of progressive policies and governments in other parts of the world as well, especially with an election on the horizon in the USA. What is that makes one's views "progressive" as opposed to say, "conservative"? Is there a difference between "progressive" and "liberal" or "democrat"? Feel free to expand the scope as needed, but please always be respectful of others' views, especially those with whom you may disagree.

There are many other places where one can complain about progressive policies (The Alberta NDP Thread, ironically enough, among others), and so this thread is designed for those of us who see hope in progressive style governments and their leaders. 

For instance, today the Royalty Review was released in Alberta, looking not nearly as scary as some people feared. 

Royalties remain the same for Alberta oilsands projects, says Notley | Globalnews.ca


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> One trick ponies. Sad, because there is much good material to debate here. However, a good debate requires mutual respect on both sides of the argument—particularly with those with whom one disagrees. If you wonder why I don't bother addressing some of your questions, seriously consider the manner in which you're asking them. Ask in a respectful way and you shall receive a respectful answer. If you are expecting hours of research to satisfy a meaningless comment on a forum that hardly anyone reads...well, don't hold your breath. I have a day job that pays the bills. Light conversation is fine. Rude conversation is not.


I see that you still refuse to answer my question. Allow me to present it again:

Why are you always the first to call people rude names when you claim the board needs moderation? What motivates you to fall to that level?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I see that you still refuse to answer my question. Allow me to present it again:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you always the first to call people rude names when you claim the board needs moderation? What motivates you to fall to that level?




Not falling, Don. Just responding. You act like it's the "bad names" that crosses the line. I contend that it's the "ride behaviour" that sets up the context long before it gets to the point. One reaps what one sows. Have a nice weekend. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

People have tried it all sorts of ways with you fjn--you've simply become known as someone who can't or won't answer a single question about what you post. Nobody is holding their breath. Does it take hours of research to discover that Seattle has no $15 minimum wage? 

As to rude conversation--you've developed quite a reputation for rudeness.



fjnmusic said:


> One trick ponies. Sad, because there is much good material to debate here. However, a good debate requires mutual respect on both sides of the argument—particularly with those with whom one disagrees. If you wonder why I don't bother addressing some of your questions, seriously consider the manner in which you're asking them. Ask in a respectful way and you shall receive a respectful answer. If you are expecting hours of research to satisfy a meaningless comment on a forum that hardly anyone reads...well, don't hold your breath. I have a day job that pays the bills. Light conversation is fine. Rude conversation is not.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> For those who forgot the intent of this thread, here it is again:
> 
> 
> This thread is for forum members who would like to consider some of the positive aspects of progressive governments that have been elected in Canada and its provinces. It is not for the complainers. No trolls please.
> 
> ETA: This thread can also serve as a discussion of progressive policies and governments in other parts of the world as well, especially with an election on the horizon in the USA. What is that makes one's views "progressive" as opposed to say, "conservative"? Is there a difference between "progressive" and "liberal" or "democrat"? Feel free to expand the scope as needed, but please always be respectful of others' views, especially those with whom you may disagree.
> 
> There are many other places where one can complain about progressive policies (The Alberta NDP Thread, ironically enough, among others), and so this thread is designed for those of us who see hope in progressive style governments and their leaders.


Sorry, but this can't be a fiefdom for unchallenged comments presented without evidence.




fjnmusic said:


> For instance, today the Royalty Review was released in Alberta, looking not nearly as scary as some people feared.
> 
> Royalties remain the same for Alberta oilsands projects, says Notley | Globalnews.ca


So you're saying that Stelmach's royalty plan was always good enough--despite years of Rachel's whining that Alberta oil producers were getting away with murder.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Blah blah blah



Like many others, I set up a thread with a particular audience in mind, and deliberately disregarding the i entities of the OP you bathe right on in in troll-like fashion with your band of merry men. You should not be surprised to get the cold shoulder from me. It's not that I can't answer some of the questions you pose, it's just that I'm not really interested in pursuing those line of discourse. Of course you would know that if you would simply read the first post again. Got an axe to grind? Start your own thread! Tell those who want to know all about hit. Better than being a troll and hijacking other threats. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Sorry, but this can't be a fiefdom for unchallenged comments presented without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Stelmach's royalty plan was always good enough--despite years of Rachel's whining that Alberta oil producers were getting away with murder.



I would say that it should be completely acceptable to review the royalty regime from time to time. If it's best to leave well enough alone for the time being, so be it. Where is the problem? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Sure it is. But what part of Ed Stelmach's royalty plan is "progressive"? Unless you're now saying that the act of not changing something you have always criticized is "progressive."



fjnmusic said:


> I would say that it should be completely acceptable to review the royalty regime from time to time. If it's best to leave well enough alone for the time being, so be it. Where is the problem?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Like many others, I set up a thread with a particular audience in mind, and deliberately disregarding the i entities of the OP you bathe right on in in troll-like fashion with your band of merry men. You should not be surprised to get the cold shoulder from me. It's not that I can't answer some of the questions you pose, it's just that I'm not really interested in pursuing those line of discourse. Of course you would know that if you would simply read the first post again. Got an axe to grind? Start your own thread! Tell those who want to know all about hit. Better than being a troll and hijacking other threats.


That's me all over--bathing right in.

And I'm not surprised to get the cold shoulder from you, because you don't provide evidence to support your posts in_ any_ of the threads on EhMac. This one is not an exception.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's me all over--bathing right in.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not surprised to get the cold shoulder from you, because you don't provide evidence to support your posts in_ any_ of the threads on EhMac. This one is not an exception.



Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize John had bequeathed you the title of "mayor of ehMac" and as a result you believe you can belittle or criticize any post that appears on these forums. THAT'S why we need moderators—for people like yourself who don't seem to be able to control their own trolling habits. Always looking for a fight, and believe me, it's not only me who's noticed. Many regular contributors have left over the years due to your badgering. 

I sure hope you're a nicer person in real life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize John had bequeathed you the title of "mayor of ehMac" and as a result you believe you can belittle or criticize any post that appears on these forums.


I don't need to be mayor to poke around an open forum and comment, fjn. Is that the authoritarian in you?



fjnmusic said:


> THAT'S why we need moderators—for people like yourself who don't seem to be able to control their own trolling habits.


Appeal to authority once again? Why am i not surprised?



fjnmusic said:


> Always looking for a fight, and believe me, it's not only me who's noticed. Many regular contributors have left over the years due to your badgering.


Now you've made me nostalgic. Who were those members again?



fjnmusic said:


> I sure hope you're a nicer person in real life.


I'm a peach! In real life, I hope you have a thicker skin. I've never seen someone so immune to having their ideas challenged.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I don't need to be mayor to poke around an open forum and comment, fjn. Is that the authoritarian in you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority once again? Why am i not surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've made me nostalgic. Who were those members again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a peach! In real life, I hope you have a thicker skin. I've never seen someone so immune to having their ideas challenged.



Likewise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Again, we are in complete agreement! Dr. G. would approve.



fjnmusic said:


> Likewise.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Again, we are in complete agreement! Dr. G. would approve.


:clap::clap::clap: Paix, mes amis.


----------



## fjnmusic

> Is it time for Brian Jean to crush the Wildrose revolt against his leadership?
> 
> What is Brian Jean waiting for?
> 
> It's starting to feel like all the people closest to Wildrose leader Brian Jean are whispering, conspiring behind his back to pull a Julius Caesar on him at any moment.
> 
> Just this week, one Wildrose constituency association set the wheels in motion for a kudatah by passing a motion calling for Jean's leadership to be put to a vote at the party's upcoming convention in October.
> 
> This comes only weeks after Jean appeared to back down after facing an apparent internal backlash when he suspended his high-profile finance critic from caucus.
> 
> Of course, there can only be one reasonable response to a kudatah: randomly kicking people out of your party.
> 
> As Machiavelli points out, it takes "a lion to drive off wolves" – now is the time for mild-mannered Brian Jean to strike fear into the hearts of his Wildrose caucus.
> 
> Here is a helpful list of five potential sacrificial lambs Jean should definitely consider banishing from his party just to send a message that he's hasn't totally lost control of everything....


http://www.pressprogress.ca/is_it_t...sh_the_wildrose_revolt_against_his_leadership


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's hilarious--keep them all! Not one of them deserves to be removed, except in the minds of special snowflakes. They'll be needed to sweep up the NDP debris after the next election.



fjnmusic said:


> Is it time for Brian Jean to crush the Wildrose revolt against his leadership?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's hilarious--keep them all! Not one of them deserves to be removed, except in the minds of special snowflakes. They'll be needed to sweep up the NDP debris after the next election.




You fail to see that the WR becomes a less viable force as it implodes within its own ranks. The PC's are no better. Unless the right gets its act together, there won't BE anything to replace the NDP with in three years. And that's fine by me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It isn't imploding. Some sad "progs" _want it_ to implode.



fjnmusic said:


> You fail to see that the WR becomes a less viable force as it implodes within its own ranks. The PC's are no better. Unless the right gets its act together, there won't BE anything to replace the NDP with in three years. And that's fine by me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

It's not _your_ thread. You may have started it but that's where it ends. You don't own it any more than hundreds of other posters on these boards who started a thread.

Get over yourself, buddy.



fjnmusic said:


> You're the one you responding to my thread, buddy.


----------



## FeXL

You don't debate. Period. With anybody. No matter how politely and with sugar on top the questions are asked.



fjnmusic said:


> Sad, because there is much good material to debate here.


The reason you have no respect on these boards is because respect is earned, not given. By not debating with anyone about anything you have not earned their respect. QED...



fjnmusic said:


> However, a good debate requires mutual respect on both sides of the argument—particularly with those with whom one disagrees.


Bull****. Pure, undiluted, bull****.



fjnmusic said:


> Ask in a respectful way and you shall receive a respectful answer.


Most of your comments are meaningless. And, funny, many of us on these boards have day jobs & yet we manage to give explicit, often detailed, responses to questioners.

All you give is excuses. If you can't/won't debate the topics you post, why even bother? They're often shredded within minutes of arrival, anyway.



fjnmusic said:


> If you are expecting hours of research to satisfy a meaningless comment on a forum that hardly anyone reads...well, don't hold your breath. I have a day job that pays the bills.


----------



## FeXL

Man, I don't know what you were smoking whilst composing the post but you outta call Justin, roll up a fatty from the same stuff & get together with him. You two could make national policy together...

WTF?



fjnmusic said:


> Like many others, I set up a thread with a particular audience in mind, and deliberately disregarding the i entities of the OP you bathe right on in in troll-like fashion with your band of merry men. You should not be surprised to get the cold shoulder from me. It's not that I can't answer some of the questions you pose, it's just that I'm not really interested in pursuing those line of discourse. Of course you would know that if you would simply read the first post again. Got an axe to grind? Start your own thread! Tell those who want to know all about hit. Better than being a troll and hijacking other threats.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> You don't debate. Period. With anybody. No matter how politely and with sugar on top the questions are asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you have no respect on these boards is because respect is earned, not given. By not debating with anyone about anything you have not earned their respect. QED...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull****. Pure, undiluted, bull****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your comments are meaningless. And, funny, many of us on these boards have day jobs & yet we manage to give explicit, often detailed, responses to questioners.
> 
> 
> 
> All you give is excuses. If you can't/won't debate the topics you post, why even bother? They're often shredded within minutes of arrival, anyway.




Sorry, buddy, but you're not worth my time. Have a nice life. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Now you've made me nostalgic. Who were those members again?


You bad bastard. I bet the list is long & distinguished...


----------



## FeXL

Woe is me... :-(

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Promise? No, seriously, promise? 'Cause I'm gonna call ya on it. 

You've sworn yourself off of me several times yet, here we are, once again.



fjnmusic said:


> Sorry, buddy, but you're not worth my time.


----------



## fjnmusic

That Ezra Levant fellow sure can be litigious sometimes.




> Ezra Levant sues second Twitter user for criticizing Fort McMurray disaster relief campaign
> 
> SEAN CRAIG 06.10.2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the second time in as many weeks, Ezra Levant, head of the conservative news-site The Rebel Media, is suing a Twitter user who criticized a Rebel-promoted crowdfunding campaign for Fort McMurray disaster relief.
> 
> In a statement of claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice this week, Levant alleges that Robert Day defamed him by tweeting suggestions he or the Rebel might financially benefit from the campaign.
> 
> The Rebel’s initiative raised $162,476 from 1,094 supporters for the Canadian Red Cross’s relief operations through the website Indiegogo. According to its website, the for-profit company takes five per cent of money raised from campaigns, while an additional three to five per cent goes to PayPal and credit card charges.
> 
> Day, a computer programmer based in Ottawa, uses the social media site under the handle @CanadianCynic, where his account profile picture is of a cartoon dog from the television series Family Guy.
> 
> The statement of claim alleges that Day claimed Levant deceived donors on the account by falsely promising they could receive tax receipts and falsely claimed all funds raised would go to the Red Cross.
> 
> It then adds that Levant and the Rebel covered the Indiegogo fees and the Red Cross arranged to provide tax receipts to the crowdfunding campaign’s donors.
> 
> Levant is seeking $70,000 in damages for defamation and $25,000 in punitive and exemplary damages, which the claim says he will donate to the Red Cross.
> 
> The claim filed by Levant, an ardent free speech advocate who once called the Roma people “a shiftless group of hobos” and Pierre Trudeau a “slut,” says Day’s style is “extremely profane and malicious.”
> 
> For his part, Day has organized his own crowdfunding campaign, and is hoping to raise $10,000 for a defence fund. As of Friday afternoon, he had more than $4,000. He declined a request for comment.
> 
> This is the second online critic of the fundraising effort Levant has filed suit against in as many weeks.
> 
> Last week, The Globe and Mail reported Levant is suing Twitter user Adam Stirling, who, he says, “defamed him by tweeting the campaign could result in a tax writeoff and other benefits for Mr. Levant.”


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...criticizing+fort+mcmurray/11979231/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That Ezra Levant fellow sure can be litigious sometimes.


Looks like he's taking the correct position here.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> You bad bastard. I bet the list is long & distinguished...


Yep--they're raring to go, but they apparently stop just long enough to write up a confessional as to who made them leave.


----------



## fjnmusic

> Jun 24, 2016
> 
> Employers see benefits from paying higher wages
> 
> Some business owners find that paying above the minimum wage leads to higher productivity and quality of life among employees, as well as reduced turnover and training costs for their business.
> 
> Labour Minister Christina Gray reiterated the government’s promise to phase-in a $15-per-hour minimum wage in Alberta during a visit to a Calgary-based business specializing in high-quality personal grooming products.
> 
> “Business owners benefit when their staff can work with dignity. Our commitment to increasing the minimum wage will have long-term gains for employers, as happier employees are more likely to stay in their workplace, which reduces recruitment and training costs while helping the business succeed.”
> - Christina Gray, Minister of Labour
> 
> “We want our staff to have the economic security they need to come to work in the morning feeling proud and ready to serve our customers. We’ve found that paying a fair wage to employees reduces turnover and increases productivity. It’s good for our staff, good for our customers and great for my business.”
> - Kevin Kent, Owner, Knifewear and Kent of Inglewood
> 
> A higher minimum wage will help low-wage Albertans meet their basic needs. It will also reduce the burden on social support programs such as food banks, and increase the spending power of low-wage earners in the Alberta economy.
> 
> Key facts
> 
> Of the 300,000 Albertans who earn less than $15 per hour:
> 
> - More than 50 per cent (172,000) work full time.
> - More than 60 per cent (194,000) are women.
> - More than 70 per cent (235,000) are not students.
> - More than 33,000 Albertans earning less than $15 per hour are single earners with children.


http://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=429922B906263-FDC8-01F0-EB815A7ADB72D6DF#.V3FF0HSwHXw.facebook


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You've made a great case for a voluntary $15 wage.


----------



## Macfury

Venezuela raises minimum wage as high inflation bites - AJE News



> Pay rise of 30 percent comes amid runaway inflation and food shortages as socialist government hopes to calm tensions.


Right out of the Hugo Chavez playbook it seems. Economic devastation... with dignity.



fjnmusic said:


> Employers see benefits from paying higher wages | Alberta.ca
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

How's that increase of the minimum wage for fast food employees working out for everyone?

Zume wants to disrupt the pizza industry with robots – Tech2



> Zume is a secretive tech startup in California that wants to become the Amazon of Food. Zume wants to come up with a more efficient and cost-effective method to make Pizzas, one where humans are replaced with robots.


----------



## fjnmusic

For those who are earning the minimum wage to help pay for their University tuition, like my kids, it is a godsend. Goes up another $1/hour in October too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Every dollar your kids get in increased minimum wage makes it harder for someone else to pay their own kids' tuition. They don't just pull it out of the air.



fjnmusic said:


> For those who are earning the minimum wage to help pay for their University tuition, like my kids, it is a godsend. Goes up another $1/hour in October too.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Every dollar your kids get in increased minimum wage makes it harder for someone else to pay their own kids' tuition. They don't just pull it out of the air.



That's ignorant. My kids work hard for their money. Perhaps someone else's kids should get a job too. Honestly Macfury, think before you speak. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Where do you think the money for an unearned extra dollar per hour comes from, fjn? Some bad guy's treasure trove? Think before you speak.



fjnmusic said:


> That's ignorant. My kids work hard for their money. Perhaps someone else's kids should get a job too. Honestly Macfury, think before you speak.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

Who takes a *minimum wage* job to pay for tuition? That's some seriously questionable decision making.

When I was in school, I wasn't even looking at any summer job that didn't pay at least double the min. Sure, those were HARD jobs, but you EARNED your money instead of whining for the government to hand it over to you.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> Who takes a *minimum wage* job to pay for tuition? That's some seriously questionable decision making.
> 
> When I was in school, I wasn't even looking at any summer job that didn't pay at least double the min. Sure, those were HARD jobs, but you EARNED your money instead of whining for the government to hand it over to you.


Yup. Now parents just petition the government to force employers to pay their kids higher wages for the same amount of work. Just "the man" paying for it so they don't give a crap.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> Who takes a *minimum wage* job to pay for tuition? That's some seriously questionable decision making.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in school, I wasn't even looking at any summer job that didn't pay at least double the min. Sure, those were HARD jobs, but you EARNED your money instead of whining for the government to hand it over to you.



Yeah, thanks for that bit of unsolicited advice. Many people take what's available because that's what there is. Nothing like blaming the minimum wage earners for the fact that it's hard to make ends meet. I made $14.75/hr too at Safeway when the min wage was about $5/hr, but I didn't lord it over everybody. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yup. Now parents just petition the government to force employers to pay their kids higher wages for the same amount of work. Just "the man" paying for it so they don't give a crap.



Three out of four min wage earners are adults trying to support a family, you inconsiderate buffoon. Read up. Now I suppose you're going to misdirect and get all huffy because I just called you a buffoon. An inconsiderate one at that. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Three out of four min wage earners are adults trying to support a family, you inconsiderate buffoon. Read up.


First, you are dead wrong. Half of them are under 24, almost 45 per cent live at home with their parents and only 7 per cent are adult married sole earners with children. Read up!

But again, what does any of that matter? Wages are not social welfare programs.



fjnmusic said:


> Now I suppose you're going to misdirect and get all huffy because I just called you a buffoon. An inconsiderate one at that.


(You've already established yourself here as someone who lashes out when your arguments are flattened. Popping off with insults in impotent rage yet again isn't going to change anyone's opinion of you.)


----------



## fjnmusic

Jeez, Macfury, my figures come from Alberta Labour. Where exactly did you pull your stats from? I can guess, but it must have been a little painful. 



> Demographics
> 
> Here is what we know about Albertans who make minimum wage (2015/16 statistics):
> 
> Approximately 59,000 Albertans earn minimum wage.
> 
> The majority of minimum-wage earners (61 per cent) are female.
> 
> Approximately 43 per cent of minimum-wage earners work full time, and nearly 77 per cent have permanent jobs.
> 
> Here is what we know about low-income earners in Alberta:
> 
> Approximately 296,200 Albertans currently earn less than $15 per hour.
> 
> Over 50 per cent of those earning $15 per hour or less are the heads of households or their spouses.
> 
> Nearly 37,000 of those earning $15 per hour or less are single earners with children.


https://work.alberta.ca/employment-standards/minimum-wage.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Hint: I am using the same source of statistics you are, fjn. Only difference is that you don't understand them.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Hint: I am using the same source of statistics you are, fjn. Only difference is that you don't understand them.



Please quote the numbers from Alberta Labour that you think back up your claim, because the ones I found seem to contradict what you've said. Perhaps you are the one who does not understand them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Just look at the sample of stats you've posted--your error is plain right there.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> the ones I found seem to contradict what you've said.


What you posted lines up pretty close to what he said. 

Here's a hint: 59,000 Albertans earn earn the minimum hourly wage and only 43% of those do so full-time. Out of a population of 4.25 million.


----------



## SINC

heavyall said:


> What you posted lines up pretty close to what he said.
> 
> Here's a hint: 59,000 Albertans earn earn the minimum hourly wage and only 43% of those do so full-time. Out of a population of 4.25 million.


Yep,he ignores the obvious.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Yep,he ignores the obvious.




He does not ignore anything; you refuse to consider any viewpoint but your own. Of the 296,200 Albertans making less than $15 an hour, 85% are families with or without children, single or dual income, while a mere 15% are unattached individuals. 

Really, you guys should try reading sometime. This was released 4 days ago, so it's about current as you get.










https://work.alberta.ca/documents/minimum-wage-qas.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

They are not minimum wage earners. How much more obvious does this need to be?


----------



## SINC

What he doesn't seem to get is that there are thousands of workers who currently earn more than the minimum wage, but earn less than $15 per hour.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> What he doesn't seem to get is that there are thousands of workers who currently earn more than the minimum wage, but earn less than $15 per hour.



Hey Don, instead of talking about him, try talking to him. That would show some respect. Instead of just criticizing, why don't you present some observations of your own? 85% of earners being families as opposed to individuals is a pretty damn high number, considering $15 is the goal for minimum wage in Alberta by 2018. That seems to be the opposite of the "whiny teenager" myth about who the lowest wage earners are, unless teens are getting married and starting families these days. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> They are not minimum wage earners. How much more obvious does this need to be?



Stop criticizing and present the actual source of your stats. I don't take your word for it. Or are you too tired to bother, old man?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I already did, fjn. Good, grief, stop digging the hole deeper for yourself. You were spectacularly wrong and know you're taking it out on me to relieve your own embarrassment.

I've got a really thick skin, but I'll bet your "progressive" buddies wouldn't be thrilled to hear you throwing around "old man" as an agist insult.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> $15 is the goal for minimum wage in Alberta by 2018.


Pop quiz: what year is it NOW?


----------



## FeXL

As always, the first one to descend into name calling is the progressive in the room.

What happened to all the good will you were espousing a couple weeks back? Finals take too much out of you this year?



fjnmusic said:


> Or are you too tired to bother, old man?


----------



## SINC

This story cover it quite well clearly showing that *LESS THAN 2%* of Albertans are minimum wage earners.



> *Alberta's $15 minimum wage: How many will actually get a raise?*
> 
> Alberta is the home of high wages as residents earn around 25 per cent more than the average Canadian. Even among young people, between the ages of 15 and 24, the average wage is $18 per hour.
> 
> The province is also home to the second lowest minimum wage in the country at $10.20 per hour.
> 
> However, hardly anyone earns that amount in Alberta. *As of last year, less than two per cent of the population made the minimum wage, as compared to seven per cent nationally.*


Alberta's $15 minimum wage: How many will actually get a raise? - Calgary - CBC News


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Stop criticizing and present the actual source of your stats. I don't take your word for it. Or are you too tired to bother, old man?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



"Old man" refers to your stubbornness, which is on full display once again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> As always, the first one to descend into name calling is the progressive in the room.
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to all the good will you were espousing a couple weeks back? Finals take too much out of you this year?



Once an asshole, always an asshole. Nice to hear from you again FeXL. One does not have to name-call in order to be mean-spirited. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> This story cover it quite well clearly showing that *LESS THAN 2%* of Albertans are minimum wage earners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alberta's $15 minimum wage: How many will actually get a raise? - Calgary - CBC News



Funny, but his source is from May of 2015, and his minimum wage is off by $1 an hour. I thought he was striving for currency and accuracy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

From the horse's mouth, unless you suppose you know more about Alberta's finances than the premier does. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

HA! The minimum wage hikes won't even cover Notley's tax increases!


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That'll be a down payment on the Notley regime's carbon taxes!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> HA! The minimum wage hikes won't even cover Notley's tax increases!




The math, man, look at the math. Three out of four min wage earners are adults over 20, a far cry from the 2% FeXL cites. And since you never showed the connection between the numbers you pulled out of your arse, once again we have a situation where you only criticize others and offer nothing of substance yourself. Care to explain why the premier's numbers are wrong? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

No argument...



fjnmusic said:


> Once an asshole, always an asshole.


----------



## FeXL

I never cited anything, _especially_ anything from the CBC.

Your argument would carry a lot more weight if you actually got the details straight...



fjnmusic said:


> Three out of four min wage earners are adults over 20, a far cry from the 2% FeXL cites.


----------



## Macfury

We used the same source, fjn--you just misunderstood the stats. That's an ugly fact, but there it is.



fjnmusic said:


> The math, man, look at the math. Three out of four min wage earners are adults over 20, a far cry from the 2% FeXL cites. And since you never showed the connection between the numbers you pulled out of your arse, once again we have a situation where you only criticize others and offer nothing of substance yourself. Care to explain why the premier's numbers are wrong?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The point is that even if you got the stats right fjn, what difference does it make? Since when was merely working at a low skill job a guarantee that you should be able to raise a family on it?

If you really believe what you're saying, why are you letting your kids take scarce minimum wage jobs away from needy families who are raising _their_ kids?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Since when was merely working at a low skill job a guarantee that you should be able to raise a family on it?


Low skill, entry level positions have never been intended to raise families on. Period.



Macfury said:


> If you really believe what you're saying, why are you letting your kids take scarce minimum wage jobs away from needy families who are raising _their_ kids?


ZIING!!! beejacon


----------



## heavyall

FeXL said:


> Low skill, entry level positions have never been intended to raise families on. Period.


THIS. Behind every kid who even APPLIES for a minimum wage job, is a parent who needs a slap in the head for failing that kid so badly.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> THIS. Behind every kid who even APPLIES for a minimum wage job, is a parent who needs a slap in the head for failing that kid so badly.



Ding! Two assholes now. Maybe more. 

Who are you to judge what kind of a job a kid takes to help them while they are going to school? My 16 year old started at McD's because they were the only ones hiring when she was 14. To leave and go somewhere else means to lose all of that experience and start at the bottom rung again. At least my kids work. I know many who rely on the bank of mom and dad to pay for everything. 

You really ought to have a little more empathy for others who may not be as fortunate as you are. Arrogance does not suit you, heavyall. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Ding! You really ought to have a little more empathy for others who may not be as fortunate as you are.


If those kids were unfortunate enough to have parents that incompetent, I definitely DO have sympathy for them. It's not the kids' fault, it's the parents.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> If those kids were unfortunate enough to have parents that incompetent, I definitely DO have sympathy for them. It's not the kids' fault, it's the parents.



Thanks, buddy. It appears you are calling me incompetent because my kids work min wage jobs, or close to. Apparently you feel there are much higher paying jobs out there for kids entering the work force. Perhaps you can let the rest of us know where these $20+/hour jobs are, because I certainly don't see many apart from say the construction industry. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Your kids took those jobs from people who were trying to raise families on fast food wages. Your children stole their dignity.



fjnmusic said:


> Ding! Two assholes now. Maybe more.
> 
> Who are you to judge what kind of a job a kid takes to help them while they are going to school? My 16 year old started at McD's because they were the only ones hiring when she was 14. To leave and go somewhere else means to lose all of that experience and start at the bottom rung again. At least my kids work. I know many who rely on the bank of mom and dad to pay for everything.
> 
> You really ought to have a little more empathy for others who may not be as fortunate as you are. Arrogance does not suit you, heavyall.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Thanks, buddy. It appears you are calling me incompetent because my kids work min wage jobs, or close to.


If you can't teach your kids how valuable their time is, that's on you.



> Apparently you feel there are much higher paying jobs out there for kids entering the work force.


Your own statistics show that minimum wage is a tiny fraction of the jobs market in Alberta. 

My son, fresh out of high school, moved to Alberta specifically because there are so many really high paying jobs there. Several of his friends followed suit. Most of them were able to secure offers for more than double minimum before they even left home. These are kids who were raised to earn a living instead of expecting the government to give it to them.




> Perhaps you can let the rest of us know where these $20+/hour jobs are, because I certainly don't see many apart from say the construction industry.


Yes, good paying jobs are generally hard work. I already said that.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> If you can't teach your kids how valuable their time is, that's on you.


Empathy. You should look it up. Your comment is pretty ignorant, but not all that surprising I suppose. 



> Your own statistics show that minimum wage is a tiny fraction of the jobs market in Alberta.
> 
> 
> 
> My son, fresh out of high school, moved to Alberta specifically because there are so many really high paying jobs there. Several of his friends followed suit. Most of them were able to secure offers for more than double minimum before they even left home. These are kids who were raised to earn a living instead of expecting the government to give it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, good paying jobs are generally hard work. I already said that.



And how old is your son that he was able to move to Alberta on his own? Is he also attending a post-secondary institution?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Empathy. You should look it up. Your comment is pretty ignorant, but not all that surprising I suppose.


What is heavyall supposed to empathize with?


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Empathy. You should look it up. Your comment is pretty ignorant, but not all that surprising I suppose.


I do have empathy for your kids. I already said that.



> And how old is your son that he was able to move to Alberta on his own? Is he also attending a post-secondary institution?


He was 19. There was too much money on the table to pass it up right now. He's making hay while the sun is shining and putting that money away for future education and house buying expenses.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> I do have empathy for your kids. I already said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was 19. There was too much money on the table to pass it up right now. He's making hay while the sun is shining and putting that money away for future education and house buying expenses.



Is he working full time? That's often the differentiator for high paying jobs. My kids go to school (secondary and post-secondary) and so work part-time. Perhaps you are not taking this into account. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> What is heavyall supposed to empathize with?



It doesn't concern you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Is he working full time? That's often the differentiator for high paying jobs. My kids go to school (secondary and post-secondary) and so work part-time. Perhaps you are not taking this into account.


He's working full time right now, but he's also had part-time jobs when he was still in school (all of which still paid a lot more than min. wage). 

I thought that you were talking about your kids working full time for the summer to pay for the next year's tuition . 

Empathy for secondary school kids getting min wage? Not so much. In most cases, the level of experience and skills that they bring to the table means that even $10/hr is grossly over-paying them. The exceptions being, again, jobs that are hard work.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It doesn't concern you.


Yes, I am concerned.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> He's working full time right now, but he's also had part-time jobs when he was still in school (all of which still paid a lot more than min. wage).
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that you were talking about your kids working full time for the summer to pay for the next year's tuition .
> 
> 
> 
> Empathy for secondary school kids getting min wage? Not so much. In most cases, the level of experience and skills that they bring to the table means that even $10/hr is grossly over-paying them. The exceptions being, again, jobs that are hard work.



Well, my kids work year round. They started two and three years ago and get experience increments, but not a lot. Most people make a lot less than you seem to think. To switch jobs and retrain at this point while they are going to school would give them less security than they currently have, so they make do. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Nope. Just one...



fjnmusic said:


> Ding! Two assholes now. Maybe more.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Nope. Just one...


I think this thread should be encased in plexiglass and put in a museum so people can see how angry and insulting progressives tend to become when disagreed with.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Well, my kids work year round. They started two and three years ago and get experience increments, but not a lot. Most people make a lot less than you seem to think.


Young kids do, yes. As they should. LIke I said, I thought you were talking about university aged kids working full-time summer jobs to pay for university.



> To switch jobs and retrain at this point while they are going to school would give them less security than they currently have, so they make do.


For kids, that is categorically false, and very bad advice. In the big picture, 3 months or five years of a mall or food service job are seen on your resume as a cross between irrelevant and poor judgement. If a better opportunity comes around, they should go for it without reservation. 

From 14 to 18 my son worked about 10 different jobs. If he found a place that would pay him more, he moved over right away. Staying in a minimum wage job is almost always the wrong decision, no matter what the alternative is.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> Young kids do, yes. As they should. LIke I said, I thought you were talking about university aged kids working full-time summer jobs to pay for university.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For kids, that is categorically false, and very bad advice. In the big picture, 3 months or five years of a mall or food service job are seen on your resume as a cross between irrelevant and poor judgement. If a better opportunity comes around, they should go for it without reservation.
> 
> 
> 
> From 14 to 18 my son worked about 10 different jobs. If he found a place that would pay him more, he moved over right away. Staying in a minimum wage job is almost always the wrong decision, no matter what the alternative is.



Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine. 10 jobs in four years can also look like an unreliable employee on a resume, whereas loyalty can be a valued quality. I really wish you'd stop judging my kids' decision to work the jobs they do. It's not your place. And it's not your job to judge my parenting skills either, and I'm not about to judge yours. This is where you frequently cross the line by making it personal. It makes you hard to have a conversation with. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjn you haven't addressed the fact that your kids are stealing jobs from hard working adults making the minimum wage and supporting families.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> fjn you haven't addressed the fact that your kids are stealing jobs from hard working adults making the minimum wage and supporting families.



And I don't intend to, since it's an idiotic assertion. It's not a good idea to feed the trolls. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And I don't intend to, since it's an idiotic assertion. It's not a good idea to feed the trolls.


Your own figures showed that wage earners relied on these jobs to support their families. Your kids have cost them their dignity.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine. 10 jobs in four years can also look like an unreliable employee on a resume, whereas loyalty can be a valued quality. I really wish you'd stop judging my kids' decision to work the jobs they do. It's not your place.


If you're 40 and you switch jobs that much, sure. But it's exactly the opposite when it comes to young people. Kids loyal to bad jobs are seen as suckers. They're the ones that an employer knows he can offer a low-ball wage to, and they'll probably take it. Someone with varied experience and who knows their worth can't be bullied into taking a crap wage or crap working conditions. 



> And it's not your job to judge my parenting skills either, and I'm not about to judge yours. This is where you frequently cross the line by making it personal. It makes you hard to have a conversation with.


Your parenting skill absolutely ARE in question if you're telling your kids that staying at a minimum wage job is a good idea, Doubly so if you are filling their heads with the same nonsense you're spewing here that better paying jobs are not easily found. By your own account, your kids don't even know their worth in the jobs market. If that is not your fault, whose fault is it?


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> If you're 40 and you switch jobs that much, sure. But it's exactly the opposite when it comes to young people. Kids loyal to bad jobs are seen as suckers. They're the ones that an employer knows he can offer a low-ball wage to, and they'll probably take it. Someone with varied experience and who knows their worth can't be bullied into taking a crap wage or crap working conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your parenting skill absolutely ARE in question if you're telling your kids that staying at a minimum wage job is a good idea, Doubly so if you are filling their heads with the same nonsense you're spewing here that better paying jobs are not easily found. By your own account, your kids don't even know their worth in the jobs market. If that is not your fault, whose fault is it?



And your parenting skills are absolutely in question if you set the same example for them that you set here. You're teaching your kids to be intolerant hostile pricks. But whatever floats your boat, buddy. I believe I'm done with you. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> And your parenting skills are absolutely in question if you set the same example for them that you set here.


The example to be strong assets to their community and in turn in the job market? To know their worth and to seek out others who respect that?



> You're teaching your kids to be intolerant hostile pricks.


Far from it. My kids are leaders who easily get along with almost anyone, and know how to get things done. They are honor roll students, provincial and national championship level athletes, incredibly hard workers, and they understand how the job market works.



> But whatever floats your boat, buddy. I believe I'm done with you.


Not surprised. The insults and the rage-quit are your standard M.O. when you don't have any actual answers.


----------



## fjnmusic

> Trudeau’s Liberals would sweep House of Commons seats if vote held today, new poll suggests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By ALLAN WOODSQuebec Bureau
> Sun., July 10, 2016
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals continue to command the support of half of Canadians, according to a new poll that projects the party would win 80 per cent of the seats if an election were held today.
> 
> Long after a governing party’s honeymoon with voters would have traditionally ended, the Forum Research survey of 1,429 people instead found the Grits are buoyant with 52 per cent of respondents, saying they would vote Liberal compared to 28 per cent for the Conservatives and 11 per cent for the NDP.
> 
> Part of the Liberal support can be attributed to the fact that the Conservative Party is without a permanent leader and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair is slated to resign from politics once his party selects a replacement. The other part is due to a bona fide connection Trudeau’s party seems to be making with the public as Parliament breaks for the summer months.
> 
> “This is a honeymoon that doesn’t seem to show any signs of abating,” said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research.
> 
> Trudeau’s Liberals had a tough fight in the House of Commons pushing controversial euthanasia legislation into law, which might have been expected to take some of the lustre from the governing party. But Trudeau has also been lauded for being the first Canadian prime minister to march in Toronto’s Pride parade while also revelling by U.S. President Barack Obama’s side during a recent visit to Ottawa.


https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ats-if-vote-held-today-new-poll-suggests.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I would expect those results when neither the Conservatives or NDP have undergone leadership campaigns. It will also take about a year for Justin's amateur hour decisions to take their toll on the economy. He doesn't work as quickly as Notley!


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> I would expect those results when neither the Conservatives or NDP have undergone leadership campaigns. It will also take about a year for Justin's amateur hour decisions to take their toll on the economy. He doesn't work as quickly as Notley!


An astute observation McFury. And, if I were running the campaigns for the other parties I would delay my leadership vote as long as possible.


----------



## MacGuiver2.0

If you look at that graph, the Liberals rise is all at the expense of the NDP. Conservative support has remained fairly solid. Now if the NDP don't get a handsome/pretty social media darling, they could see their numbers stay in the toilet and we'll get PM Zoolander for another term. Then again when things start to implode, selfies will count for nothing.


----------



## chasMac

The libs' gains do strikingly mirror the ndp's decline. For this reason we should encourage a robust ndp. Vote splitting is likely the cons' only shot to get elected. Worked magic for notley. 



MacGuiver2.0 said:


> If you look at that graph, the Liberals rise is all at the expense of the NDP. Conservative support has remained fairly solid. Now if the NDP don't get a handsome/pretty social media darling, they could see their numbers stay in the toilet and we'll get PM Zoolander for another term. Then again when things start to implode, selfies will count for nothing.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver2.0 said:


> If you look at that graph, the Liberals rise is all at the expense of the NDP. Conservative support has remained fairly solid. Now if the NDP don't get a handsome/pretty social media darling, they could see their numbers stay in the toilet and we'll get PM Zoolander for another term. Then again when things start to implode, selfies will count for nothing.



Conservative support has remained fairly solid—at about 28%. Not nearly enough to win an election. That means 72% of voters prefer a party further to the left on the political spectrum. Canada usually shifts its preferences every ten years or so, so you might as well get used to Prime Minister "Zoolander."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

Frank, I think we must take into account the Block and the voter dynamic in Quebec. Their ability to change votes rapidly is a part of the electoral ecosystem within Canada and that ability to change within a jurisdictional span cannot be underestimated....the NDP under Layton is a classic example.


----------



## MacGuiver2.0

fjnmusic said:


> Conservative support has remained fairly solid—at about 28%. Not nearly enough to win an election. That means 72% of voters prefer a party further to the left on the political spectrum. Canada usually shifts its preferences every ten years or so, so you might as well get used to Prime Minister "Zoolander."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree we will see Zoolander for another term if the economy doesn't implode on his watch.


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Frank, I think we must take into account the Block and the voter dynamic in Quebec. Their ability to change votes rapidly is a part of the electoral ecosystem within Canada and that ability to change within a jurisdictional span cannot be underestimated....the NDP under Layton is a classic example.



I think you're right. Mulcair just doesn't have the personality for it. As long as Trudeau can appease the Quebec voters—and why wouldn't he?—the Liberals could remain in power for quite some time. There is no right left to unite. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Trudeau is their best hope for separatism now.



fjnmusic said:


> I think you're right. Mulcair just doesn't have the personality for it. As long as Trudeau can appease the Quebec voters—and why wouldn't he?—the Liberals could remain in power for quite some time. There is no right left to unite.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Trudeau is their best hope for separatism now.



Please explain. Trudeau has gone on record against Mulcair saying that he agrees with the Supreme Court—50 plus one is not sufficient to break up a country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Trudeau's centralist views typically (and rightfully) inflame Quebec separatists who see the feds encroaching on provincial jurisdiction.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Trudeau's centralist views typically (and rightfully) inflame Quebec separatists who see the feds encroaching on provincial jurisdiction.



Example? That's a pretty vague assertion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

> Welcome Back To A (Much) More Progressive Alberta, Jason Kenney
> 4 hours ago | Updated 3 hours ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back to Alberta, Jason Kenney. A lot has changed here since you left for Ottawa in 1997. Here are the Coles Notes.
> 
> Almost 980,000 people have moved here since you were first elected as a 29-year old Reform Party MP. That’s a city bigger than Edmonton that’s moved to Alberta in the past 19 years and it’s all thanks to massive amounts of international and inter-provincial migration. Alberta is now one of the youngest, most educated and most urban provinces in all of Canada.
> 
> And this new mass of Albertans does not have a deep connection to traditional conservative Alberta politics. When you compare Alberta to the rest of Canada we are a demographic anomaly. In Alberta there are more millenials and generation Xers than baby boomers.
> 
> Alberta’s population has also become more educated over the past 20 years. In 2014 almost 26 per cent of Alberta had a university degree, double the amount in 1991. And in a December 2015 poll done by Abacus Data and commissioned by Progress Alberta, you will find that two out of three people with a university degree view themselves as progressive.
> 
> David Coletto of Abacus Data analyzed the data and found that “those living in either Edmonton or Calgary were more likely to self-identify as progressive than those living in other regions of the province. Progressive identifiers were also more likely to have higher levels of education, and more likely to live in urban communities.”
> 
> Values have also shifted. The proof is in long-term polling data from Faron Ellis at Lethbridge College. He has asked the same six questions since 2009 and you see a genuine movement towards progressive values.
> 
> Support for gay marriage having the same legal status as traditional marriage has increased from 65.7 per cent in 2009 to 81.7 per cent in 2015
> Support for legalized doctor-assisted suicide went from 64.3 per cent in 2009 to 80.6 per cent in 2015.
> Support for decriminalization of marijuana has gone from 36.5 per cent in 2009 to 51.1 per cent in 2015.
> Where do you think Jason Kenney stands on these issues?
> 
> Perhaps most importantly, more Albertans identify as progressive than conservative. When we asked Albertans to rank themselves on an ideological scale, 38 per cent identified as progressive, 31 per cent identified as centrist and 30 per cent identified as conservative.
> 
> When we asked respondents to rank “Albertans in general” on the same scale the conservative number came out at 53 per cent. Alberta is more progressive as you think. And it’s not like you need to dig through the polling and demographic data to find this out — look to the latest election results.
> 
> The same centrist/progressive/urban voting coalition that voted in Redford in 2012 voted
> for Notley in 2015 and they’re not going away. And while the Kenney hype train is currently at full speed, there are a few downsides to his candidacy that you should keep in mind.
> 
> He’s never had to face a real opponent. He’s spent the majority of his career in the back room. His social conservative politics play terribly in Alberta. And a Jason Kenney led government would be directly responsible for service delivery of both education and health care. Think of abortion, GSAs, trans rights and the like.
> 
> He’s also a tremendously divisive figure within the PC party. This is a man who openly campaigned against the PCs for the last two provincial elections. Kenney despises red Tories and progressives more than any politician around.
> 
> Kenney fancies himself as the one man who can unite the right. And he may very well be the great uniter — it’s just far more likely that the left and the centre unite to defeat him than the other way around.
> 
> While conservatives in Alberta are certainly very well funded, well connected and very vocal, they’re not the majority. The progressive and centrist vote in Alberta is the new quiet majority. A lot can change in 19 years. Welcome back, Jason.


http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/10906234


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

By Duncan Kinney, director of "Progress Alberta." One problem with Huffpost is that it basically acts as a trash can for free contributions.


----------



## SINC

Man that is a suspect piece if I've ever seen one. And I have seen too many in my day.


----------



## fjnmusic

So it's suspect because you don't agree with the writer? Much the same way that many of us question anything that appears in Rebel Media? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> So it's suspect because you don't agree with the writer? Much the same way that many of us question anything that appears in Rebel Media?


It is suspect because it is not written by a Huff Post staffer nor is it identified as a possible paid piece. Not to hard to understand that type of suspicion, is it?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> It is suspect because it is not written by a Huff Post staffer nor is it identified as a possible paid piece. Not to hard to understand that type of suspicion, is it?



Well, if one considers the Huffington Post to be a reputable source, which I do, then I imagine they have vetted this contribution already. I don't keep track of who individual writers are for various publications, and I imagine neither do most people. I think you're reaching here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

_Huffington Post _does not pay its contributors. Anybody can contribute whatever they want. They value the fact that the content is free, not that it is vetted.



fjnmusic said:


> Well, if one considers the Huffington Post to be a reputable source, which I do, then I imagine they have vetted this contribution already. I don't keep track of who individual writers are for various publications, and I imagine neither do most people. I think you're reaching here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver2.0

I don't think its beyond the realm of possibility that Alberta can be shifting left. With the steady stream of workers coming from the Liberal bastions of Canada, it bound to have an effect. If you just look at the last election, as a conservative I could never be comfortable voting for the NDP. I'd take the least crappy of the crappy conservative options before I'd cast a ballot for socialism. I think you'd have to be somewhat open to their policies to make that leap, even in a protest vote. I doubt however that its hit the tipping point at this time but I may be wrong. Could the NDP or Liberals win the next election? I live in Ontario where we voted in a corrupt Liberal government with a hideous track record time and time again. Never underestimate the stupidity or greed of voters on the government teat.


----------



## Macfury

Certainly the civil service is large enough in Alberta to swing some votes!


----------



## fjnmusic

Some good entertainment for us progressive types from the increasingly unfocused conservative-minded parties in Alberta.



> Trampled at the Stampede: The betrayal of Brian Jean
> 
> Harper and Kenney may be setting up Alberta's Right for civil war
> 
> Brent Rathgeber
> Wednesday, July 13th, 2016
> 
> The Calgary Stampede is one of our nation’s biggest parties: fun, food, sunshine and Stetsons. And politics — intense politics. Barbecues and pancake breakfasts offer an excellent backdrop for speeches, handshaking and the informal one-on-one discussions upon which deals are made.
> 
> The annual riding association barbecue in Stephen Harper’s riding of Calgary Heritage is a must-attend event for conservatives all over Alberta and points east. It attracts about 700 loyalists, all dressed up in cowboy and cowgirl gear.
> 
> Wildrose Leader Brian Jean was in the crowd for this year’s riding association BBQ — feeling less than festive, no doubt. Patrons were expecting Harper merely to announce that he was resigning as their MP. Instead, he enthusiastically and unequivocally endorsed Jason Kenney for the leadership of the PC Party of Alberta — instantly turning a social gathering into a campaign event.
> 
> It’s important to remember just how unusual an action this was for the former prime minister. When Harper was running things, Conservative MPs were expressly discouraged from wading into provincial politics. When the Harperites were in power, PMO staffers frequently reminded caucus members that, as the federal government, “we” had to deal with the people in power at the provincial level, no matter what party “they” represented.
> 
> But with the PCs out of power in Alberta and the CPC in Opposition in Ottawa, the rules seem to have changed. Either that, or the MP for Calgary Heritage assumes the rules that applied to his caucus don’t apply to him. They don’t apply to interim CPC leader Rona Ambrose either; she also endorsed Kenney, as Harper encouraged all CPC members in Alberta to join Kenney’s campaign to lead the PC Party into oblivion.
> 
> And that may be the strangest part of this strange dynamic. I can’t recall another example of it in Canadian politics — a candidate for party leadership promising to destroy the party he hopes to lead.


http://ipolitics.ca/2016/07/13/trampled-at-the-stampede-the-betrayal-of-brian-jean/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You misunderstood what is happening entirely. The conservatives are uniting by force and kicking the "progressive" out of Progressive Conservative.



fjnmusic said:


> Some good entertainment for us progressive types from the increasingly unfocused conservative-minded parties in Alberta.
> 
> 
> 
> Trampled at the Stampede: The betrayal of Brian Jean
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You misunderstood what is happening entirely. The conservatives are uniting by force and kicking the "progressive" out of Progressive Conservative.



Seems to me you are the one who is misunderstanding what's going on here, from your safe little home near Toronto. The parties on the right are having a pissing contest and ultimately cancelling each other out once again (which is fine by me). Ever heard of the expression "hoisted by your own petards"? Kenney will be even less effective than Prentice, which will be quite an accomplishment, as the leader to unite the right. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's your prediction, but it is not what is happening right now.

In what way are the parties of the (not very) right "canceling each other out once again?" There is no effective opposition to the rapid economic destruction of the Notley regime brought on by an accidental majority. 

My home near Toronto is certainly not safe as Kathleen Wynne also destroys Ontario's economy in much the same way that Notley is doing. Same plans, predictable results.



fjnmusic said:


> Seems to me you are the one who is misunderstanding what's going on here, from your safe little home near Toronto. The parties on the right are having a pissing contest and ultimately cancelling each other out once again (which is fine by me). Ever heard of the expression "hoisted by your own petards"? Kenney will be even less effective than Prentice, which will be quite an accomplishment, as the leader to unite the right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's your prediction, but it is not what is happening right now.
> 
> 
> 
> In what way are the parties of the (not very) right "canceling each other out once again?" There is no effective opposition to the rapid economic destruction of the Notley regime brought on by an accidental majority.
> 
> 
> 
> My home near Toronto is certainly not safe as Kathleen Wynne also destroys Ontario's economy in much the same way that Notley is doing. Same plans, predictable results.



You assume you know more about Alberta than I do and I've lived in Alberta for over half a century now. The WR and the PC's are cancelling each other out because neither wants to surrender their identity to join with the other to "unite the right." And with other entities like the Alberta Reform Party coming on board, it will only get more divisive. Which is fine by me, because the PC's have had 44 years in which to mismanage our resource revenue and attempt to dismantle our public services. In Alberta, once a governing party is defeated, it never returns to power. Jason Kenney is an idiot, and Harper is an idiot to endorse him. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You assume you know more about Alberta than I do and I've lived in Alberta for over half a century now. The WR and the PC's are cancelling each other out because neither wants to surrender their identity to join with the other to "unite the right." And with other entities like the Alberta Reform Party coming on board, it will only get more divisive.


They're not canceling each other out--they're vying for power.



fjnmusic said:


> Which is fine by me, because the PC's have had 44 years in which to mismanage our resource revenue and attempt to dismantle our public services.


That was a miserable failure. Alberta's public service is among the most bloated and well-paid in Confederation!



fjnmusic said:


> In Alberta, once a governing party is defeated, it never returns to power.


Based on four samples over the space of a century?


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> In Alberta, once a governing party is defeated, it never returns to power.


With the exception of Nothead's NDP. They will be the first example of being tossed out on their butts after a single term and guarantee their departure in 19 by their stupid actions every single day.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> They're not canceling each other out--they're vying for power.


Excellent! Vy away. It's great to watch and eat popcorn. Brian Jean is the only one who's actually earned the right to be leader of the opposition, and Kenney and Harper ignore him at their peril. 









> That was a miserable failure. Alberta's public service is among the most bloated and well-paid in Confederation!


Again you speak from ignorance. I lived through the massive cuts and job insecurity of the 90's under Ralph. I know. You don't.





> Based on four samples over the space of a century?



Yup. That ought to tell you something, if you're paying attention. What it ought to tell you is that the PC's in this province are done like dinner. Better together behind the WR than flog a dead horse. But flog away, if they want to. Just decreases the chances of the right-wing regaining power and that's fine by me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> With the exception of Nothead's NDP. They will be the first example of being tossed out on their butts after a single term and guarantee their departure in 19 by their stupid actions every single day.



fjn's formula may well hold--I doubt the NDP will ever be elected again. Trust me SINC, it will one day fade to the status of a very bad but vivid nightmare. It's been 25 years since Bob Rae vacated office and recalling the day of the defeat of his accidental government still brings a smile to my face.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> EAgain you speak from ignorance. I lived through the massive cuts and job insecurity of the 90's under Ralph. I know. You don't.


It came back with a bloody vengeance!



fjnmusic said:


> up. That ought to tell you something, if you're paying attention. What it ought to tell you is that the PC's in this province are done like dinner. Better together behind the WR than flog a dead horse. But flog away, if they want to. Just decreases the chances of the right-wing regaining power and that's fine by me.


It doesn't show me much of anything. The sample is too small and is taken over too great a time period.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> fjn's formula may well hold--I doubt the NDP will ever be elected again. Trust me SINC, it will one day fade to the status of a very bad but vivid nightmare. It's been 25 years since Bob Rae vacated office and recalling the day of the defeat of his accidental government still brings a smile to my face.


The state of the Alberta NDP.


----------



## FeXL

And you speak from ignorance, as well.

We've already been over this. It was a temporary, 5% cut. And what job insecurity?

Wait 'til Red Rachel's done with you. You'll be wishing it's only 5%...



fjnmusic said:


> Again you speak from ignorance. I lived through the massive cuts and job insecurity of the 90's under Ralph. I know. You don't.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> And you speak from ignorance, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> We've already been over this. It was a temporary, 5% cut. And what job insecurity?
> 
> 
> 
> Wait 'til Red Rachel's done with you. You'll be wishing it's only 5%...



Boy, talk about resurrecting a dead comment. 5% eight years in a row is the equivalent of a 40% cut in one year. It was supposed to be temporary, but it wasn't. Somehow, I don't see Rachel making further cuts to public sector wages. Remind me in a year from now if I'm wrong. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Why should she be making any wage cuts to public sector union jobs straight off? NDP governments are all committed to bloating the civil sector. However, as economic malfeasance takes its toll, there may be other ways to take wage hikes back--like unpaid holidays and increased taxes. Even given the tax burden laid on workers by the Notley Regime so far, I can't see net wages going anywhere but backward.



fjnmusic said:


> Boy, talk about resurrecting a dead comment. 5% eight years in a row is the equivalent of a 40% cut in one year. It was supposed to be temporary, but it wasn't. Somehow, I don't see Rachel making further cuts to public sector wages. Remind me in a year from now if I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why should she be making any wage cuts to public sector union jobs straight off? NDP governments are all committed to bloating the civil sector. However, as economic malfeasance takes its toll, there may be other ways to take wage hikes back--like unpaid holidays and increased taxes. Even given the tax burden laid on workers by the Notley Regime so far, I can't see net wages going anywhere but backward.



Well you keep believing whatever gets you through the night. I have sacrificed for the good of the province. Twice. Under two PC regimes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Seriously, given the carbon taxes and other tax/user fee increases, do you think you'll come out of this ahead?



fjnmusic said:


> Well you keep believing whatever gets you through the night. I have sacrificed for the good of the province. Twice. Under two PC regimes.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Seriously, given the carbon taxes and other tax/user fee increases, do you think you'll come out of this ahead?



Considering that GST/PST in,say, Manitoba is currently 13%, while I pay 5% as an Albertan, I'd say, yeah, I'll come out ahead of people from other provinces for a while yet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I asked you whether you will come out ahead compared to the previous tax rates/user fees in Alberta. Bet you're in for a net income downgrade.



fjnmusic said:


> Considering that GST/PST in,say, Manitoba is currently 13%, while I pay 5% as an Albertan, I'd say, yeah, I'll come out ahead of people from other provinces for a while yet.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I asked you whether you will come out ahead compared to the previous tax rates/user fees in Alberta. Bet you're in for a net income downgrade.



We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You don't need to wait and see. How much of an increase do you expect your union to ask for, just to cover the cost of current tax and user fee increases? Anything less than that and your real wages are going down.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You don't need to wait and see. How much of an increase do you expect your union to ask for, just to cover the cost of current tax and user fee increases? Anything less than that and your real wages are going down.



Joe, my wages have gone done in real terms since Alison Redford came in in 2012 and what's worse is that she conned teachers and nurses into getting her in as premier. The wage freeze for three years (with a whopping 2% In the fourth year) was as bad or worse than the 5% cut for eight years by Ralph Klein. At least we could still negotiate increases each year then, albeit from a lower starting point.

How have your wages fared over the last 25 years for comparison? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

And still, Alberta teacher's salaries are at the top of Canada's food chain. How is that possible with all of these freezes and cuts? Not a rhetorical question.

Not as easy to compare, but I would say that overall the salary offerings have gone down in real terms over 25 years. At best, flat. 



fjnmusic said:


> Joe, my wages have gone done in real terms since Alison Redford came in in 2012 and what's worse is that she conned teachers and nurses into getting her in as premier. The wage freeze for three years (with a whopping 2% In the fourth year) was as bad or worse than the 5% cut for eight years by Ralph Klein. At least we could still negotiate increases each year then, albeit from a lower starting point.
> 
> How have your wages fared over the last 25 years for comparison?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> And still, Alberta teacher's salaries are at the top of Canada's food chain. How is that possible with all of these freezes and cuts? Not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> Not as easy to compare, but I would say that overall the salary offerings have gone down in real terms over 25 years. At best, flat.



This is why, though you and others may find it shocking, that Notley's government may actually increase public sector wages, if only by a token amount, say 2% a year. Not enough to keep pace with inflation, but a show of faith in any event. I don't know why or even if you're correct about remuneration for teachers in the rest of Canada. As far as people being laid off in other industries whole public sector workers get a raise—hey nobody put a gun to their heads and told them to work on the rigs. They knew the risks and insecurities going into it, and they were making six figures easily when the rest of us were roughing it out. Never hurts to have a backup plan. 

I do feel bad for the folks in Fort Mac who both got laid off and lost their homes though. My band did a fundraiser for them and raised about $9000 in one night with government matching contributions. One day the economy will recover and rig workers will make obscene wages again.

So do you refer to salary offerings in general being flat over the last 25 years or the offerings in your own profession? Not a rhetorical question. I like to see how other lines of work compare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Your observations on cuts were just as incorrect then as they are now. That's why I revisit the subject.

Spin the numbers any way you want, a 5% cut is a 5% cut. Not 30% & not 40%, despite what your teacher's coffee klatch says to the contrary.



fjnmusic said:


> Boy, talk about resurrecting a dead comment. 5% eight years in a row is the equivalent of a 40% cut in one year.


You're not wrong. Financially she doesn't have a clew. Politically she has all the instincts of a snake. The only chance Red Rachel has of getting re-elected is if she caters to the same people who got her elected in the first place: the public sector. She ain't gonna burn that bridge.



fjnmusic said:


> Somehow, I don't see Rachel making further cuts to public sector wages. Remind me in a year from now if I'm wrong.


Excellent! As a good little Prog, you shouldn't have any issues sharing your fortune with the Collective. After all, that's what socialists do, no?

In addition, there are damn few people in this province who have not made sacrifices and many who have taken a far greater hit than your lousy 5% 20 years ago. Get over yourself. It's not all about you...



fjnmusic said:


> I have sacrificed for the good of the province. Twice. Under two PC regimes.


That's pretty f'ing cold. This coming from a guy who supports $15/hr minimum wages. I could say exactly the same about all the fry guys, burger flippers & other minmum wage earners: nobody put a gun to their heads. They knew the wages going in.

And where's _their_ backup plan? A provincially mandated minimum wage which will force small businesses (the driving force in any market economy) to close down, prices to increase for those who don't close, unemployment rates to go up and EI rates to be raised to cover the increase in recipients? Brilliant...

Throw in a Carbon Tax & you have a perfect storm. Oh, wait...

As to "roughing it" on an Alberta teacher's salary, I don't think that phrase means what you think it means...



fjnmusic said:


> As far as people being laid off in other industries whole public sector workers get a raise—hey nobody put a gun to their heads and told them to work on the rigs. They knew the risks and insecurities going into it, and they were making six figures easily when the rest of us were roughing it out. Never hurts to have a backup plan.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Your observations on cuts were just as incorrect then as they are now. That's why I revisit the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Spin the numbers any way you want, a 5% cut is a 5% cut. Not 30% & not 40%, despite what your teacher's coffee klatch says to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not wrong. Financially she doesn't have a clew. Politically she has all the instincts of a snake. The only chance Red Rachel has of getting re-elected is if she caters to the same people who got her elected in the first place: the public sector. She ain't gonna burn that bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! As a good little Prog, you shouldn't have any issues sharing your fortune with the Collective. After all, that's what socialists do, no?
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, there are damn few people in this province who have not made sacrifices and many who have taken a far greater hit than your lousy 5% 20 years ago. Get over yourself. It's not all about you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty f'ing cold. This coming from a guy who supports $15/hr minimum wages. I could say exactly the same about all the fry guys, burger flippers & other minmum wage earners: nobody put a gun to their heads. They knew the wages going in.
> 
> 
> 
> And where's _their_ backup plan? A provincially mandated minimum wage which will force small businesses (the driving force in any market economy) to close down, prices to increase for those who don't close, unemployment rates to go up and EI rates to be raised to cover the increase in recipients? Brilliant...
> 
> 
> 
> Throw in a Carbon Tax & you have a perfect storm. Oh, wait...
> 
> 
> 
> As to "roughing it" on an Alberta teacher's salary, I don't think that phrase means what you think it means...



Thanks for your input. A pleasure as always. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Thx for your lack of response. Typical, as always.



fjnmusic said:


> Thanks for your input. A pleasure as always.


----------



## FeXL

Nobody who was informed on the issues voted for Queenie. 

I'm sorry you & your group vote colleagues felt duped but it was painfully obvious from the get go that she was an opportunist who was not reputable & was not the candidate to be voting for.



fjnmusic said:


> ...Alison Redford...conned teachers and nurses into getting her in as premier.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Thx for your lack of response. Typical, as always.



It was a response, just not the kind you were looking for. Have a good evening. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Nobody who was informed on the issues voted for Queenie.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you & your group vote colleagues felt duped but it was painfully obvious from the get go that she was an opportunist who was not reputable & was not the candidate to be voting for.



There were not a lot of viable alternatives at the time, but point taken. Thanks for that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

I understand. Something intelligible & defensible, with reason & foresight, is far too much to expect. No disappointments. I've come to anticipate this...



fjnmusic said:


> It was a response, just not the kind you were looking for. Have a good evening.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> I understand. Something intelligible & defensible, with reason & foresight, is far too much to expect. No disappointments. I've come to anticipate this...



You seem to have a lot of pent up anger. Sorry to hear that. Good luck coming to terms with it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjn, you often mistake disappointment in a fellow human being for anger.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> fjn, you often mistake disappointment in a fellow human being for anger.



You seem awfully concerned with making observations about me, and you're usually the first to comment about anything I write. It's flattering, Macfury, but really, you don't need to obsess. I'll be alright. Thanks for your concern. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I don't want you to confuse clinical interest for concern, fjn! If someone else posted in the manner that you do, I would have just as much interest in responding.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I don't want you to confuse clinical interest for concern, fjn! If someone else posted in the manner that you do, I would have just as much interest in responding.



And please tell me what credentials you have to support your "clinical interest."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Clinical means detached, fjn. What I'm saying is that your posts do not interest me because they are posted by you, but because of the "progressive" ideas contained in them and how they are expressed. If someone else posted similar content, it would certainly divert my attention from what you post. 



fjnmusic said:


> And please tell me what credentials you have to support your "clinical interest."


----------



## FeXL

Anger? LMAO!!! :lmao:

On the contrary, the entertainment value derived from the hilarity of your posts is worth the price of admission alone! I love to watch you plod along in your blinkered little Progressive world...

I ran across a fellow at a craft brewery in Spokane just last week who held the selfsame values as you: progressive, socialist, union-loving, disappointed Bernie was out of the running, etc., etc., etc. He'd have been 60-ish.

What started the conversation was that he'd bought into the whole Dem party line about 4.9% unemployment. I just about spewed my beer across the table.

In an hour & before I finished my pint I had destroyed every single point, every argument he came up with, from BLM to Bill's Wife. Just like I do here with you. Just like you here, he had nothing but leftist narrative, a complete paucity of actual facts.

There was no anger. It was simply a fact by fact systematic destruction of everything he held dear. He kept on claiming that it was a matter of what news sources a person listened to. I told him that it was a matter of wilful ignorance to not get both sides of the story.

I finished my beer & left soon after. 

I think I made him cry...



fjnmusic said:


> You seem to have a lot of pent up anger.


----------



## FeXL

What's this? A logical fallacy? An appeal to authority?

Couldn't be...



fjnmusic said:


> And please tell me what credentials you have to support your "clinical interest."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Clinical means detached, fjn. What I'm saying is that your posts do not interest me because they are posted by you, but because of the "progressive" ideas contained in them and how they are expressed. If someone else posted similar content, it would certainly divert my attention from what you post.



Well you're certainly the first one to jump in with a response. Every. Damn. Time. I'm flattered, but I truly wish you weren't quite so interested in me, even from a "detached" point of view. 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Anger? LMAO!!! :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the entertainment value derived from the hilarity of your posts is worth the price of admission alone! I love to watch you plod along in your blinkered little Progressive world...
> 
> 
> 
> I ran across a fellow at a craft brewery in Spokane just last week who held the selfsame values as you: progressive, socialist, union-loving, disappointed Bernie was out of the running, etc., etc., etc. He'd have been 60-ish.
> 
> 
> 
> What started the conversation was that he'd bought into the whole Dem party line about 4.9% unemployment. I just about spewed my beer across the table.
> 
> 
> 
> In an hour & before I finished my pint I had destroyed every single point, every argument he came up with, from BLM to Bill's Wife. Just like I do here with you. Just like you here, he had nothing but leftist narrative, a complete paucity of actual facts.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no anger. It was simply a fact by fact systematic destruction of everything he held dear. He kept on claiming that it was a matter of what news sources a person listened to. I told him that it was a matter of wilful ignorance to not get both sides of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> I finished my beer & left soon after.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I made him cry...



Unfortunately you mistake "destroying somebody" with having an actual conversation. The tactic is immature. Ignoring you also does not make you go away. It's a shame, because there might actually be a decent person buried beneath all those layers of crusty self-defense. Have a good day, amigo. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Read closer: I didn't destroy anybody. I did, however, destroy his arguments. And, an actual conversation is not required to destroy an argument. It can be done online, like, say, here!



fjnmusic said:


> Unfortunately you mistake "destroying somebody" with having an actual conversation.


Trying to figger out how destroying an argument is immature...



fjnmusic said:


> The tactic is immature.


Ignore away. You've attempted & failed a number of times. Just because you ignore me does not mean I'm going to stop addressing the inanity in your posts.



fjnmusic said:


> Ignoring you also does not make you go away.


Nope. Not a chance. Ask anybody on these boards...



fjnmusic said:


> It's a shame, because there might actually be a decent person...


Now, this truly has me puzzled. In addition to everything else, you a shrink, fjn? 'Cause if you are, you may wish a second opinion.



fjnmusic said:


> ...buried beneath all those layers of crusty self-defense.


And you, tovarisch...



fjnmusic said:


> Have a good day, amigo.


----------



## Macfury

Not. Every. Damn. Time. But often. 

Again, it is the singular way that you express yourself that's the bait. If you spent more time formulating your posts and provided some back-up for your opinions I might lose interest. 



fjnmusic said:


> Well you're certainly the first one to jump in with a response. Every. Damn. Time. I'm flattered, but I truly wish you weren't quite so interested in me, even from a "detached" point of view.


----------



## fjnmusic

It would be refreshing to have an actual respectful discussion here once in a while, instead of the trollish tactics I see most often. I have them on other boards with many people, probably because we all observe the etiquette of discussion. And interestingly enough, there are swear words, but people don't get their panties in a bunch about them because the contempt is not there. Many ehMac regulars sadly have much to learn about how to carry on a mature and respectful discussion. *sigh*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You don't share the same word definitions as many of us here.

For you, "respect" means having your ideas go unchallenged. "Trolling" means continuing to hold you to account for something you said. Nobody has contempt for you, they simply feel the need to dispense with the ideas presented in your posts.

But show me an example of a mature discussion on another forum and I'll let you know what I think of it.




fjnmusic said:


> It would be refreshing to have an actual respectful discussion here once in a while, instead of the trollish tactics I see most often. I have them on other boards with many people, probably because we all observe the etiquette of discussion. And interestingly enough, there are swear words, but people don't get their panties in a bunch about them because the contempt is not there. Many ehMac regulars sadly have much to learn about how to carry on a mature and respectful discussion. *sigh*


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You don't share the same word definitions as many of us here.
> 
> 
> 
> For you, "respect" means having your ideas go unchallenged. "Trolling" means continuing to hold you to account for something you said. Nobody has contempt for you, they simply feel the need to dispense with the ideas presented in your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> But show me an example of a mature discussion on another forum and I'll let you know what I think of it.



Sorry. I tire of this discussion, because it simply goes in circles. You're not really interested in being kind, considerate or respectful of points of view that are different than yours. Rather than show you one (like The Straight Dope, for starters), I'd rather just do what I usually do and go there for a decent conversation instead. I'm sure you can find it if you look hard enough. Paix, mom ami.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I love when you do that! His majesty "tires of the discussion" as it gets a little too close to the truth.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I love when you do that! His majesty "tires of the discussion" as it gets a little too close to the truth.



Don't you have anything else to do during the course of the day than get into arguments online? Seriously, dude, there's an actual real world out there. Just because someone doesn't jump to your command to engage doesn't mean there isn't a life to live in the meantime. And maybe, just maybe, after giving it some thought, there may be a decent answer to some of your questions, if you weren't so dismissive of the answers. That's the part that makes it feel like a waste of my time. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

EhMac takes a couple of minutes out of my day--probably far less than you would imagine. Today I did a hard day's work, researched Haida totem poles, went shopping, walked the dog extensively, did a rear brake a job on my car, helped someone celebrate a birthday and went out to dinner. EhMac is just something I look in on now and again.


----------



## MacGuiver2.0

fjnmusic said:


> You're not really interested in being kind, considerate or respectful of points of view that are different than yours.


This is fine if you're arguing about sports teams or ice cream flavours but there are issues where this isn't always feasible if you have any real conviction of your principles. Usually issues that matter. I think if you take an honest look at your own postings, you'll see you've been guilty of straying from your own desired format as much as anyone else. I know I have and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver2.0 said:


> This is fine if you're arguing about sports teams or ice cream flavours but there are issues where this isn't always feasible if you have any real conviction of your principles. Usually issues that matter. I think if you take an honest look at your own postings, you'll see you've been guilty of straying from your own desired format as much as anyone else. I know I have and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.



Fair enough; I can accept that observation. Sometimes we also end up having to agree to disagree. Which is also fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

People are naturally respectful of others who can articulate an argument, defend a position.

You can't/won't/don't. Or some combination thereof.

Begging for respect on these boards, rather than earning it, will garner you even less...



fjnmusic said:


> You're not really interested in being kind, considerate or respectful of points of view that are different than yours.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> People are naturally respectful of others who can articulate an argument, defend a position.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't/won't/don't. Or some combination thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Begging for respect on these boards, rather than earning it, will garner you even less...



I have articulated my position hundreds of times, but apparently not in a way you find acceptable. I guess I didn't realize that you are the arbiter of what is acceptable or not acceptable in terms of how people contribute to an online forum (and people keep telling me there are no moderators here). 

Nobody's begging for respect here. Mature people have it already, and show it in their interactions, while others turn to bullying and ostracization tactics to try to get their way. If you don't wish to be respectful, that's your choice, but you shouldn't be too surprised when others don't engage with you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver2.0 said:


> This is fine if you're arguing about sports teams or ice cream flavours but there are issues where this isn't always feasible if you have any real conviction of your principles. Usually issues that matter. I think if you take an honest look at your own postings, you'll see you've been guilty of straying from your own desired format as much as anyone else. I know I have and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.


I have no respect for certain ideas, and believe they need to be decimated so that others see no reason to find those ideas compelling. I can be kind to others, while noting that their ideas need to be poleaxed. If one or two people produce a steady stream of such ideas, they might take it personally when those ideas are consistently attacked.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I have no respect for certain ideas, and believe they need to be decimated so that others see no reason to find those ideas compelling. I can be kind to others, while noting that their ideas need to be poleaxed. If one or two people produce a steady stream of such ideas, they might take it personally when those ideas are consistently attacked.


Wow, I was poleaxed by this revelation, Macfury. Luckily, you and I are kind to each other, all the while holding different views on most things political. Still, we show that one can differ while still being civil and friendly. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I have articulated my position hundreds of times, but apparently not in a way you find acceptable. I guess I didn't realize that you are the arbiter of what is acceptable or not acceptable in terms of how people contribute to an online forum (and people keep telling me there are no moderators here).


I don't believe I've seen more than a few cases where you've articulated a position in any way beyond your personal preferences. When you express such an idea, many of us wonder what sort of logic could have led to a statement such as that. 

For example, you praised the Notley Regime for diversifying the economy away from energy while cursing previous governments for not doing it. When you're shown that the economy WAS already diversified heavily over the past 20 years, you have nothing to say about that. When you're asked how much further it should be diversified or how important energy should be to the mix you have no answer. 

You may think that people are asking too much of you, but in any circles of discussion I've been involved in, they begin with: 
1) presentation of ideas, then move on to 
2) presentation of supporting evidence and 
3) weighing of that evidence. 

You generally stop at #1 and lose the intellectual respect of others. That may be all you want to contribute, but it is a bit much to expect others not to chime in and expose those statements to their intellectual rigour. What you say at home stays at home, but once you post here, you have entered the marketplace of ideas.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Wow, I was poleaxed by this revelation, Macfury. Luckily, you and I are kind to each other, all the while holding different views on most things political. Still, we show that one can differ while still being civil and friendly. Paix, mon ami.


We differ in many respects, but I've never gotten into a heated brawl with you, Dr. G. Also, when you want us to agree to disagree, I always respect that. On the other hand, if I agreed to disagree and you just kept on posting... I might have to poleax you.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> We differ in many respects, but I've never gotten into a heated brawl with you, Dr. G. Also, when you want us to agree to disagree, I always respect that. On the other hand, if I agreed to disagree and you just kept on posting... I might have to poleax you.


Poleax me???? Hopefully you mean with words and not the medieval long-handled warhammer since I bleed easily. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Poleax me???? Hopefully you mean with words and not the medieval long-handled warhammer since I bleed easily. Paix, mon ami.


No poleax is 1900 kilometres long, and by the time I drove over, I would probably find myself in better spirits.


----------



## FeXL

So, couple things here...

First off, just wanted to point out to you how easily & quickly you fall off the wagon. Do you even realize the sarcasm you used? Not that I care, personally, but for someone who is always espousing the politeness factor you (as has been pointed out elsewhere & by others) are among the first to discard said manners.

Second, there were two parts in that sentence that you responded to & I couldn't help but note how you studiously avoided part 2: "defend a position".

For the third time today, you can't/won't/don't. Just because fjn says it is so, does not make it so. Nor anybody else, for that matter, but many of us on these boards can & do defend our position.

As to your accusations of arbitration, the sole reason I pursue this discourse is to illustrate to you the way to get not only my respect but the respect of others on this forum is to "defend a position".

Otherwise, I don't care. I really don't.



fjnmusic said:


> I have articulated my position hundreds of times, but apparently not in a way you find acceptable. I guess I didn't realize that you are the arbiter of what is acceptable or not acceptable in terms of how people contribute to an online forum (and people keep telling me there are no moderators here).


Yes, you are. Repeatedly...



fjnmusic said:


> Nobody's begging for respect here.


See, this is just another blanket statement (like, "Rachel's smart. She's 50!") that is meaningless.

Mature people will give respect to others that earn it.

As to the whining that follows, it's not my way or the highway. You've got a choice. Nobody is forcing you. By all means, take the highway. Put me on ignore & put this all to rest. Goom-bye!!!

If you choose otherwise, yes, there is a quid pro quo if you want respect from certain people on these boards. However, no more so than in meat life.



fjnmusic said:


> Mature people have it already, and show it in their interactions, while others turn to bullying and ostracization tactics to try to get their way.


Don't care. I don't count my friends by numbers. I count them by years...



fjnmusic said:


> ...but you shouldn't be too surprised when others don't engage with you.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> No poleax is 1900 kilometres long, and by the time I drove over, I would probably find myself in better spirits.


Good to hear, mon ami. Come over to Lunenburg, NS, and we can share an Alexander Keith's beer at the Knot Pub. Paix.

The Knot Pub of Lunenburg


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I don't believe I've seen more than a few cases where you've articulated a position in any way beyond your personal preferences. When you express such an idea, many of us wonder what sort of logic could have led to a statement such as that.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, you praised the Notley Regime for diversifying the economy away from energy while cursing previous governments for not doing it. When you're shown that the economy WAS already diversified heavily over the past 20 years, you have nothing to say about that. When you're asked how much further it should be diversified or how important energy should be to the mix you have no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> You may think that people are asking too much of you, but in any circles of discussion I've been involved in, they begin with:
> 
> 1) presentation of ideas, then move on to
> 
> 2) presentation of supporting evidence and
> 
> 3) weighing of that evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> You generally stop at #1 and lose the intellectual respect of others. That may be all you want to contribute, but it is a bit much to expect others not to chime in and expose those statements to their intellectual rigour. What you say at home stays at home, but once you post here, you have entered the marketplace of ideas.



Idea, Macfury, ideas. They don't have to be proofs. The "decimation of ideas" you mistake for conversation, so it should be little surprise that I don't really have a lot of interest in discussing my ideas further with you when you attack them from the get go, pretty much every time. You're usually the first to respond, but you seldom have anything positive to say. I don't post ideas because I'm looking to have them decimated by somebody with a world view that is diametrically opposed to mine. I post ideas because I'm interested in discussion of ideas. There doesn't have to be a right or wrong to it. 

Many people who have left these boards ask me in other sites why I continue to out up with your abuse. I often wonder myself as well. If you were not so abrasive in your approach, you would be a lot easier to take. And oddly, you're not even the worst offender here. But there's definitely a reason why a lot of the nice folks of ehMac have left. And there are other forums where people discuss ideas without losing their **** about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> So, couple things here...
> 
> 
> 
> First off, just wanted to point out to you how easily & quickly you fall off the wagon. Do you even realize the sarcasm you used? Not that I care, personally, but for someone who is always espousing the politeness factor you (as has been pointed out elsewhere & by others) are among the first to discard said manners.
> 
> 
> 
> Second, there were two parts in that sentence that you responded to & I couldn't help but note how you studiously avoided part 2: "defend a position".
> 
> 
> 
> For the third time today, you can't/won't/don't. Just because fjn says it is so, does not make it so. Nor anybody else, for that matter, but many of us on these boards can & do defend our position.
> 
> 
> 
> As to your accusations of arbitration, the sole reason I pursue this discourse is to illustrate to you the way to get not only my respect but the respect of others on this forum is to "defend a position".
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I don't care. I really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are. Repeatedly...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is just another blanket statement (like, "Rachel's smart. She's 50!") that is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Mature people will give respect to others that earn it.
> 
> 
> 
> As to the whining that follows, it's not my way or the highway. You've got a choice. Nobody is forcing you. By all means, take the highway. Put me on ignore & put this all to rest. Goom-bye!!!
> 
> 
> 
> If you choose otherwise, yes, there is a quid pro quo if you want respect from certain people on these boards. However, no more so than in meat life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care. I don't count my friends by numbers. I count them by years...



For someone who doesn't believe in moderators, you sure seem to take an interest in moderating other people's responses and ideas. Mine, for instance. Interesting. You're telling how to post my ideas and how to follow them up, and how to defend my position. I'm here to share some ideas. I didn't ask you to critique my approach. If you don't like them, fine. Move along. Block me. You don't need to be so critical in telling me I have no right to discuss progressive ideas on a progressive thread I created. That's just ignorant.

And please show respect to other posters as well. Sprague put it quite bluntly but quite accurately with his/her observation in the Refugee thread that "this is an ugly thread." I cannot control what you write, but I ask you again, for the umpteenth time, please make an effort to be kind over being "right."

Have a nice day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Ideas aren't just a bunch of words strung together. They're proposals that, if enacted, result in either good or bad outcomes. So, yeah, there does have to be supporting evidence. I'm not replying positively to most of your posts, because the ideas you hold dear are almost universally ideas that will result in bad outcomes or ideas based on an inaccurate premise. If you're happy with that, just keep posting and put me on ignore. I'll be happy to provide rejoinders to your posts as a public service, even if you never read them. Won't make any difference to me. 

And you can cut the violins about the people who are supposedly consoling you over the abuse you're taking here. Enough with the passive aggression--speak for yourself.



fjnmusic said:


> Idea, Macfury, ideas. They don't have to be proofs. The "decimation of ideas" you mistake for conversation, so it should be little surprise that I don't really have a lot of interest in discussing my ideas further with you when you attack them from the get go, pretty much every time. You're usually the first to respond, but you seldom have anything positive to say. I don't post ideas because I'm looking to have them decimated by somebody with a world view that is diametrically opposed to mine. I post ideas because I'm interested in discussion of ideas. There doesn't have to be a right or wrong to it.
> 
> Many people who have left these boards ask me in other sites why I continue to out up with your abuse. I often wonder myself as well. If you were not so abrasive in your approach, you would be a lot easier to take. And oddly, you're not even the worst offender here. But there's definitely a reason why a lot of the nice folks of ehMac have left. And there are other forums where people discuss ideas without losing their **** about it.


----------



## FeXL

Just as a general observation to your post, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I'd appreciate it if you'd be a little more accurate in your response.

You ask why people are dogging you. Why you feel nobody gives you any respect. Why you feel people are following your every post.

I'm not only explaining why it's happening, but how to avoid it in the future. Simple, free advice. And, worth every cent.

I don't care if you follow it or not. Really, I don't. It's no sweat off my backside.

You want to have quality conversations on these boards? I'm showing you one way. You don't see it but I'm attempting to increase the quality of discussion on these boards.

So, where did I tell you how to post your ideas or follow them up? Neither am I telling you how or to defend them. I'm saying you'll have a lot more respect _if_ you do.

That is all.



fjnmusic said:


> For someone who doesn't believe in moderators, you sure seem to take an interest in moderating other people's responses and ideas. Mine, for instance. Interesting. You're telling how to post my ideas and how to follow them up, and how to defend my position.


Good! If you have an idea to discuss, then it may help if you identify it as such: "Hey, guys, I've been thinking about this idea for a while. Thoughts?"

That invites discussion. You've _never_ done that.

It's when you start posting things as facts where the issues crop up. You _always_ do that.

They invite criticism. 

You also drop a fluff post into the middle of a discussion, surely you're not surprised when it gets dissected.



fjnmusic said:


> I'm here to share some ideas.


Don't recall criticizing anybody's "approach". WTH does that mean, anyway?



fjnmusic said:


> I didn't ask you to critique my approach.


Victim. VICTIM!!! I'm being repressed!!!

You're whining, fjn. Just...stop.

Where have I done that? Exact quotes, please. And, if you don't bother posting proof of this BS, then you're the ignorant one. Quit wasting my time...



fjnmusic said:


> You don't need to be so critical in telling me I have no right to discuss progressive ideas on a progressive thread I created. That's just ignorant.


I agreed entirely with Sprague. It is an ugly thread. The topic is necessarily so. I'm sorry if your tender sensibilities are offended by the harsh reality of sexual assault & rape by Muslims but it's the reality around the world, including Canada.

Pretty damn difficult to paint a happy face on it.

Don't like it? Don't go to the thread.



fjnmusic said:


> And please show respect to other posters as well. Sprague put it quite bluntly but quite accurately with his/her observation in the Refugee thread that "this is an ugly thread."


First off, I've never been asked this once, let alone an umpteenth time.

Secondly, I've no idea WTH you're talking about.

The world is not all rainbows & unicorn farts, fjn. If reality is offensive to you, time to get back into your shell.



fjnmusic said:


> I cannot control what you write, but I ask you again, for the umpteenth time, please make an effort to be kind over being "right."


----------



## FeXL

Proportionally speaking, there are damn few of the people who left ehMac voluntarily who were "nice".

IMHO, we have a smaller but much higher quality forum here now.



fjnmusic said:


> But there's definitely a reason why a lot of the nice folks of ehMac have left.


----------



## Dr.G.

FeXL said:


> Proportionally speaking, there are damn few of the people who left ehMac voluntarily who were "nice".
> 
> IMHO, we have a smaller but much higher quality forum here now.


Agreed, FeXL. Now, if we could only agree to disagree at times like members of a family, we would all be happier ............ and cooler on a hot summer's day. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## chasMac

Dr.G. said:


> Now, if we could only agree to disagree at times like members of a family, we would all be happier


The disagreements on here are a damn sight more cordial than in many a family. I know blood relations who haven't spoken to each other for years over trifling matters.


----------



## Dr.G.

chasMac said:


> The disagreements on here are a damn sight more cordial than in many a family. I know blood relations who haven't spoken to each other for years over trifling matters.


Well, let's be grateful for our family here in ehMacLand, chasMac. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## FeXL

You must have a different family than me, Dr.G (merely an observation).

My family discusses the issues at length surrounding the topic on all sides. Pro, con, neutral, whatever. There are always lots of questions, points, counter-points.

Throw in a mass of siblings, in-laws, nieces, nephews, parents, friends, the discussions can get quite raucous, albeit thoroughly enjoyable. And, yes, it heats up every so often.

Only after that, if we are unable to make any headway, do we agree to disagree. We utilize it as an end result, rather than a technique to avoid discussion or dissent.

On a personal note, I find your own posts far more educational & informative when you actually engage the issues.

One of the greatest feelings of satisfaction in my life is to have adults come up to me in private & note that our children seem so mature, that they are actually able to conduct a conversation with adults. Frequently they will engage the parents of friends who are driving them to a sporting event that we are unable to attend, while their team mates have their heads buried in some piece of electronica.

Our children seem to take after my lovely bride & I in the sense that their favourite subjects are math & the sciences. That said, we have also had lively debates at the dinner table & during long drives discussing current events and topics from their social studies class. They have firm beliefs but are open to reason & discussion. More than once I have had my eyes opened by them.

We are very proud of them.

As to keeping cool, I find a frost malt beverage lends itself to the task quite nicely...

Take care.



Dr.G. said:


> Agreed, FeXL. Now, if we could only agree to disagree at times like members of a family, we would all be happier ............ and cooler on a hot summer's day.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Agreed, FeXL. Now, if we could only agree to disagree at times like members of a family, we would all be happier ............ and cooler on a hot summer's day.
> 
> 
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Exactement, as the French would say. Unfortunately, there are some here (about three or four I'd say) who see insults as fair conversation. On any normal forum, they'd have been sent packing in a New York minute. C'est la vie, mon ami. 

It's funny, but my original reason for seeking out ehMac was to find solidarity with other Canadian Mac users. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

"You must have a different family than me, Dr.G (merely an observation).

My family discusses the issues at length surrounding the topic on all sides. Pro, con, neutral, whatever. There are always lots of questions, points, counter-points." Same here, mon ami. I was a Sanders supporter, and my wife was a Clinton supporter, so we had our differences there. We are more in agreement now that I shall be voting for Clinton in Georgia (my wife is Canadian and she can't vote). The real fun discussions come with her family, since they are Conservative and Wild Rose supporters, and my wife and I go back and forth from Liberal to NDP to Liberal. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Exactement, as the French would say.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Would they say it that way, mon ami???


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Would they say it that way, mon ami???



Je ne sais pas, Monsieur. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> You must have a different family than me, Dr.G (merely an observation).
> 
> 
> 
> My family discusses the issues at length surrounding the topic on all sides. Pro, con, neutral, whatever. There are always lots of questions, points, counter-points.
> 
> 
> 
> Throw in a mass of siblings, in-laws, nieces, nephews, parents, friends, the discussions can get quite raucous, albeit thoroughly enjoyable. And, yes, it heats up every so often.
> 
> 
> 
> Only after that, if we are unable to make any headway, do we agree to disagree. We utilize it as an end result, rather than a technique to avoid discussion or dissent.
> 
> 
> 
> On a personal note, I find your own posts far more educational & informative when you actually engage the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the greatest feelings of satisfaction in my life is to have adults come up to me in private & note that our children seem so mature, that they are actually able to conduct a conversation with adults. Frequently they will engage the parents of friends who are driving them to a sporting event that we are unable to attend, while their team mates have their heads buried in some piece of electronica.
> 
> 
> 
> Our children seem to take after my lovely bride & I in the sense that their favourite subjects are math & the sciences. That said, we have also had lively debates at the dinner table & during long drives discussing current events and topics from their social studies class. They have firm beliefs but are open to reason & discussion. More than once I have had my eyes opened by them.
> 
> 
> 
> We are very proud of them.
> 
> 
> 
> As to keeping cool, I find a frost malt beverage lends itself to the task quite nicely...
> 
> 
> 
> Take care.



Now that's what I'm talking about. A nice post, pure and simple, without the need to be adversarial. We too are impressed by our children and how witty and intelligent they are. It's one of the greatest joys in life. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Exactement, as the French would say. Unfortunately, there are some here (about three or four I'd say)...


Wahhhhhh! Can't you stop the finger pointing fjn?



fjnmusic said:


> ..who see insults as fair conversation.


You're not being insulted so much as having your ideas rejected and_ feeling_ insulted. 



fjnmusic said:


> It's funny, but my original reason for seeking out ehMac was to find solidarity with other Canadian Mac users.


We're all MacUsers, but you don't have to hang around in the "Everything Else" forum. Also MacDiscussions has a very heavily moderated forum full of MacUsers. Why torture yourself?


----------



## FeXL

You long for that, don't ya. 

It'll never happen, because you simply cannot help yourself but be adversarial in the first place.

And I didn't ask you about your children.

BTW, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you're the ignorant one...



fjnmusic said:


> Now that's what I'm talking about. A nice post, pure and simple, without the need to be adversarial.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Je ne sais pas, Monsieur.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Wahhhhhh! Can't you stop the finger pointing fjn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not being insulted so much as having your ideas rejected and_ feeling_ insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're all MacUsers, but you don't have to hang around in the "Everything Else" forum. Also MacDiscussions has a very heavily moderated forum full of MacUsers. Why torture yourself?



Don't know if you noticed, but that post was directed toward someone else, Macfury. For a guy who doesn't believe we need moderators, you sure seem compelled to moderate everything I say. With all due respect, please mind your own business. Thank you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> You long for that, don't ya.
> 
> 
> 
> It'll never happen, because you simply cannot help yourself but be adversarial in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't ask you about your children.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you're the ignorant one...



Do you see what you're doing? Amazing. Even when I'm nice to you, you still act like that. I could block you, but it wouldn't stop from talking ****e behind my back. I've come to the conclusion that you rather enjoy insulting me. You get off on it even. It's a shame, because you seem like you could be an intelligent person to actually talk to, minus the hostility. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You've already said that I was one of three or four people you felt were rude, fjn. I had every reason to take it personally.



fjnmusic said:


> Don't know if you noticed, but that post was directed toward someone else, Macfury. For a guy who doesn't believe we need moderators, you sure seem compelled to moderate everything I say. With all due respect, please mind your own business. Thank you.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You've already said that I was one of three or four people you felt were rude, fjn. I had every reason to take it personally.



That's your take on it. I didn't identify anyone by name. Seeing as there are probably not much more than ten people who regularly reply on these forums any more, I suppose that does narrow down the possibilities. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Yeah, you told me directly I was one of three or four who had driven away all of the "good people--whoever they were supposed to be.



fjnmusic said:


> That's your take on it. I didn't identify anyone by name.


----------



## FeXL

You wanna know why I responded like that? Check posts 927, 917, 905 & 896 on this same thread. After taking crap from you with your dimestore psychological analyses, your name calling, your sarcasm, your whining, your false claims, your attitude in general just in one thread over the course of one day, you suddenly post something neutral & expect all to be forgotten?

HA!

Lemme tell ya something about FeXL's. FeXL's, like elephants, have a long gawdamn memory. It's gonna take more than a single polite post from you to erase all the crap you dump on people on a daily basis, all while supposedly maintaining the high ground.

That's why I posted that.

Do you know why I posted the way I did to Dr.G? 'Cause Dr.G's earned my trust & respect on these boards, despite having insurmountable political views. I don't like the way he goes to his "agree to disagree" theme as much as he does but when Dr.G engages the topic he does so in an informed, thoughtful & forthright manner. 

This is something I can respect from anybody. 



fjnmusic said:


> Even when I'm nice to you, you still act like that.


I'm not. Dumber than a sack of hammers & meaner'n a snake. Your basic troglodyte. Ask anybody...



fjnmusic said:


> It's a shame, because you seem like you could be an intelligent person to actually talk to, minus the hostility.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> You wanna know why I responded like that? Check posts 927, 917, 905 & 896 on this same thread. After taking crap from you with your dimestore psychological analyses, your name calling, your sarcasm, your whining, your false claims, your attitude in general just in one thread over the course of one day, you suddenly post something neutral & expect all to be forgotten?
> 
> 
> 
> HA!
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme tell ya something about FeXL's. FeXL's, like elephants, have a long gawdamn memory. It's gonna take more than a single polite post from you to erase all the crap you dump on people on a daily basis, all while supposedly maintaining the high ground.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I posted that.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why I posted the way I did to Dr.G? 'Cause Dr.G's earned my trust & respect on these boards, despite having insurmountable political views. I don't like the way he goes to his "agree to disagree" theme as much as he does but when Dr.G engages the topic he does so in an informed, thoughtful & forthright manner.
> 
> 
> 
> This is something I can respect from anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not. Dumber than a sack of hammers & meaner'n a snake. Your basic troglodyte. Ask anybody...



That last part was actually funny. Have a nice day, mon troglodyte ami. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> For someone who doesn't believe in moderators, you sure seem to take an interest in moderating other people's responses and ideas. Mine, for instance. Interesting. You're telling how to post my ideas and how to follow them up, and how to defend my position. I'm here to share some ideas. I didn't ask you to critique my approach. If you don't like them, fine. Move along. Block me. You don't need to be so critical in telling me I have no right to discuss progressive ideas on a progressive thread I created. That's just ignorant.
> 
> And please show respect to other posters as well. Sprague put it quite bluntly but quite accurately with his/her observation in the Refugee thread that "this is an ugly thread." I cannot control what you write, but I ask you again, for the umpteenth time, please make an effort to be kind over being "right."
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Post #927? This one? I stand by what I said here. It's a request for civility. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that. Surely it must get tiring being "meaner 'n a snake" all the time. Hope you have a pleasant summer evening. And I mean that. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Now that's what I'm talking about. A nice post, pure and simple, without the need to be adversarial. We too are impressed by our children and how witty and intelligent they are. It's one of the greatest joys in life.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I also stand by this post. I'm proud of my children and I'm glad you're proud of yours. Absolutely no call for nastiness on anyone's part. Shalom, amigo. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Sorry. I tire of this discussion, because it simply goes in circles. You're not really interested in being kind, considerate or respectful of points of view that are different than yours. Rather than show you one (like The Straight Dope, for starters),...


I was familiar with The Straigth Dope site so I wanted to double check the board. The first thread I looked at pilloried the OP for being a "nut:" Emphasis mine. It looks like there's little patience there for people just "posting ideas" without evidence.



> *Poster #1:* Once again, my instinct for linking nutso thread to join date bears fruit.
> 
> *Poster #2:* So, what, PNt=1/Ds
> 
> where PNt is Proclivity to start a Nut Thread and Ds is Days since Subscribing?
> 
> *Poster #3:* Silly me, *I thought some new evidence had appeared*, but no, it's just a newbie who "knows" what really happened.
> 
> *Poster #4:* For the OP, *the use of lots of CAPS is not a substitute for facts and evidence*.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I was familiar with The Straigth Dope site so I wanted to double check the board. The first thread I looked at pilloried the OP for being a "nut:" Emphasis mine. It looks like there's little patience there for people just "posting ideas" without evidence.



Sorry to hear your experience was not as fruitful as mine. I have discovered many threads and many regular contributors there that are quite respectful of a diversity of viewpoints. The one about Preacher is quite interesting, for example. One thread doth not an entire forum make. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

From my perspective, that thread was fruitful! Always used to follow Cecil's column when it appeared locally.



fjnmusic said:


> Sorry to hear your experience was not as fruitful as mine. I have discovered many threads and many regular contributors there that are quite respectful of a diversity of viewpoints. The one about Preacher is quite interesting, for example. One thread doth not an entire forum make.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Sorry to hear your experience was not as fruitful as mine. I have discovered many threads and many regular contributors there that are quite respectful of a diversity of viewpoints. The one about Preacher is quite interesting, for example. One thread doth not an entire forum make.


I checked out the _Preacher_ thread and the first page had someone insisting that the program was underwritten by tobacco companies. Someone responds:



> "Provide a cite that the TV show Preacher is funded by Big Tobacco, or shut the f***k up."


Difference between there and here--the guy does his best to back up his point, fails and then shuts up. He doesn't grieve endlessly about being bullied.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I checked out the _Preacher_ thread and the first page had someone insisting that the program was underwritten by tobacco companies. Someone responds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difference between there and here--the guy does his best to back up his point, fails and then shuts up. He doesn't grieve endlessly about being bullied.



Not sure what your point is, Macfury. If you don't like what someone else posts, why don't you just ignore them rather then troll them at every opportunity? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not sure what your point is, Macfury.


Your original point was somehow that online group at Stright Dope was different from what you complain about at EhMac. But on the very first page of the thread you mentioned, someone is telling someone to "**** off" for presenting a premise that had no supporting evidence. They keep going after him until he admits he has nothing to back it up. By your definition this would also be be "disrespectful" and " trolling" behaviour.



fjnmusic said:


> If you don't like what someone else posts, why don't you just ignore them...?


If you don't like the way people respond to your posts, why don't you just ignore them?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Your original point was somehow that online group at Stright Dope was different from what you complain about at EhMac. But on the very first page of the thread you mentioned, someone is telling someone to "**** off" for presenting a premise that had no supporting evidence. They keep going after him until he admits he has nothing to back it up. By your definition this would also be be "disrespectful" and " trolling" behaviour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the way people respond to your posts, why don't you just ignore them?



I truly don't understand why you care so much about trying to prove me wrong no matter what I write. It's kind of creepy. If you don't like what I post, why don't you just ignore it? Same question. I didn't tell you about the Straight Dope so that you would stalk me or demonstrate why you don't think it measures up. You're not going to argue your way into having me respect your point of view, and I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time trying to get you to see mine. Please, try to find another hobby. I don't have the time to give you the attention you seem to require. 

Have a nice day. Seriously. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I don't want your time--any of it. Go play! Tap-a-talk!



fjnmusic said:


> I truly don't understand why you care so much about trying to prove me wrong no matter what I write. It's kind of creepy. If you don't like what I post, why don't you just ignore it? Same question. I didn't tell you about the Straight Dope so that you would stalk me or demonstrate why you don't think it measures up. You're not going to argue your way into having me respect your point of view, and I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time trying to get you to see mine. Please, try to find another hobby. I don't have the time to give you the attention you seem to require.
> 
> Have a nice day. Seriously.


----------



## fjnmusic

Thank you. And now back to the topic: progressive accomplishments, particularly in Canada. 



> Graham Thomson: Talk of federal carbon tax doesn't worry Rachel Notley
> 
> Graham Thomson, Edmonton Journal
> Published on: July 21, 2016 | Last Updated: July 21, 2016 6:38 PM MDT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitehorse — Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall arrived at the annual two-day premiers’ conference in the Yukon on Thursday with a chip on his shoulder the size of a birchbark canoe.
> 
> He was already irritated with Rachel Notley for raising Alberta’s tax on beer, which Wall said would hurt Saskatchewan breweries.
> 
> But he saved his loudest outburst for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who wasn’t actually at the meeting, but who had reportedly been thinking of making a surprise appearance.
> 
> Wall is angry Trudeau appears determined to introduce a Canada-wide carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Wall is particularly upset the prime minister seems set on ignoring a premiers’ working group on carbon pricing that Trudeau himself helped set up last March.
> 
> “This is a concern because if that’s to be a legitimate process where premiers and the federal government work through some of those questions, why then is the prime minister and his environment minister seemingly precluding the work of the committee?” asked a testy Wall.
> 
> “There’s always a lot of talk about collaboration, but we’ve seen a number of instances where the federal government talks about collaboration, but then acts unilaterally. This is one of them.”
> 
> For her part, Notley didn’t seem particularly worried about a federal carbon tax, pointing out she views Alberta’s impending carbon levy as an economic stimulator that will invest revenue into a green economy.
> 
> But Notley did express sympathy for territorial leaders who want an exemption.
> 
> Climate change and an impending carbon tax are a double whammy for Canada’s North. Territorial premiers complain global warming is hammering the North harder than any other region of Canada and say Northerners can’t afford another tax on top of their high cost of living.
> 
> A carbon tax was just one topic on a shopping list of issues discussed privately by the premiers in a room barely large enough for them all in a cultural centre on the banks of the Yukon River.
> 
> They seemed most excited about a possible deal on interprovincial trade that would dismantle a mountain of barriers currently impeding province-to-province commerce.
> 
> “We should have a free trade zone in Canada,” said British Columbia’s Christy Clark. “It makes no sense that you can get B.C. wine more easily in China than you can in Ontario.”
> 
> On Thursday, premiers suggested they might get an internal trade deal Friday.
> 
> But there was no way they were going to find agreement on a federal carbon tax.
> 
> And Wall, who is becoming something of a curmudgeon at premiers’ meetings, made sure to remind everybody of that fact.
> 
> “We have a concern about a new national carbon tax at a time when our economy can least afford it,” Wall told journalists. “The energy sector is still reeling, obviously, from low prices.”
> 
> As the day wore on, Wall would pop out of the meeting to take another shot at Trudeau, eventually accusing the prime minister of cancelling his surprise visit to the conference because while premiers wanted a “substantial discussion,” Trudeau only wanted a “photo op.”
> 
> “And so then he decided not to attend,” said Wall.
> 
> Of course, Trudeau might also have had second thoughts after realizing he’d be walking into the leg-hold trap that is the premiers’ chronic call for more federal funding for health care. He’d have to chew his foot off to escape.
> 
> The conference host, Yukon Premier Darrell Pasloski, announced the premiers are looking at making a joint trade mission to Europe and the United Kingdom in 2017. But they couldn’t really agree to that, either. A number of premiers, including Notley, have yet to commit to the trip.
> 
> The day ended with the premiers issuing a blizzard of vague news releases including one with the breathless headline: “Premiers work to improve the state of the federation.”
> 
> It’d be news if they weren’t working to improve the state of the federation.
> 
> Of course, that might yet be tomorrow’s headline depending on how they do on Day 2 of their talks.


http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...federal-carbon-tax-doesnt-worry-rachel-notley


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's not an accomplishment. It's a tax on nothing for those who are scientifically illiterate.


----------



## Macfury

Toronto police seek man allegedly caught peeking at woman in Chinatown bathroom - Toronto - CBC News

Could have been someone who identified as a woman and checking to see if the stall was free.



> According to police, a woman was using the washroom at an establishment near Dundas Street and Spadina Avenue on the morning of July 10 when she saw a man looking through the crack of the stall. The woman came out and confronted the man, who blew her a kiss and left, police say.


----------



## MacGuiver2.0

Macfury said:


> Toronto police seek man allegedly caught peeking at woman in Chinatown bathroom - Toronto - CBC News
> 
> Could have been someone who identified as a woman and checking to see if the stall was free.


Transphobia rears its ugly head. How dare she confront this woman.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver2.0 said:


> Transphobia rears its ugly head. How dare she confront this woman.



Somehow I have a hunch this particular peeping Tom was not transgendered. Believe it or not, peeping Toms have existed since time immemorial. Different issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Unfortunately there's no objective way to determine that. 



fjnmusic said:


> Somehow I have a hunch this particular peeping Tom was not transgendered. Believe it or not, peeping Toms have existed since time immemorial. Different issue.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Looks like even Suncor is on board with the environmental concern movement. 

http://whatyescando.com/?utm_source=social_media&utm_medium=direct_link&utm_campaign=ROS_launch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Suncor is on board with PR. Looks like it worked on you!



fjnmusic said:


> Looks like even Suncor is on board with the environmental concern movement.
> 
> What Yes can do | Suncor
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Suncor is on board with PR. Looks like it worked on you!



If you want todo business these days, you have to keep the customer satisfied, regardless of your personal feelings about greenhouse gases and such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Now here's something positive and a first for Alberta. Leading the way in putting the pressure on loan sharks.










https://m.facebook.com/notes/rachel...day-lending-rate-in-canada/10154262244796427/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Yes, I've frequently talked to business owners who say they have to spout a lot of BS to keep underinformed people happy.



fjnmusic said:


> If you want todo business these days, you have to keep the customer satisfied, regardless of your personal feelings about greenhouse gases and such.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, I've frequently talked to business owners who say they have to spout a lot of BS to keep underinformed people happy.



So how do you know these business owners aren't BS-ing you now?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

What is truth? However, they do tell me that they realize they cant do business with ill-informed governments unless they spout the same dogma. I'm not sure that there's much advantage in letting me know this if it were not true. However, at the same time it simply means that government contracts are more expensive. They know they're providing bad value for taxpayers, but that's the only option open to them.



fjnmusic said:


> So how do you know these business owners aren't BS-ing you now?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> What is truth? However, they do tell me that they realize they cant do business with ill-informed governments unless they spout the same dogma. I'm not sure that there's much advantage in letting me know this if it were not true. However, at the same time it simply means that government contracts are more expensive. They know they're providing bad value for taxpayers, but that's the only option open to them.



Fair enough. A reasonable answer, mon ami.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

All hail progress!





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> All hail progress!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


How we need another Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan just now. Even Barry Goldwater would be an improvement if The Donald implodes. We shall see.

Right on Brother, Macfury. "Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win."

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDm3qr3Zlu0[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

Time for Progressives to raise the wages of fruit pickers, so we can get these apple picking robots to work even faster:

Apple picking robots headed for the farm


----------



## fjnmusic

This guy gets it, eh!










http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/11641314?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

He gets a photo op. Otherwise, he's brain dead. Look at that idiotic expression.


----------



## MacGuiver2.0

Macfury said:


> All hail progress!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


LOL!!! That was great! 

Thanks Macfury


----------



## Rps

Dr.G. said:


> How we need another Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan just now. Even Barry Goldwater would be an improvement if The Donald implodes. We shall see.
> 
> Right on Brother, Macfury. "Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win."
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDm3qr3Zlu0


I know this should probably be in another thread, but the intro is here....looking at the numbers on the electoral map in the U.S., The Donald actually has a chance. He needs to keep what he has plus two states and it could be very interesting.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> I know this should probably be in another thread, but the intro is here....looking at the numbers on the electoral map in the U.S., The Donald actually has a chance. He needs to keep what he has plus two states and it could be very interesting.


Of course he has a chance ........... a very good chance. As the silent majority suddenly wakes up to the reality of what American has gone through these past 8 years, and what could happen if Clinton gets elected president, the notion of "what have you got to lose" becomes a real jolt to these voters. The Trumpites will rise up and throw off their shackles that have held them back.

Sadly, Trump seems to be backing down on his pledge to rid America of the 11 million illegal immigrants, as well as going a bit soft on his restrictions of all Muslims trying to come into America. As well, he is reconsidering his views on the use of a nuclear weapon to defeat ISIS. The Trumpites might waver a bit on these more moderate positions, but luckily "The Wall" is a non-negotiable issue. The first bricks shall be laid and the gun towers erected as he is taking his oath of office.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Of course he has a chance ........... a very good chance. As the silent majority suddenly wakes up to the reality of what American has gone through these past 8 years, and what could happen if Clinton gets elected president, the notion of "what have you got to lose" becomes a real jolt to these voters. The Trumpites will rise up and throw off their shackles that have held them back.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, Trump seems to be backing down on his pledge to rid America of the 11 million illegal immigrants, as well as going a bit soft on his restrictions of all Muslims trying to come into America. As well, he is reconsidering his views on the use of a nuclear weapon to defeat ISIS. The Trumpites might waver a bit on these more moderate positions, but luckily "The Wall" is a non-negotiable issue. The first bricks shall be laid and the gun towers erected as he is taking his oath of office.
> 
> 
> 
> Paix, mon ami.




I'm concerned that the 20 foot wall is going to end up becoming a five foot fence—something any reasonably athletic kid could jump right over. Or that he'll renege on the plan to have it go through bodies of water. What kind of a wall is that? He'd better tighten up on these promises or I'm going to have to seriously consider backing a different candidate. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

No worries Frank, he has Matty already building it across from Windsor in the D. It will, however be built to keep voters and tax payers in, not us out!


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I'm concerned that the 20 foot wall is going to end up becoming a five foot fence—something any reasonably athletic kid could jump right over. Or that he'll renege on the plan to have it go through bodies of water. What kind of a wall is that? He'd better tighten up on these promises or I'm going to have to seriously consider backing a different candidate.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No way will Trump back down on The Wall. That was a solemn promise to the American people. His wall will be better than the great wall of China.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> No way will Trump back down on The Wall. That was a solemn promise to the American people. His wall will be better than the great wall of China.




Maybe he should make it 30 feet tall or forty feet, just to be in the safe side. That way he could also squeeze more money out of the Mexicans to pay for it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> No worries Frank, he has Matty already building it across from Windsor in the D. It will, however be built to keep voters and tax payers in, not us out!




Gotta protect that investment. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

:clap:


fjnmusic said:


> Maybe he should make it 30 feet tall or forty feet, just to be in the safe side. That way he could also squeeze more money out of the Mexicans to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A fine idea, Frank. :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

A lot of blame laid at the feet of the NDP gov't of Alberta may well have origins elsewhere, if you're prepared to be honest and look at the history. 



> Naomi Lakritz: Ralph Klein not NDP Alberta Premier Rachel Notley to blame for budget woes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....OMG! We’re ruined! Alberta’s fiscal future is down the toilet! Bob Rae, Bob Rae, Bob Rae! Aaarggghhhh! Deficit! Debt! Doom! Pass the smelling salts! Our great-grandchildren who don’t even exist — what will they think of us all?
> 
> That’s the chorus I’m seeing in online commentary ever since Alberta’s first NDP government brought down its budget Tuesday. Just who are these people, though, who are complaining that Premier Rachel Notley’s budget will be the ruination of us all?
> 
> I wonder if they are the same ones who have spent the years since the Klein era lamenting equally loudly that services were cut, hospital beds eliminated, a hospital blown up, a cancer centre deferred ad infinitum, roads not built, nurses fired, teachers laid off, schools not repaired, and on and on.
> 
> Had Notley opted to cut services, these folks would be griping about that instead. She can’t win for losing. Most galling is the naysayers’ attitude toward civil servants. Lay them off! Cut their salaries! Would those clamouring for salary cuts and layoffs volunteer to give up their own jobs and take pay cuts? Not likely. They’d rather insist that others lose their jobs, as if those other people, just because they work in the public service, aren’t real people with families to support, mortgages to pay and food to put on the table.
> 
> There also appears to be zero recognition that the current public-sector salaries are the result of bargaining with previous Tory governments. You don’t just go in and break legal contracts that were signed in good faith by both sides.
> 
> Notley inherited a huge mess and she could either perpetuate the mess or fix it. She has wisely opted to fix it. Let’s not forget that the new Tom Baker centre was promised to Calgarians by successive Tory governments who dithered on it for a decade. Notley is going to build it.
> 
> Remember those heady days when Ralph Klein was crowing about slaying the debt? At what cost, fellow Albertans? Did amnesia arrive along with the flu this fall? It was at the cost of schools, health care, infrastructure maintenance and construction, and services to the most vulnerable — children, the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the poor.
> 
> Let’s drop the obsession with what future generations will think of us if we don’t focus exclusively on the twin monsters of debt and deficit. Rather than worry about people who are not yet born, and who will anyway be subject to the unknown whims and policies of the government of their day, why don’t we focus on providing services to people who are alive now?
> 
> We, the Albertans of today, are the future generations for the folks who lived here in, say, the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. When was the last time anyone grumbled about the fiscal state the Albertans of those times left us? Who’s even aware of what those long-ago governments presented in their budgets?
> 
> All Klein did when he cut back spending and services to slay the debt was to lay the groundwork for the catch-up game the Notley government must now play. Klein wasn’t leaving a debt-free paradise to future generations; he was leaving them a province in which deep cuts to services and spending were going to hamstring them in terms of education, timely health care and crumbling infrastructure.
> 
> As Finance Minister Joe Ceci: “We believe Albertans want their services, their hospitals, their schools, their human services protected. To do that … it’s going to take some borrowing …”
> 
> Right on, Joe. It’s not rocket science. In a welcome change from good old boy conservative tradition, the NDP has opted not to further deprive people of those services.
> 
> Wildrose Leader Brian Jean says the Notley budget is a “complete fantasy.” Wrong, Brian. Given the long-term fallout, which Notley must now deal with, it’s obvious that the notion of a debt-free paradise with zero repercussions for its citizens was the real fantasy all along.


http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ne...remier-rachel-notley-to-blame-for-budget-woes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Services should be cut. No lamenting about that. This article is embarrassing nonsense.

You might borrow for some worthwhile capital projects. What sort of moron thinks you can fund services through borrowing?


----------



## MacGuiver2.0

My favourite line in that story:



> Let’s drop the obsession with what future generations will think of us if we don’t focus exclusively on the twin monsters of debt and deficit. Rather than worry about people who are not yet born, and who will anyway be subject to the unknown whims and policies of the government of their day, why don’t we focus on providing services to people who are alive now?


What a conflicting view when compared to the lefts religious obsession with fake climate change where its all about the kiddies. They'll gladly sink billions chasing fake climate change pet projects and important meetings in exotic locations while they intentionally hobble the economic engines of the country. All to save future generations from some leftist inspired armageddon but they think nothing of screwing the economic hopes of future generations to maintain their present comforts.


----------



## Macfury

Agreed.

Even the notion that one should borrow to fuel the overconsumption of services is ludicrous.


----------



## fjnmusic

MacGuiver2.0 said:


> My favourite line in that story:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a conflicting view when compared to the lefts religious obsession with fake climate change where its all about the kiddies. They'll gladly sink billions chasing fake climate change pet projects and important meetings in exotic locations while they intentionally hobble the economic engines of the country. All to save future generations from some leftist inspired armageddon but they think nothing of screwing the economic hopes of future generations to maintain their present comforts.



With all due respect, it appears you missed the point, with comes in the subsequent paragraphs. You cannot responsibly 'slay the debt' as Klein claims to have done without leaving a mess for future generations to have to clean up. WE are that future generation. 



> We, the Albertans of today, are the future generations for the folks who lived here in, say, the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. When was the last time anyone grumbled about the fiscal state the Albertans of those times left us? Who’s even aware of what those long-ago governments presented in their budgets?
> 
> All Klein did when he cut back spending and services to slay the debt was to lay the groundwork for the catch-up game the Notley government must now play. Klein wasn’t leaving a debt-free paradise to future generations; he was leaving them a province in which deep cuts to services and spending were going to hamstring them in terms of education, timely health care and crumbling infrastructure.
> 
> As Finance Minister Joe Ceci: “We believe Albertans want their services, their hospitals, their schools, their human services protected. To do that … it’s going to take some borrowing …”
> 
> Right on, Joe. It’s not rocket science. In a welcome change from good old boy conservative tradition, the NDP has opted not to further deprive people of those services.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Klein left Alberta a healthy cut in government services which was later squandered. There was no mess to clean up, just the outcries of a bunch of selfish citizens eager to get back on the government teat by having other people pay for it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Klein left Alberta a healthy cut in government services which was later squandered. There was no mess to clean up, just the outcries of a bunch of selfish citizens eager to get back on the government teat by having other people pay for it.



Boy have you got issues when it comes to public services. These are the things that taxes are collected for, not bailing out private companies. I suppose you think the American system, its user fees for health care and its expensive education with disappointing results is the better system to emulate. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

Klein cleaned the mess up. Notley is making a newer and much bigger one than Alberta has ever seen before. It's going to take another Klein to clean up after her.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Boy have you got issues when it comes to public services.


All rational people do. A large number of public services are a complete waste of money, and exist for no other reason than to fatten union coffers and to justify further tax increases down the road. The services that are justified are bloated far beyond what is required.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> All rational people do. A large number of public services are a complete waste of money, and exist for no other reason than to fatten union coffers and to justify further tax increases down the road. The services that are justified are bloated far beyond what is required.



Well clearly you do not have any actual experience working in the public services in Alberta or you would not make such an uninformed statement. Public services tend to be understaffed as it is, and yes, Klein was responsible for that. He was also responsible for offloading the responsibility for maintenance of infrastructure on future generations, which the government of today is trying to grapple with. So no, we absolutely do not need another "leader" like Ralph Klein, who used tax money to fund horse racing, raided the Heritage Fund regularly to "balance" the budget, and left future generations to pay for his shortsightedness. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Alberta has some of the highest public service-to-population ratios in the country. The current government is grappling with how to maintain and increase that ratio for the benefits of union supporters.

The new Ralph Klein will be around to clear Notley's manure from the stables shortly.




fjnmusic said:


> Well clearly you do not have any actual experience working in the public services in Alberta or you would not make such an uninformed statement. Public services tend to be understaffed as it is, and yes, Klein was responsible for that. He was also responsible for offloading the responsibility for maintenance of infrastructure on future generations, which the government of today is trying to grapple with. So no, we absolutely do not need another "leader" like Ralph Klein, who used tax money to fund horse racing, raided the Heritage Fund regularly to "balance" the budget, and left future generations to pay for his shortsightedness.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Notley is bailing out "green" energy companies that don't have a hope of turning a profit, so enough with the government purity nonsense.

I support a government system that deals with true needs--not wants. And yes, I support user fees in some cases.



fjnmusic said:


> Boy have you got issues when it comes to public services. These are the things that taxes are collected for, not bailing out private companies. I suppose you think the American system, its user fees for health care and its expensive education with disappointing results is the better system to emulate.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Alberta has some of the highest public service-to-population ratios in the country. The current government is grappling with how to maintain and increase that ratio for the benefits of union supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ralph Klein will be around to clear Notley's manure from the stables shortly.



And again, from your armchair in the greater Toronto area, you have no clue as to what is actually happening on the ground in Alberta. If you cut teachers, for example, you increase class size. There is no way around that basic mathematical truth. Wages have already been cut back significantly. I have tried teaching a class of 42 once. It is not possible to do it effectively, and taxpayers deserve a right to a decent education. You are blinded by your ideology, I'm afraid, and you really don't know what you're talking about. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Notley is bailing out "green" energy companies that don't have a hope of turning a profit, so enough with the government purity nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> I support a government system that deals with true needs--not wants. And yes, I support user fees in some cases.



Please clarify what you perceive to be the difference between "needs" and "wants" in that case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

fjnmusic said:


> Please clarify what you perceive to be the difference between "needs" and "wants" in that case.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Again: I'll repeat the question. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

All too true...............


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> All too true...............



And even those high opinion low information right wing people get to benefit. Imagine that. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> And even those high opinion low information right wing people get to benefit. Imagine that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Good point, Frank. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And even those high opinion low information right wing people get to benefit. Imagine that.


Nothing special about Labour Day. Thought it was an odd one, even when I was a kid.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Nothing special about Labour Day. Thought it was an odd one, even when I was a kid.


"Odd"? Maybe because you are spelling labor with a "u"?


----------



## Dr.G.

One more progressive liberal voice has been silenced. Grew up listening to The Weavers and their songs. Sad, and they shall all be missed.

Fred Hellerman, last surviving member Weavers - CNN.com

"Hellerman, Pete Seeger, Ronnie Gilbert and Lee Hays formed the Weavers in the late 1940s and recorded many folk standards, such as "If I Had a Hammer," "On Top of Old Smoky," "Goodnight, Irene," "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" (also known as "Wimoweh") and "Tzena, Tzena, Tzena," "


----------



## SINC

The end of an era indeed. I too had the opportunity to listen to each of those songs when released and sing along as a child and teen and enjoyed every one of the titles above.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> The end of an era indeed. I too had the opportunity to listen to each of those songs when released and sing along as a child and teen and enjoyed every one of the titles above.


All too true, Don. The end of an era .................


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> All too true, Don. The end of an era .................



I missed this period of history, but I can see that it meant a great deal to you folks. May he rest in peace. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I missed this period of history, but I can see that it meant a great deal to you folks. May he rest in peace.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My father worked for Decca Records in the late 40s and early 50s. The Weavers were on the Decca label until 1953. When Pete Seeger was listed in the entertainment industry blacklist publication, Red Channels, all of the Weavers were placed under FBI surveillance and not allowed to perform on television or radio during the McCarthy era. Decca Records terminated their recording contract and deleted their records from its catalog in 1953. We had a few of their albums, but my father hid them until the end of the Red Scare of Joe McCarthy. My father became an Archie Bunker-like conservative and my mother remained a liberal progressive reform Democrat. Luckily, I took after my mother.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

I'm way beyond the Weavers period but I know who they are. I remember that Burl Ives was part of the group at some point.

What did your father do for Decca, Dr. G?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I'm way beyond the Weavers period but I know who they are. I remember that Burl Ives was part of the group at some point.
> 
> What did your father do for Decca, Dr. G?


I did not know this, Macfury. I know that Burl Ives "named names" and was taken off the HUAC blacklist, so I doubt that any of those in The Weavers would sing with him after this act.

My father was a record jobber, a person who would go to the various places where records (78s back then) were sold in stores, showing the managers of these stores the newest Decca line of artists and their records.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> My father worked for Decca Records in the late 40s and early 50s. The Weavers were on the Decca label until 1953. When Pete Seeger was listed in the entertainment industry blacklist publication, Red Channels, all of the Weavers were placed under FBI surveillance and not allowed to perform on television or radio during the McCarthy era. Decca Records terminated their recording contract and deleted their records from its catalog in 1953. We had a few of their albums, but my father hid them until the end of the Red Scare of Joe McCarthy. My father became an Archie Bunker-like conservative and my mother remained a liberal progressive reform Democrat. Luckily, I took after my mother.
> 
> 
> 
> Paix, mon ami.



It seems we may be headed toward another McCarthy style era of our little orange friend down South and his followed have their way. 

The great irony of course is that Carrol O'Connor was far from being a right wing nut. He only played one on TV. His philanthropy and liberal beliefs were at the core of who he was as a person. A lot of people miss that irony when they admire Archie Bunker. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

There's no irony at all. Archie Bunker was played straight down the middle.



fjnmusic said:


> It seems we may be headed toward another McCarthy style era of our little orange friend down South and his followed have their way.
> 
> The great irony of course is that Carrol O'Connor was far from being a right wing nut. He only played one on TV. His philanthropy and liberal beliefs were at the core of who he was as a person. A lot of people miss that irony when they admire Archie Bunker.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> It seems we may be headed toward another McCarthy style era of our little orange friend down South and his followed have their way.
> 
> The great irony of course is that Carrol O'Connor was far from being a right wing nut. He only played one on TV. His philanthropy and liberal beliefs were at the core of who he was as a person. A lot of people miss that irony when they admire Archie Bunker.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


God help us if there arises another McCarthy in the US Senate, Frank. Trump can't hold hearings as they did in the House and Senate.

Yes, Carol O'Connor was a true liberal.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> There's no irony at all. Archie Bunker was played straight down the middle.


Maybe, but true progressive liberals did not fully support, as Archie oftentimes said, "Our commander and chief, Richard E. Nixon".


----------



## fjnmusic

Happy Labor Day everyone! 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Happy Labor Day everyone!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Same to you, Frank.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly5ZKjjxMNM[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## fjnmusic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Trudeau was such an idiot.


----------



## chasMac

Just his anti-Americanism shining through. How can you see all-Canadian and not think all-American?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Trudeau was such an idiot.



Rubber and glue? This is not an idiotic statement; it's the truth. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Just an opinion from a terrible Prime Minister. Sad, really.



fjnmusic said:


> Rubber and glue? This is not an idiotic statement; it's the truth.


----------



## FeXL

That's your opinion.

Now, if you want it to be turned into fact, how about some evidence to back it up? And, sorry, an internet meme using a quote from a guy who admitted that the contemporaneous Canadian multiculture was not what he intended, doesn't qualify.



fjnmusic said:


> This is not an idiotic statement; it's the truth.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sorry, kids, you don't get to call the shots. I set up this thread for people to share examples of positive progressive thinking. If you took it upon yourself to interpret that to mean **** all over everyone else's ideas, you've come to the wrong place. Don't expect engagement. Plus, didn't you create your own Anti-Progressive thread for that express purpose?

Pierre Trudeau was considered a great leader and Prime Minister by many Canadians (apart from some in Alberta), and the quote makes sense if you stop and actually think about it. There is no absolute "Canadian" type; we are a mosaic more than a melting pot, and our American friends would be best to realize that about themselves as well. If you don't agree, that's perfectly fine. Just try not to be ignorant in your criticisms please. Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


An excellent PET quote, one which makes a great deal of sense, even today. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Don't engage. By all means continue to quote the anti-exceptionalism PM.



fjnmusic said:


> Sorry, kids, you don't get to call the shots. I set up this thread for people to share examples of positive progressive thinking. If you took it upon yourself to interpret that to mean **** all over everyone else's ideas, you've come to the wrong place. Don't expect engagement. Plus, didn't you create your own Anti-Progressive thread for that express purpose?
> 
> Pierre Trudeau was considered a great leader and Prime Minister by many Canadians (apart from some in Alberta), and the quote makes sense if you stop and actually think about it. There is no absolute "Canadian" type; we are a mosaic more than a melting pot, and our American friends would be best to realize that about themselves as well. If you don't agree, that's perfectly fine. Just try not to be ignorant in your criticisms please. Thank you.​


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> An excellent PET quote, one which makes a great deal of sense, even today. Paix, mon ami.



I've always thought so. My Canada encompasses many different cultures and perspectives. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I've always thought so. My Canada encompasses many different cultures and perspectives.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Met PM Trudeau once in person .......... for all of five seconds. Still, I have been impressed with him for as long as I have been in Canada ............ now just over 39 years. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Trudeau was such a sad sack of a PM. His was the first political poster I ever defaced.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Trudeau was such a sad sack of a PM. His was the first political poster I ever defaced.


He was the first Canadian PM when I became a landed immigrant (he was one of my questions when I was interviewed for this status). As I said, I liked his policies, met him when he was in opposition and campaigning in St. John's. I have also met Joe Clark in 1994, and Stephen Harper in 2004. Had a good chat with Clark and Harper, but the RCMP interrupted my handshake with PET.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Trudeau was such a sad sack of a PM. His was the first political poster I ever defaced.



You do remember what that HOLI stand for, right? Because right now you are exemplifying that mind set in technicolor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Well, no. HOHI would be more correct. 



fjnmusic said:


> You do remember what that HOLI stand for, right? Because right now you are exemplifying that mind set in technicolor.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Well, no. HOHI would be more correct.



Well, not in that last post I'm afraid. Just opinion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjn, you've gotta admit that just bandying HOLI back and forth is pretty lame ass on both our parts. Let's stop it.



fjnmusic said:


> Well, not in that last post I'm afraid. Just opinion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> fjn, you've gotta admit that just bandying HOLI back and forth is pretty lame ass on both our parts. Let's stop it.



Fair enough. It's not much of an argument anymore when it comes down to who is HOLIer than thou. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> Trudeau was such a sad sack of a PM. His was the first political poster I ever defaced.


Literally pissing on his grave is on my bucket list.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> Literally pissing on his grave is on my bucket list.


I've never seen such wanton destruction on the altar of a massive ego in my life.


----------



## FeXL

heavyall said:


> Literally pissing on his grave is on my bucket list.


I see the line is going to be long & distinguished. Mine, too...


----------



## fjnmusic

Such mature and thoughtful replies. Well, at least there's something to be said for consistency. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

<snort> Pot...kettle.



fjnmusic said:


> Such mature and thoughtful replies.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> <snort> Pot...kettle.



That's funny, coming from someone who considers himself to be HOLIer than thou. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

FeXL has you beat in that you don't actually present information to support an opinion. You either link to an article, or present an opinion without backing it up,



fjnmusic said:


> That's funny, coming from someone who considers himself to be HOLIer than thou.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

So, what's the thrust here? You need an example of you acting "mature & thoughtful"?

Fine:



fjnmusic said:


> So does Donald, poor thing, having to contend with that tribble growing on his head.


All day, baby.

You're the one who can't/won't/doesn't defend your posts. That makes the guy in your mirror the HOLI man, not me.



fjnmusic said:


> That's funny, coming from someone who considers himself to be HOLIer than thou.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> So, what's the thrust here? You need an example of you acting "mature & thoughtful"?
> 
> 
> 
> Fine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All day, baby.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who can't/won't/doesn't defend your posts. That makes the guy in your mirror the HOLI man, not me.




Just the opposite, actually. You are highly opinionated and get defensive and nasty right quick whenever I disagree with your jaded and right-of-Attila-the-Hun views. You often throw out verbal jabs with nary so much as a single piece of evidence to back you up. It's what you do. Why not just accept that we don't like each other and leave it at that? We're never going to agree anyway. And links I provide to back up my views you dismiss, so what's the point? Like I said, you've created a wonderful safe haven "Anti Progressive Thread" for yourself; why the need to pee in everybody else's sandbox? You got nuttin'....except a need to pee a lot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

FeXL is highly opinionated, but he backs up his opinions with arguments and facts.

You are highly opinionated, but you don't.

I'm not aiming to be insulting here, it's just an observation.



fjnmusic said:


> Just the opposite, actually. You are highly opinionated and get defensive and nasty right quick whenever I disagree with your jaded and right-of-Attila-the-Hun views. You often throw out verbal jabs with nary so much as a single piece of evidence to back you up. It's what you do. Why not just accept that we don't like each other and leave it at that? We're never going to agree anyway. And links I provide to back up my views you dismiss, so what's the point? Like I said, you've created a wonderful safe haven "Anti Progressive Thread" for yourself; why the need to pee in everybody else's sandbox? You got nuttin'....except a need to pee a lot.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> FeXL is highly opinionated, but he backs up his opinions with arguments and facts.
> 
> 
> 
> You are highly opinionated, but you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aiming to be insulting here, it's just an observation.



We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Macfury. I find he backs up his opinions with condescending insults, thereby killing the conversation. There isn't anything wrong with sharing opinions, ideas and observations, with or without the "arguments and facts" to back them up. Most conversations between people don't have to be dissected to be meaningful. A debate needs to have strong arguments and facts to be persuasive, which is why Trump will not do well against Clinton, just as Prentice got his ass handed to him by Notley, but that's how political debates work. This is not a political debate.

I don't recall the ground rules of this forum requiring any actual debate rules of engagement anywhere. Sometimes a conversation is just a discussion of ideas. No consensus needed. I DO recall something about being respectful of other members, however, even to those with whom we may disagree. Once FeXL figures out how to do that, I would be happy to have a conversation with him. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

FeXl is mainly irritated that you don't back up your opinion. It becomes difficult to tell if you can't or you won't.

(Trump will cream Clinton in the debates. Prentice was being punished. Most people in their right minds would never have voted for the crazy crap that Notley is handing the province. )



fjnmusic said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Macfury. I find he backs up his opinions with condescending insults, thereby killing the conversation. There isn't anything wrong with sharing opinions, ideas and observations, with or without the "arguments and facts" to back them up. Most conversations between people don't have to be dissected to be meaningful. A debate needs to have strong arguments and facts to be persuasive, which is why Trump will not do well against Clinton, just as Prentice got his ass handed to him by Notley, but that's how political debates work. This is not a political debate.
> 
> I don't recall the ground rules of this forum requiring any actual debate rules of engagement anywhere. Sometimes a conversation is just a discussion of ideas. No consensus needed. I DO recall something about being respectful of other members, however, even to those with whom we may disagree. Once FeXL figures out how to do that, I would be happy to have a conversation with him.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> FeXl is mainly irritated that you don't back up your opinion. It becomes difficult to tell if you can't or you won't.
> 
> 
> 
> (Trump will cream Clinton in the debates. Prentice was being punished. Most people in their right minds would never have voted for the crazy crap that Notley is handing the province. )



How do you figure Trump will cream Clinton? Granted he has charisma that people love or hate, but he knows absolutely nothing about government.,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> How do you figure Trump will cream Clinton? Granted he has charisma that people love or hate, but he knows absolutely nothing about government.,
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Agreed. If Clinton focuses upon what she will do as president, and keep asking Trump one question -- "How do you intend to do .......", she will mop the floor with him.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> How do you figure Trump will cream Clinton? Granted he has charisma that people love or hate, but he knows absolutely nothing about government.,


You're simply incorrect. And Trump will hammer Clinton's terrible record of failures, as an anti-woman candidate, Benghazi, Libya, Egypt, Iraq. If you include her malfeasance as First Lady it goes deeper.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> You're simply incorrect. And Trump will hammer Clinton's terrible record of failures, as an anti-woman candidate, Benghazi, Libya, Egypt, Iraq. If you include her malfeasance as First Lady it goes deeper.


Well, one could as easily say that you are incorrect as well, Macfury. Trump has no record and no expertise in foreign or domestic areas. So, let's call it a draw and remain civil until the actual debates? Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

I am being civil. And think you are dead wrong.



Dr.G. said:


> Well, one could as easily say that you are incorrect as well, Macfury. Trump has no record and no expertise in foreign or domestic areas. So, let's call it a draw and remain civil until the actual debates? Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I am being civil. And think you are dead wrong.


Yes, you have been civil, merci. As well, you are wrong, so let's agree to disagree and wait for the debates. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You're simply incorrect. And Trump will hammer Clinton's terrible record of failures, as an anti-woman candidate, Benghazi, Libya, Egypt, Iraq. If you include her malfeasance as First Lady it goes deeper.



I'm simply incorrect. That's about as low information as one can go. He was talking about Articles 1 through 20 the other day of the Constitution, which he clearly has not read. There are only seven. This is the document he would be sworn to uphold and protect should he become POTUS. The man is clearly out of his depth. But at least he doesn't have pneumonia. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I'm simply incorrect. That's about as low information as one can go. He was talking about Articles 1 through 20 the other day of the Constitution, which he clearly has not read. There are only seven. This is the document he would be sworn to uphold and protect should he become POTUS. The man is clearly out of his depth. But at least he doesn't have pneumonia.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are wrong, Frank. The president swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." There is NOTHING that says he has to "uphold" this document. Either get your facts straight, or get off of the progressive bus and join the Trumpublican Party.  Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Show me where Trump says there are 20 articles in the constitution. My information is low today.



fjnmusic said:


> I'm simply incorrect. That's about as low information as one can go. He was talking about Articles 1 through 20 the other day of the Constitution, which he clearly has not read. There are only seven. This is the document he would be sworn to uphold and protect should he become POTUS. The man is clearly out of his depth. But at least he doesn't have pneumonia.


Hillary may have pneumonia in addition to her other medical problems.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Show me where Trump says there are 20 articles in the constitution. My information is low today.
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary may have pneumonia in addition to her other medical problems.


Not sure about 20 articles, but he has gone on record to protect Article XII.

Mark Sanford: Trump defended articles of the Constitution that don't exist - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Rps

Dr.G. said:


> Agreed. If Clinton focuses upon what she will do as president, and keep asking Trump one question -- "How do you intend to do .......", she will mop the floor with him.


I think in a normal debate you would be correct Dr. G , but Trump is a populist candidate who is preaching to the converted. You have to watch out for this type of candidate. Any attack from the other side would only reinforce the belief system for the Trumpers. The issue will always be the facts, yet in this campaign it would appear that both sides are viewed as liars. Very little trust in both candidates. Trump has only to be himself to come across as " genuine". If he strays he is done.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> I think in a normal debate you would be correct Dr. G , but Trump is a populist candidate who is preaching to the converted. You have to watch out for this type of candidate. Any attack from the other side would only reinforce the belief system for the Trumpers. The issue will always be the facts, yet in this campaign it would appear that both sides are viewed as liars. Very little trust in both candidates. Trump has only to be himself to come across as " genuine". If he strays he is done.


Valid observations, Rp. Still, there is a growing group of undecided voters, and these independents could swing it to Clinton if they see Trump as going on about what he will do, without any regard as to how he will do these things. It is one thing to say all sorts of things on a campaign stop, and all we see are the sound bites. This is a live debate and each candidate should be held accountable for their positions. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> You are wrong, Frank. The president swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." There is NOTHING that says he has to "uphold" this document. Either get your facts straight, or get off of the progressive bus and join the Trumpublican Party.  Paix, mon ami.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Show me where Trump says there are 20 articles in the constitution. My information is low today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary may have pneumonia in addition to her other medical problems.



My bad. He referred to Article XII, not XX. There are still only seven however. 










http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politics/sanford-questions-trump-constitution-gaffe/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps

History is not on Clinton's side here. The SoS is very much like the Finance Minister in Canada.....very few become Prime Minister. As for saying how things will be done, the Liberal party for years ran on campaigns of complaint without details of execution. An issue I see is Clinton isn't what you would call a warm candidate. Also, any political issue that arises would only reinforce Trump's claim as she was the SoS. So, any terrorist act anywhere is her fault...as dumb a claim as that is, Trump only has to list any failure anywhere and it would be a win for him. This will be a 1800s campaign, those who get the vote out will win. You would want to run a bus company in some key states. Both candidates also are getting "new" voters. Georgia and Florida will probably decide who gets in......it will be that close I think. One final thought. If I ran Clinton's campaign I would be thinking Trump is more like Nixon than a Kennedy or an Obama. You could use his paranoia against him.


----------



## FeXL

Well, that's your _opinion_, isn't it?

I get nasty when you get nasty. Cause->Effect. Don't like it? Consider the source in the first place.



fjnmusic said:


> You are highly opinionated and get defensive and nasty right quick whenever I disagree with your *jaded and right-of-Attila-the-Hun views*.


Oh, the iron... Yeah, I get my jabs in. So do you. Read the bolded above, hypocrite.



fjnmusic said:


> You often throw out verbal jabs...


I back up nearly everything I post. If you require clarification, ask. If you don't like the answer, don't come whining back to me.

You back up nothing, save your innumerate excuses why you don't back anything up....



fjnmusic said:


> ...with nary so much as a single piece of evidence to back you up.


I know. As MF has noted, I back up my opinions with facts.



fjnmusic said:


> It's what you do.


Because I don't dislike you. I find your opinions misguided, your political stance untenable, your ability to defend your position weak & your debating skills nearly absent. That is all.

How you can possibly claim to dislike me without ever having met me puzzles the hell out of me. Must be more of that armchair psychology you always practice...



fjnmusic said:


> Why not just accept that we don't like each other and leave it at that?


Not trying to make you (or anyone else, for that matter) agree with me. I post facts & hope that the shrewd amongst you will be able to puzzle it out for yourselves. If you can't/won't that's your problem, not mine.



fjnmusic said:


> We're never going to agree anyway.


Where? Quote a single, shining example where I dismissed out of hand one of your links. Bet you can't find one, in all my posts to you. I'll counter with facts of my own but I do not simply dismiss. That's more the Left's style.



fjnmusic said:


> And links I provide to back up my views you dismiss, so what's the point?


Like you, I simply created a thread. Unlike you the thread I created has no rules, regs, codicils, guidelines, pleas for a safe haven, nothing. It's open season, no bag limit. 

The fact that few, if any, of the Progs/Leftys/Liberals on these boards post there is a testament to the weakness of their argument. Just like the GHG Thread. Not my problem.



fjnmusic said:


> Like I said, you've created a wonderful safe haven "Anti Progressive Thread" for yourself;...


Waaaaahhhhh!!!! You big meany! You're not allowing me my safe space.

Grow up, FJN. Present your argument, defend it & prepare to take your lumps, just like everybody else on these boards.

Can't? I hear tell of another blog, a "safe space", where all the other Leftys from this board have scurried off to. I understand they all nod their heads in agreement there. No trigger words, no opposition, no pointed questions. Rose-coloured glasses for all. Please, feel free...



fjnmusic said:


> ...why the need to pee in everybody else's sandbox? You got nuttin'....except a need to pee a lot.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Well, that's your _opinion_, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> I get nasty when you get nasty. Cause->Effect. Don't like it? Consider the source in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the iron... Yeah, I get my jabs in. So do you. Read the bolded above, hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I back up nearly everything I post. If you require clarification, ask. If you don't like the answer, don't come whining back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> You back up nothing, save your innumerate excuses why you don't back anything up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. As MF has noted, I back up my opinions with facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't dislike you. I find your opinions misguided, your political stance untenable, your ability to defend your position weak & your debating skills nearly absent. That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> How you can possibly claim to dislike me without ever having met me puzzles the hell out of me. Must be more of that armchair psychology you always practice...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to make you (or anyone else, for that matter) agree with me. I post facts & hope that the shrewd amongst you will be able to puzzle it out for yourselves. If you can't/won't that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Quote a single, shining example where I dismissed out of hand one of your links. Bet you can't find one, in all my posts to you. I'll counter with facts of my own but I do not simply dismiss. That's more the Left's style.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like you, I simply created a thread. Unlike you the thread I created has no rules, regs, codicils, guidelines, pleas for a safe haven, nothing. It's open season, no bag limit.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that few, if any, of the Progs/Leftys/Liberals on these boards post there is a testament to the weakness of their argument. Just like the GHG Thread. Not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waaaaahhhhh!!!! You big meany! You're not allowing me my safe space.
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up, FJN. Present your argument, defend it & prepare to take your lumps, just like everybody else on these boards.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't? I hear tell of another blog, a "safe space", where all the other Leftys from this board have scurried off to. I understand they all nod their heads in agreement there. No trigger words, no opposition, no pointed questions. Rose-coloured glasses for all. Please, feel free...



More of the same. You confuse your "facts" with more opinions and insults. Clearly you need a scapegoat for your anger, which you have enough of to feed an army. There is no point in trying to reason with someone with so much bottled up rage. Grow up FeXL, and stop trying to make me your scapegoat. Everyone else on these boards shows more maturity when they post than you do. 

Have a nice day. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> History is not on Clinton's side here. The SoS is very much like the Finance Minister in Canada.....very few become Prime Minister. As for saying how things will be done, the Liberal party for years ran on campaigns of complaint without details of execution. An issue I see is Clinton isn't what you would call a warm candidate. Also, any political issue that arises would only reinforce Trump's claim as she was the SoS. So, any terrorist act anywhere is her fault...as dumb a claim as that is, Trump only has to list any failure anywhere and it would be a win for him. This will be a 1800s campaign, those who get the vote out will win. You would want to run a bus company in some key states. Both candidates also are getting "new" voters. Georgia and Florida will probably decide who gets in......it will be that close I think. One final thought. If I ran Clinton's campaign I would be thinking Trump is more like Nixon than a Kennedy or an Obama. You could use his paranoia against him.



Excellent points, my friend. Hillary simply does not have Bill's charisma, no matter how much she covets it, and many would consider a naive fool for taking back a philandering husband. It undermines her credibility. The coughing fits aren't helping either. They are her Achilles' heel right now.

Still, Trump has zero credibility, but at least he has no political history of mistakes to weigh him down. He has added a fresh perspective to the run for president, and a watchability factor that is undeniable. It's like watching an accident scene; it's hard to look away. I think that given Hillary's health, the Dems would be smarter to go with Bernie Sanders if they still can. He has an actual following and the ability to generate excitement to counter Trump's followers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Beer talk is simply that: beer talk. Chewing the fat. Shooting the BS. No issues. Fine.

However, anything touted as "meaningful" needs be dissected.

The problem starts when you don't identify what is beer talk & what is a debatable point. Then, when somebody calls you on beer talk with a debatable point, you get all butt hurt. How are we supposed to know?

It's been suggested before. If all you want is idle conversation on a topic, identify your post as such. Why is this so difficult?



fjnmusic said:


> Most conversations between people don't have to be dissected to be meaningful.


The rest of this is merely straw man arguments, red herrings & BS.



fjnmusic said:


> blah, blah, blah.


Once again, pot, kettle. See "Attila the Hun" comment bolded above, hypocrite. Once you figger out how to curb your own insults, you'll get more respect from me...



fjnmusic said:


> I DO recall something about being respectful of other members, however, even to those with whom we may disagree. Once FeXL figures out how to do that, I would be happy to have a conversation with him.


----------



## FeXL

Even more armchair psychology? Sigmund would be proud...



fjnmusic said:


> blah, blahblahblah, blah


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Blah blah blah....
> 
> Once you figger out how to curb your own insults, you'll get more respect from me...



I have no need for respect from you. I really have no need for anything from you, but thanks for offering. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> History is not on Clinton's side here. The SoS is very much like the Finance Minister in Canada.....very few become Prime Minister.


This is not accurate, Rp.  A Sect. of State is totally unlike a Canadian Finance Minister.

Thomas Jefferson served as America's first Secretary of State before becoming its third president. Jefferson’s Secretary of State was James Madison, who was the fourth US president. Madison’s Secretary of State was James Monroe, who became the fifth president. Monroe’s Secretary of State was John Quincy Adams, who became the sixth president. All these are considered good to very good to excellent presidents.

Then there was Andrew Jackson got himself elected president in 1828. His secretary of State was Martin Van Buren, who ascended to the top job as the eighth president. Van Buren was an OK president. Then the chain pretty much ended. The only subsequent Secretary of State to become POTUS was James Buchanan, who is routinely rated one of the worst US chief executives of all time.

So, I see Clinton fitting in to the good to very good presidential "slots" if she is elected. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Excellent points, my friend. Hillary simply does not have Bill's charisma, no matter how much she covets it, and many would consider a naive fool for taking back a philandering husband. It undermines her credibility. The coughing fits aren't helping either. They are her Achilles' heel right now.
> 
> Still, Trump has zero credibility, but at least he has no political history of mistakes to weigh him down. He has added a fresh perspective to the run for president, and a watchability factor that is undeniable. It's like watching an accident scene; it's hard to look away. I think that given Hillary's health, the Dems would be smarter to go with Bernie Sanders if they still can. He has an actual following and the ability to generate excitement to counter Trump's followers.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


While I shall be voting for Clinton in Georgia, I would LOVE the opportunity to vote for Sanders. I was an early supporter of his ................ but I don't see this happening.


----------



## Rps

Hello Dr. G, my point was that the SoS usually does not become the President, much like the Finance Minister in Canada seldom becomes the PM. Most of the people you mentioned in your reply were President a long long time ago, hasn't there only been 6 SoS to become President. Not a high percentage.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Hello Dr. G, my point was that the SoS usually does not become the President, much like the Finance Minister in Canada seldom becomes the PM. Most of the people you mentioned in your reply were President a long long time ago, hasn't there only been 6 SoS to become President. Not a high percentage.


Oh, I see your point now, Rp. Still, hopefully Clinton will break this pattern and become the 7th SoS to win the presidency. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## FeXL

I'm sure glad I have my preferences set to ignore attachments. I can only imagine the premium Photoshop work & stunning Progressive wit that I'm missing...



fjnmusic said:


> blah, blahblahblah, blah
> 
> (hidden attachment)


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Blah blah blah blah...



I'm sorry. Did you say something? 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> Oh, I see your point now, Rp. Still, hopefully Clinton will break this pattern and become the 7th SoS to win the presidency. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.



It's true though. Just because Hillary Clinton seems like the logical and most experienced choice, this election cycle has been about anything but logic and experience. "I love uneducated voters," cries out his Royal Trumpness, and the crowd goes wild. I don't want to beat a trope to death, but there are just too many parallels between The Third Reich's rise to power and Trump's, vowing to make Germany/America great again and appealing to the lowest common denominator of voters. Educated people in Germany would not have supported Hitler, but the country as a whole lost its moral
compass for many years, and Hitler telling them what they wanted/needed to hear (you are the chosen ones) after losing World WarI gave Hitler traction that he wouldn't have had otherwise. 

The truly disturbing thing is that when Hitler rose to power to increase the German empire, the USA were ultimately the heroes along with the allied forces to end Germany's campaign. If the USA become the new Neo-Nazi Fascist Nation, who is going to stop them? People really need to stop and think this through. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Hillary does not seem like a logical choice to me. You're just viewing it through your "progressive" lens. If the nation has lost its moral compass it would vote for a criminal such as Hillary Clinton. Hillary's support is largely at the lowest common denominator--people and companies on the dole who want something for nothing from Uncle Sam.



fjnmusic said:


> It's true though. Just because Hillary Clinton seems like the logical and most experienced choice, this election cycle has been about anything but logic and experience. "I love uneducated voters," cries out his Royal Trumpness, and the crowd goes wild. I don't want to beat a trope to death, but there are just too many parallels between The Third Reich's rise to power and Trump's, vowing to make Germany/America great again and appealing to the lowest common denominator of voters. Educated people in Germany would not have supported Hitler, but the country as a whole lost its moral
> compass for many years, and Hitler telling them what they wanted/needed to hear (you are the chosen ones) after losing World WarI gave Hitler traction that he wouldn't have had otherwise.
> 
> The truly disturbing thing is that when Hitler rose to power to increase the German empire, the USA were ultimately the heroes along with the allied forces to end Germany's campaign. If the USA become the new Neo-Nazi Fascist Nation, who is going to stop them? People really need to stop and think this through.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> It's true though. Just because Hillary Clinton seems like the logical and most experienced choice, this election cycle has been about anything but logic and experience. "I love uneducated voters," cries out his Royal Trumpness, and the crowd goes wild. I don't want to beat a trope to death, but there are just too many parallels between The Third Reich's rise to power and Trump's, vowing to make Germany/America great again and appealing to the lowest common denominator of voters. Educated people in Germany would not have supported Hitler, but the country as a whole lost its moral
> compass for many years, and Hitler telling them what they wanted/needed to hear (you are the chosen ones) after losing World WarI gave Hitler traction that he wouldn't have had otherwise.
> 
> The truly disturbing thing is that when Hitler rose to power to increase the German empire, the USA were ultimately the heroes along with the allied forces to end Germany's campaign. If the USA become the new Neo-Nazi Fascist Nation, who is going to stop them? People really need to stop and think this through.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A good analogy, Frank.

"People really need to stop and think this through." Yes, VERY, VERY true. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Hillary does not seem like a logical choice to me. You're just viewing it through your "progressive" lens. If the nation has lost its moral compass it would vote for a criminal such as Hillary Clinton. Hillary's support is largely at the lowest common denominator--people and companies on the dole who want something for nothing from Uncle Sam.


"Hillary Clinton. Hillary's support is largely at the lowest common denominator--people and companies on the dole who want something for nothing from Uncle Sam." True to a small degree, Macfury. Clinton really went off the rails with her statement about "half of the Trump supporters ....." . He is having a field day with this statement.

"Hillary Clinton. Hillary's support is largely at the lowest common denominator--people and companies on the dole who want something for nothing from Uncle Sam." Sadly, so does Trump. This is why I supported Bernie Sanders from the onset.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps

MacFury if you want to talk about criminal, how about Trump University.


----------



## Rps

Frank, I think you are very insightful with the Hitler analogy. But, only on how Hitler came to power, it would be invalid to suggest Trump would over could even do the acts Hitler did once he secure control. The U.S. System, no matter what one thinks of it, is not prone to anointing Kaisers.


----------



## Macfury

Whatever happened at Trump U, nobody died like they did at Benghazi.



Macfury said:


> Hillary does not seem like a logical choice to me. You're just viewing it through your "progressive" lens. If the nation has lost its moral compass it would vote for a criminal such as Hillary Clinton. Hillary's support is largely at the lowest common denominator--people and companies on the dole who want something for nothing from Uncle Sam.





Rps said:


> Frank, I think you are very insightful with the Hitler analogy. But, only on how Hitler came to power, it would be invalid to suggest Trump would over could even do the acts Hitler did once he secure control. The U.S. System, no matter what one thinks of it, is not prone to anointing Kaisers.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Hillary does not seem like a logical choice to me. You're just viewing it through your "progressive" lens. If the nation has lost its moral compass it would vote for a criminal such as Hillary Clinton. Hillary's support is largely at the lowest common denominator--people and companies on the dole who want something for nothing from Uncle Sam.



I'm a Bernie supporter, but I think Hillary is the far better choice over Trump. Having said that, and observing the paradigm shifts every eight years or so in USA politics, who knows. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Rps said:


> Frank, I think you are very insightful with the Hitler analogy. But, only on how Hitler came to power, it would be invalid to suggest Trump would over could even do the acts Hitler did once he secure control. The U.S. System, no matter what one thinks of it, is not prone to anointing Kaisers.



Agreed, Rps. The mechanics of becoming elected is so far where the similarity lies. However, the xenophobic white-supremacy out and out hatred for certain minorities seems to be incubating quite well along his followers. That is a big difference from the Clinton/Democrat camp. Trump may have inadvertently created something he cannot control by celebrating the "uneducated voters" via his original plan to simply increase his brand name. The bigots have been empowered to celebrate their bigotry. He also has many of the same narcissistic qualities of other dictators. He will not make America great again. He will make America wonder what the hell it was thinking when it wakes up from this fever dream ten years from now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> MacFury if you want to talk about criminal, how about Trump University.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Frank, I think you are very insightful with the Hitler analogy. But, only on how Hitler came to power, it would be invalid to suggest Trump would over could even do the acts Hitler did once he secure control. The U.S. System, no matter what one thinks of it, is not prone to anointing Kaisers.


Good point, Rp. As well, Joseph Goebbels, as the Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany, was far smarter than any of the people that Trump has on his staff advising him about his presentation of policy.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I'm a Bernie supporter, but I think Hillary is the far better choice over Trump. Having said that, and observing the paradigm shifts every eight years or so in USA politics, who knows.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Welcome to the Club, Frank. Too bad you are not able to vote somewhere. Paix, mon ami. Excelsior.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> Trump may have inadvertently created something he cannot control by celebrating the "uneducated voters" via his original plan to simply increase his brand name. The bigots have been empowered to celebrate their bigotry. He also has many of the same narcissistic qualities of other dictators. He will not make America great again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


An excellent point, Frank. The Sorcerer's Apprentice comes to mind when I see Trump at his rallies.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ait_Fs6UQhQ[/ame]


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> ... companies on the dole who want something for nothing from Uncle Sam.


Case in point, mon ami? tptptptp

$124 million payday for Wells Fargo exec who led fake accounts unit --

$124 million payday for top Wells Fargo exec - Sep. 12, 2016


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> An excellent point, Frank. The Sorcerer's Apprentice comes to mind when I see Trump at his rallies.


What I see is Trump resonating with his supporters. I don't see Hillary engendering any kind of interest.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> What I see is Trump resonating with his supporters. I don't see Hillary engendering any kind of interest.


True. Each have their core supporters. In the end, it will be the independents and undecided voters that will put Clinton into the White House. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> True. Each have their core supporters. In the end, it will be the independents and undecided voters that will put Clinton into the White House. We shall see.


That is not the direction that voter sentiment is moving in. Trump is shoring up considerable support as Hillary's sickly star is setting.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> That is not the direction that voter sentiment is moving in. Trump is shoring up considerable support as Hillary's sickly star is setting.


Luckily, the polls are showing otherwise. It will be interesting, however, to see the latest polls which are being taken as we speak. These may show a shift in direction. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Luckily, the polls are showing otherwise. It will be interesting, however, to see the latest polls which are being taken as we speak. These may show a shift in direction. We shall see.


Perhaps the polls taken in your home, Dr. G. The RCP average of all polls has shown Hillary's slim lead rapidly eroding. Today's LA Times/USC tracking poll shows Trump up by three points.

Those independents are also peeling away:

Poll: Clinton's Lead Narrows Among Independents, Voters Nationally - NBC News


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> That is not the direction that voter sentiment is moving in. Trump is shoring up considerable support as Hillary's sickly star is setting.


I think this is an accurate assessment at this stage in the campaign. Trump know his market. The real issue now is how the press is covering the campaigns......I think Trump is playing the press better than Clinton. The so called secrecy of Clinton's campaign only helps the Trumpers......confirmation bias is hard to overturn.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> I think this is an accurate assessment at this stage in the campaign. Trump know his market. The real issue now is how the press is covering the campaigns......I think Trump is playing the press better than Clinton. The so called secrecy of Clinton's campaign only helps the Trumpers......confirmation bias is hard to overturn.


You currently have the double whammy of a presidential candidate trying to project strength at a 9/11 memorial ceremony, and crumpling in front of the world--then revealing that everyone on the team, including Hillary, was lying about it. Trump didn't need to say a word that day.

This will mean little to people who did not follow "gamergate" but the Clinton campaign is also wakening a sleeping giant with this nonsense:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/


----------



## FeXL

Nope. Nuttin'.

Just like your 10,000 posts over the course of the past 10 years...



fjnmusic said:


> I'm sorry. Did you say something?


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Case in point, mon ami? tptptptp
> 
> $124 million payday for Wells Fargo exec who led fake accounts unit --
> 
> $124 million payday for top Wells Fargo exec - Sep. 12, 2016


It's up to Wells Fargo and shareholders to claw back that amount if they choose to. It is up to the government to decide whether to prosecute the fraud. It has nothing to do with people and companies being on the dole as it is private money.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Hooray for Progressives in Venezuela--they're sticking to the program until things get better:

Venezuelan regime runs out of other people's money | Washington Examiner


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Hooray for Progressives in Venezuela--they're sticking to the program until things get better:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuelan regime runs out of other people's money | Washington Examiner



"Venezuela Venezuela Venezuela." Yup. That's getting to be a kind of boring comparator. 

How about Finland Finland Finland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Finland has not perfected progressivism the way that Venezuela has. They're still clinging to outmoded capitalism.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

More Progressive playbook goodness via WikiLeaks. From Bill Ivey, trustee of the Center for American Progress:



> “And *as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. *This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.”


Clinton Campaign Email Outlines Effort "To Produce an Unaware and Compliant Citizenry" » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## SINC

When, oh when will they grow a pair?

*College Suspends Exhibit After KKK Painting Upset Students
*
News from The Associated Press


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> When, oh when will they grow a pair?


I think they begin with a pair and then have them voluntarily snipped off.


----------



## SINC

I can only shake my head when I read stuff like this. Afraid of a cop in uniform? And one of their very own? Jesus Christ!

Transgender cop is kept out of LGBT event because her uniform could upset others | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Macfury

Waahhhhhhhhhhh! Why can't you validate their feelings, SINC?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Though I'm sure there will be many naysayers on this board, I am thankful we have Rachel Notley in charge in Alberta, whose environment leadership and diplomacy have managed to get two pipelines approved by the Federal Liberal government that the PC's failed to accomplish in the last ten.



















http://albertapolitics.ca/2016/11/p...h-worked-conservative-shouting-failed-simple/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I'll give her this: she'll get drummed out of office and then her green revolution will be rolled back to oblivion--and Alberta will still have a pipeline. Alberta should not have had to kowtow to the enviro lobby to get this pipeline in the first place.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> I'll give her this: she'll get drummed out of office and then her green revolution will be rolled back to oblivion--and Alberta will still have a pipeline. Alberta should not have had to kowtow to the enviro lobby to get this pipeline in the first place.



Two pipelines. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

A legitimate question here--I don't actually see environmental groups loving this, nor do I see that their approval was required to approve this. Am I missing something? If there was a "social license" to build these pipelines, who granted it?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Two pipelines.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> A legitimate question here--I don't actually see environmental groups loving this, nor do I see that their approval was required to approve this. Am I missing something? If there was a "social license" to build these pipelines, who granted it?



I believe it has something to do with not simply trampling roughshod over environmental concerns. It may be optics more than anything, but if you appear to at least be concerned about the environment today, you may get more cooperation. Whatever the PC's we're doing wasn't working. Maybe this is the right combination of personalities. If it gets people working again, it's going to help. If it means not putting all our industrial eggs in one American export basket, it will also help. I guarantee you Trump won't be doing Canada any favours. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

From my perspective, it appears no social license was granted--it was just Trudeau's approval against the wishes of environmentalists. Essentially Justin saying: "If you do the carbon thing, I'll give you the pipeline."



Freddie_Biff said:


> I believe it has something to do with not simply trampling roughshod over environmental concerns. It may be optics more than anything, but if you appear to at least be concerned about the environment today, you may get more cooperation. Whatever the PC's we're doing wasn't working. Maybe this is the right combination of personalities. If it gets people working again, it's going to help. If it means not putting all our industrial eggs in one American export basket, it will also help. I guarantee you Trump won't be doing Canada any favours.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Though I'm sure there will be many naysayers on this board, I am thankful we have Rachel Notley in charge in Alberta, whose environment leadership and diplomacy have managed to get two pipelines approved by the Federal Liberal government that the PC's failed to accomplish in the last ten.


It should be noted that the author of the item shown with this post, David Climenhaga whom I know personally and coffee with occasionally, is a card carrying member of the Alberta NDP. He was heavily involved with the Alberta Union of Public Employees for many years and is currently the head administrator of the United Nurses Union of Alberta.

No bias there at all! 

The political engineering and backslapping on carbon taxes between two clueless leaders, Trudeau and Notley, trying to make each other look good is blatantly obvious.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> From my perspective, it appears no social license was granted--it was just Trudeau's approval against the wishes of environmentalists. Essentially Justin saying: "If you do the carbon thing, I'll give you the pipeline."



Acceptance of the carbon tax, something I am not a big fan of, may be key, yes. But if it gets the industry kickstarted again, is it a price worth paying? Time will tell. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

First of all--no, a carbon tax would not be worth it. It is a job killer and a hardship to citizens. You don't need a carbon tax to get the Prime Minister to approve a pipeline.

Second, there is no social license that I can see--just Trudeau getting Notley to prop up his carbon tax plans in exchange for a pipeline. Are environmental groups suddenly supporting the pipelines and I'm missing it?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Acceptance of the carbon tax, something I am not a big fan of, may be key, yes. But if it gets the industry kickstarted again, is it a price worth paying? Time will tell.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> First of all--no, a carbon tax would not be worth it. It is a job killer and a hardship to citizens. You don't need a carbon tax to get the Prime Minister to approve a pipeline.
> 
> 
> 
> Second, there is no social license that I can see--just Trudeau getting Notley to prop up his carbon tax plans in exchange for a pipeline. Are environmental groups suddenly supporting the pipelines and I'm missing it?



There are many kinds of environmental groups, and they do not all have the same agenda. That's a big part of the problem with the discussion on here so far; it's been too black and white. One can be pro environment and still drive a car or take a jet. The aim is to reduce the carbon footprint, not eliminate it entirely. And certainly pipelines have a better reputation than rail. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

But where is this notion of social license coming from? Just Justin Trudeau? Because I don't see any change in level of support from environmental groups. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> There are many kinds of environmental groups, and they do not all have the same agenda. That's a big part of the problem with the discussion on here so far; it's been too black and white. One can be pro environment and still drive a car or take a jet. The aim is to reduce the carbon footprint, not eliminate it entirely. And certainly pipelines have a better reputation than rail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

And here's an event organized by that wonderful non-partisan objective journalism organization, the Rebel Media. Funny thing is. I thought one has to actually commit an actual crime in order to be "locked up."



> Alberta Conservatives Chant ‘Lock Her Up’ At Anti-Carbon Tax Rally
> 
> EDMONTON — Federal Conservative leadership hopeful Chris Alexander says he didn’t stop a crowd calling for Alberta Premier Rachel Notley to be locked up because politicians need to listen to constituents.
> 
> The former immigration minister was speaking at a rally against the provincial NDPs’ planned carbon tax Saturday when protesters began the “Lock her up’’ chant popularized during president-elect Donald Trump’s campaign.
> 
> “I totally disapprove of that particular chant. I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think it’s the right thing to say at a rally or elsewhere, and that’s why I didn’t join it,’’ Alexander said Sunday.
> 
> The Edmonton rally was organized by Rebel Media, an online news and right-wing opinion outlet, and video of the incident was posted on Twitter by the website’s Alberta bureau chief Sheila Gunn Reid.
> 
> 
> The video shows the ralliers start by chanting “Vote her out,’’ but as they grow louder, the message changes.
> 
> As they chant “Lock her up,’’ Alexander smiles and appears to gesture in time with the chant, nodding along.
> 
> Someone can be heard shouting, “That’s enough! That’s enough!’’ in the background, and as Alexander smiles and nods, the camera turns to face the crowd.
> 
> At no point in the video does Alexander stop the protesters or say anything about their chant.


http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/13418084


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Red Rachel's time will come and while she will not be locked up, she will be locked out of power after ruining Alberta and its economy.


----------



## Macfury

I wish she was locked up, because she has done more harm than actual criminals.




Freddie_Biff said:


> And here's an event organized by that wonderful non-partisan objective journalism organization, the Rebel Media. Funny thing is. I thought one has to actually commit an actual crime in order to be "locked up."


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> I wish she was locked up, because she has done more harm than actual criminals.




Hmm. Can you describe exactly which crimes she has committed? Which laws she has broken? 'Cause these homegrown alt-righters sure sound like they're whining a whole lotta hyperbole to me. Incited by the Rebel Media, that only trustworthy source of news according to some people. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Give it up with the Rebel Media crap Frank. They openly admit they are not only 'media', but activists, and did so on the steps of the legislature just yesterday. We all know that so do try to keep up. 

Red Rachel's crimes are against the people of Alberta by enacting policies she did not campaign upon and hiring nothing but non Albertan activists and environmentalists to form her policies to permanently damage the economy of Alberta. No mention during the campaign of carbon tax, although she likes to lie and call it a levy. Not mention of bill 6 against agriculture. No mention of helmets required by ATVs and the list goes on. It is not governance, it is Dipper social engineering and they will pay the price of never again being in power.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Give it up with the Rebel Media crap Frank. They openly admit they are not only 'media', but activists, and did so on the steps of the legislature just yesterday. We all know that so do try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> Red Rachel's crimes are against the people of Alberta by enacting policies she did not campaign upon and hiring nothing but non Albertan activists and environmentalists to form her policies to permanently damage the economy of Alberta. No mention during the campaign of carbon tax, although she likes to lie and call it a levy. Not mention of bill 6 against agriculture. No mention of helmets required by ATVs and the list goes on. It is not governance, it is Dipper social engineering and they will pay the price of never again being in power.



Crap, Don? Clearly you don't understand what the word "media" means. The Rebel Media are lobbyists, nothing more, and **** disturbers to boot. They are not reporting on a protest, they are organizing it. You can be a journalist or a lobbyist, not both. And again, all the examples you cite are not actually any examples of laws being broken. They may create new laws which you do not approve of, but they are not breaking any. The "Lock her up" chant sounds disturbingly like the idiot drones we hear of down South. And definitely not the kind of rabble a contender for leadership of a Canadian party should be endorsing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

https://www.pressprogress.ca/conser...ls_for_cyber_attacks_on_government_of_alberta


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Hmm. Can you describe exactly which crimes she has committed? Which laws she has broken? 'Cause these homegrown alt-righters sure sound like they're whining a whole lotta hyperbole to me. Incited by the Rebel Media, that only trustworthy source of news according to some people.


No crimes--just wanton destruction of an economy and subjugation of a proud people.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Crap, Don? Clearly you don't understand what the word "media" means. The Rebel Media are lobbyists, nothing more, and **** disturbers to boot. They are not reporting on a protest, they are organizing it. You can be a journalist or a lobbyist, not both. And again, all the examples you cite are not actually any examples of laws being broken. They may create new laws which you do not approve of, but they are not breaking any. The "Lock her up" chant sounds disturbingly like the idiot drones we hear of down South. And definitely not the kind of rabble a contender for leadership of a Canadian party should be endorsing.


What was so bad about the material in those massive screen shots? You don't want people to hack Notley's dirty secrets?


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Crap, Don? Clearly you don't understand what the word "media" means. The Rebel Media are lobbyists, nothing more, and **** disturbers to boot. They are not reporting on a protest, they are organizing it. You can be a journalist or a lobbyist, not both.


You know Frank, after being in the media for roughly as long as you've been on planet earth, I have a wee bit more experience in what media is than you. 

Your statement is about as accurate as saying you can't be a musician and a teacher too.

Even your Dipper government now recognizes Rebel Media as media and allow them into all media scrums.


----------



## Macfury

Many newspapers write as though they're activists--it's only because their reporters are "progressives" that "progressive" readers don't recognize it. At least members of the Rebel Media are honest about what they're doing.



SINC said:


> You know Frank, after being in the media for roughly as long as you've been on planet earth, I have a wee bit more experience in what media is than you.
> 
> Your statement is about as accurate as saying you can't be a musician and a teacher too.
> 
> Even your Dipper government now recognizes Rebel Media as media and allow them into all media scrums.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> You know Frank, after being in the media for roughly as long as you've been on planet earth, I have a wee bit more experience in what media is than you.
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is about as accurate as saying you can't be a musician and a teacher too.
> 
> 
> 
> Even your Dipper government now recognizes Rebel Media as media and allow them into all media scrums.



The media do not organize protests. They report on them. Ezra Levant's team are lobbyists and activists. Doesn't matter how many years you've been on the planet, Don, if you can't distinguish between the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> The media do not organize protests. They report on them. Ezra Levant's team are lobbyists and activists. Doesn't matter how many years you've been on the planet, Don, if you can't distinguish between the two.


You are sorely mistaken if you think that part of the Rebel media is not journalism, albeit of a different kind from MSM. The world has changed and the definition of journalism along with it. Ask your buddy Red Rachel. As I noted, she now formally recognizes Rebel as "media" and they are allowed at all government media functions. Or did you just ignore that elephant in the room? When one cannot distinguish media when one observes one's own party's lead, well, I dunno what to say about that.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> You are sorely mistaken if you think that part of the Rebel media is not journalism, albeit of a different kind from MSM. The world has changed and the definition of journalism along with it. Ask your buddy Red Rachel. As I noted, she now formally recognizes Rebel as "media" and they are allowed at all government media functions. Or did you just ignore that elephant in the room? When one cannot distinguish media when one observes one's own party's lead, well, I dunno what to say about that.



They were not allowed at first, if you care to remember, because they lack proper accreditation. Ezra also claims not to be a journalist when it's convenient and vice-versa when it's not. Rachel caved and let him in to avoid the ****e storm that ensued. But you have still failed to address the question: how does one claim to be an objective reporter and organize a protest at the same time? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> They were not allowed at first, if you care to remember, because they lack proper accreditation. Ezra also claims not to be a journalist when it's convenient and vice-versa when it's not. Rachel caved and let him in to avoid the ****e storm that ensued. But you have still failed to address the question: how does one claim to be an objective reporter and organize a protest at the same time?


Still don't get it, eh Frank?

On that day the Rebel was wearing its activist hat.

Tomorrow they will become journalists reporting on the Dippers with a very biased slant.

No one ever said media had to be objective since the dawn of the net.

Welcome to the world wide web, albeit a bit late in your case.

Oh, by the way, Post Media has a Conservative bias, much like the Liberal CBC that we as taxpayers pay to be biased.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Still don't get it, eh Frank?
> 
> 
> 
> On that day the Rebel was wearing its activist hat.
> 
> 
> 
> Tomorrow they will become journalists reporting on the Dippers with a very biased slant.
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said media had to be objective since the dawn of the net.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world wide web, albeit a bit late in your case.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, by the way, Post Media has a Conservative bias, much like the Liberal CBC that we as taxpayers pay to be biased.



Except that neither Post Media nor the CBC actively organizes protests. They report on them, albeit with a certain editorial slant. The fact that you, Don, are willing to forgive the Rebel Media for blatantly switching hats at their convenience shows that you have no respect for real journalists. Ironic, really. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Except that neither Post Media nor the CBC actively organizes protests. They report on them, albeit with a certain editorial slant. The fact that you, Don, are willing to forgive the Rebel Media for blatantly switching hats at their convenience shows that you have no respect for real journalists. Ironic, really.


The times they are a changing Frank, do try and keep up.

There is not a MSM left without bias and if you think when the Journal used to sponsor so many Edmonton events, do you really think they were not biased in their reporting of those events? Events THEY STAGED? My but you were naive, even back in those glory days of MSM. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, lived the bias.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> The times they are a changing Frank, do try and keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a MSM left without bias and if you think when the Journal used to sponsor so many Edmonton events, do you really think they were not biased in their reporting of those events? Events THEY STAGED? My but you were naive, even back in those glory days of MSM. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, lived the bias.



Can you please give some examples of political rallies the EJ organized and took sides on? You speak in generalities. Your condescension toward me and your belief that I don't see how the media works is offensive. I know plenty, and I know enough that in no world could Ezra Levant be considered a journalist. He whines until he got a press pass. He certainly does not respect the truth. "Lock her up" chants for someone who has committed no crime at a rally organized by Levant should make you shake your head a little. Evidently, you just don't see it, nor do you see the dangers of groupthink and mob mentality. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Can you please give some examples of political rallies the EJ organized and took sides on? You speak in generalities. Your condescension toward me and your belief that I don't see how the media works is offensive. I know plenty, and I know enough that in no world could Ezra Levant be considered a journalist. He whines until he got a press pass. He certainly does not respect the truth. "Lock her up" chants for someone who has committed no crime at a rally organized by Levant should make you shake your head a little. Evidently, you just don't see it, nor do you see the dangers of groupthink and mob mentality.


You have much to learn about journalism. First thing you should learn is that the term journalism refers only to print media in North America. It is radio and TV arts in broadcast media.

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

The Rebel prints nothing, it is an internet medium that uses only online presentation and video to support their brief, albeit biased prefaces of an event, whether they organize said event or not. They are indeed media, but far removed from journalists by definition. 

What their Alberta legislature rally clearly demonstrated, is that many Albertans/Canadians are far removed from current governments, and a huge sector of the electorate here in our country will as readily boot out the establishment for someone who will shake up the system as Americans just did. Call it voter revenge if you will, but it exists here as surely as Trump won in the US and it will happen here in future. It will result in the fall of the Alberta NDP in 2019 and likely be followed by the removal of pretty boy pompadour later that year.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> You have much to learn about journalism. First thing you should learn is that the term journalism refers only to print media in North America. It is radio and TV arts in broadcast media.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_communication
> 
> 
> 
> The Rebel prints nothing, it is an internet medium that uses only online presentation and video to support their brief, albeit biased prefaces of an event, whether they organize said event or not. They are indeed media, but far removed from journalists by definition.
> 
> 
> 
> What their Alberta legislature rally clearly demonstrated, is that many Albertans/Canadians are far removed from current governments, and a huge sector of the electorate here in our country will as readily boot out the establishment for someone who will shake up the system as Americans just did. Call it voter revenge if you will, but it exists here as surely as Trump won in the US and it will happen here in future. It will result in the fall of the Alberta NDP in 2019 and likely be followed by the removal of pretty boy pompadour later that year.



No disagreement about the "far removed" part, but I believe that journalism today is not confined to print media. The part I refer to is the part about appearing to be relatively unbiased (which the EJ does, compare to the Sun). You may think of the EJ as a liberal rag, but remember they did endorse Prentice and the PC's for the last provincial election. To be a respectable media outlet, one must present both sides of the story and not create any fictitious stories. The Rebel Media fails both of these things, whether it is online only or print. Credibility is everything, or at least it used to be. Not so much anymore in this Trumped-up post-modern post-factual world we live in. 

I don't doubt that voter revenge exists, but to replace the current government with what exactly? There's so much infighting on the right they're just going to shoot themselves in the foot again. Kenney is no leader. I like to joke that we need more parties on the right, not fewer. Albertans want choice! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> No disagreement about the "far removed" part, but I believe that journalism today is not confined to print media. *The part I refer to is the part about appearing to be relatively unbiased (which the EJ does, compare to the Sun).* You may think of the EJ as a liberal rag, but remember they did endorse Prentice and the PC's for the last provincial election. To be a respectable media outlet, one must present both sides of the story and not create any fictitious stories. The Rebel Media fails both of these things, whether it is online only or print. Credibility is everything, or at least it used to be. Not so much anymore in this Trumped-up post-modern post-factual world we live in.
> 
> I don't doubt that voter revenge exists, but to replace the current government with what exactly? There's so much infighting on the right they're just going to shoot themselves in the foot again. Kenney is no leader. I like to joke that we need more parties on the right, not fewer. Albertans want choice!


So then, you DO realize that the Edmonton Journal and the Edmonton Sun have identical editors, don't you? Or did that fact escape your knowledge of today's journalism? Don't believe me? Take a look at the two contact screen shots below:



















It's the way of the print media these days Frank. Those same editors then put a particular bias for similar stories in each publication at their whim. Funny that, eh? Ditto for every two-paper Post Media city in the country. The EJ used to have 80 on staff in the editorial department alone and ditto for the Calgary Herald. They now operate BOTH the Sun and EJ, as well as the Herald and the Calgary Sun with a total editorial staff of 15 in each city.

I had 15 editorial staff in Fort McMurray on the daily in the late 80's and 22 at the Daily Herald-Tribune in Grande Prairie in the early 80s by way of comparison when each city was about 35,00 and 40,000 population at that time.

The things one doesn't learn from a former newspaper type who has been there, done that.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> So then, you DO realize that the Edmonton Journal and the Edmonton Sun have identical editors, don't you? Or did that fact escape your knowledge of today's journalism? Don't believe me? Take a look at the two contact screen shots below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the way of the print media these days Frank. Those same editors then put a particular bias for similar stories in each publication at their whim. Funny that, eh? Ditto for every two-paper Post Media city in the country. The EJ used to have 80 on staff in the editorial department alone and ditto for the Calgary Herald. They now operate BOTH the Sun and EJ, as well as the Herald and the Calgary Sun with a total editorial staff of 15 in each city.
> 
> 
> 
> I had 15 editorial staff in Fort McMurray on the daily in the late 80's and 22 at the Daily Herald-Tribune in Grande Prairie in the early 80s by way of comparison when each city was about 35,00 and 40,000 population at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> The things one doesn't learn from a former newspaper type who has been there, done that.



That is indeed an eye opener, Don. The mind boggles. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...l-chris-alexander-hbert.html?campaign_id=A100


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It shows he has a sense of humour--upvote!

Edit: The more I think of this, the more I'm wondering if people's heads are rooted in Soviet Russia. People are now always expected by the left to publicly "denounce" things in a show of public expiation as though they're being subjected to a tribunal assessing their purity of thought and loyalty to their comrades.


----------



## FeXL

So, where are you on the MSM coverage of the US presidential election then? Using your standards, who would have received the coveted "respectable media outlet" designation?



Freddie_Biff said:


> NTo be a respectable media outlet, one must present both sides of the story and not create any fictitious stories.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, where are you on the MSM coverage of the US presidential election then? Using your standards, who would have received the coveted "respectable media outlet" designation?


Thinking of those "reporters" who simply tweeted their anger at Trump, or claimed in editorials that they refused to write about him objectively.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> So, where are you on the MSM coverage of the US presidential election then? Using your standards, who would have received the coveted "respectable media outlet" designation?



Good question. I'd say FOX News displayed its customary right wing preference, while the Daily Show and SNL (entertainment) obviously endorsed the left. I tried to sample from many media outlets, but obviously the polls were out to lunch in the States for this election, to the surprise of Hillary more than anyone. It's hard these days to find truly balanced coverage. I find I need to see the story from different perspectives and draw my own conclusions. Who do you think provides the most balanced coverage? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

It's well known on these boards that I rarely frequent MSM sites, on either side of the poli-spectrum. They simply cannot be trusted.

The few that I did swallow down my gorge long enough to read an article from always covered with their particular political bent (no surprise) but the things that offended me most were the fear mongering, half truths, coverups & outright lies that were being promulgated by the left-based ones.

The LA Times ultimately had the most accurate poll, but I read none of their election coverage.

No surprise, I got most of my news from blogs. Yes, they had their own slant, some more than others, but I overall I found there was far more accuracy, less fear mongering, fewer half-truths, coverups & outright lies than anything the MSM was peddling.

I called the election for Trump when he won the candidacy. At that time, it was based more on hope than anything. The closer the election got, the more convinced I became that Bill's Wife didn't stand a chance. The Dem elite, & their presstitutes (but I repeat myself), were ignoring all the signals coming from the grass roots in flyover country, the Rust Belt. Despite what the MSM is _still_ in denial about, the election results had far more to do with all of her baggage & her treatment of the Deplorables than the second FBI investigation.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Who do you think provides the most balanced coverage?


----------



## Macfury

I no longer care about balanced coverage--it doesn't really exist. I just find the sites that dig out the most interesting items and triangulate. If I find the item interesting, I begin to compare coverage against other sources.



FeXL said:


> It's well known on these boards that I rarely frequent MSM sites, on either side of the poli-spectrum. They simply cannot be trusted.
> 
> The few that I did swallow down my gorge long enough to read an article from always covered with their particular political bent (no surprise) but the things that offended me most were the fear mongering, half truths, coverups & outright lies that were being promulgated by the left-based ones.
> 
> The LA Times ultimately had the most accurate poll, but I read none of their election coverage.
> 
> No surprise, I got most of my news from blogs. Yes, they had their own slant, some more than others, but I overall I found there was far more accuracy, less fear mongering, fewer half-truths, coverups & outright lies than anything the MSM was peddling.
> 
> I called the election for Trump when he won the candidacy. At that time, it was based more on hope than anything. The closer the election got, the more convinced I became that Bill's Wife didn't stand a chance. The Dem elite, & their presstitutes (but I repeat myself), were ignoring all the signals coming from the grass roots in flyover country, the Rust Belt. Despite what the MSM is _still_ in denial about, the election results had far more to do with all of her baggage & her treatment of the Deplorables than the second FBI investigation.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> It's well known on these boards that I rarely frequent MSM sites, on either side of the poli-spectrum. They simply cannot be trusted.
> 
> 
> 
> The few that I did swallow down my gorge long enough to read an article from always covered with their particular political bent (no surprise) but the things that offended me most were the fear mongering, half truths, coverups & outright lies that were being promulgated by the left-based ones.
> 
> 
> 
> The LA Times ultimately had the most accurate poll, but I read none of their election coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise, I got most of my news from blogs. Yes, they had their own slant, some more than others, but I overall I found there was far more accuracy, less fear mongering, fewer half-truths, coverups & outright lies than anything the MSM was peddling.
> 
> 
> 
> I called the election for Trump when he won the candidacy. At that time, it was based more on hope than anything. The closer the election got, the more convinced I became that Bill's Wife didn't stand a chance. The Dem elite, & their presstitutes (but I repeat myself), were ignoring all the signals coming from the grass roots in flyover country, the Rust Belt. Despite what the MSM is _still_ in denial about, the election results had far more to do with all of her baggage & her treatment of the Deplorables than the second FBI investigation.



Hmmm. I think hell must have frozen over because I find myself agreeing with you. Trump certainly has a certain charisma that Hillary lacks, though I still think he's a lunatic and a little too defensive with his Twitter rants. Still, the Dems definitely underestimated the size of the Red vote in the Rust Belt and elsewhere, and the "basket of deplorables" comment certainly didn't help.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> Hmmm. I think hell must have frozen over because I find myself agreeing with you. Trump certainly has a certain charisma that Hillary lacks, though I still think he's a lunatic and a little too defensive with his Twitter rants. Still, the Dems definitely underestimated the size of the Red vote in the Rust Belt and elsewhere, and the "basket of deplorables" comment certainly didn't help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

It finally took an NDP government to do something in Alberta the previous PC governments should have done years ago. Well done, David Eggen. 



















http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news.../+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

So, lemee get this straight... 

It only took the Progs 18 months to deal with a problem that has nearly 20 years of history? And now they're suddenly heroes? 

Is that the thrust?

Contrast that with, say, PE Trump who has already managed to accomplish things Barry couldn't/wouldn't/didn't and he hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Sounds an awful lot like the timeline Red Rachel used to determine that she should do absolutely nothing with oil royalties. The good news is, at this rate, the Progs shouldn't be able to screw up too much...



Freddie_Biff said:


> It finally took an NDP government to do something in Alberta the previous PC governments should have done years ago. Well done, David Eggen.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> So, lemee get this straight...
> 
> 
> 
> It only took the Progs 18 months to deal with a problem that has nearly 20 years of history? And now they're suddenly heroes?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the thrust?
> 
> 
> 
> Contrast that with, say, PE Trump who has already managed to accomplish things Barry couldn't/wouldn't/didn't and he hasn't even been sworn in yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like the timeline Red Rachel used to determine that she should do absolutely nothing with oil royalties. The good news is, at this rate, the Progs shouldn't be able to screw up too much...



Nope, once again you've missed the point. Following due process the Alberta NDP gov't have actually followed through on a threat the previous gov't made and reiterated starting 19 years ago to defund private schools who were taking advantage of taxpayers. The PC's could have stopped it and failed. Several times. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> So, lemee get this straight...
> 
> 
> 
> It only took the Progs 18 months to deal with a problem that has nearly 20 years of history? And now they're suddenly heroes?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the thrust?
> 
> 
> 
> Contrast that with, say, PE Trump who has already managed to accomplish things Barry couldn't/wouldn't/didn't and he hasn't even been sworn in yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like the timeline Red Rachel used to determine that she should do absolutely nothing with oil royalties. The good news is, at this rate, the Progs shouldn't be able to screw up too much...















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Why did it take them 18 months if it was so serious?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Nope, once again you've missed the point. Following due process the Alberta NDP gov't have actually followed through on a threat the previous gov't made and reiterated starting 19 years ago to defund private schools who were taking advantage of taxpayers. The PC's could have stopped it and failed. Several times.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Why did it take them 18 months if it was so serious?




Why did it take 19 YEARS for the previous gov't to promise and not deliver? 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Yup, those Conservatives have so much to be proud of. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

OK, let's run with this. The Conservatives screwed up. No argument. The whole lot of them are a bunch of leaky MF's who should be shot with a ball of their own feces & urinated upon. Can we get past that? Good.

Now, once more, why did it take the NDP 18 months if it was so serious?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Why did it take 19 YEARS for the previous gov't to promise and not deliver?


----------



## Macfury

When did Conservatives adopt a specific belief about the Noah's Ark flood?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Yup, those Conservatives have so much to be proud of.


----------



## Macfury

Rachel Notley, on the other hand, thinks that closing coal plants will change the sea level!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> OK, let's run with this. The Conservatives screwed up. No argument. The whole lot of them are a bunch of leaky MF's who should be shot with a ball of their own feces & urinated upon. Can we get past that? Good.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, once more, why did it take the NDP 18 months if it was so serious?



Ima guess that maybe they wanted to be thorough and not make a mistake. But at least they did it—that's the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Looks like our friend Ezra Levant is threatened by free speech after all. No raging grannies singing O Canada allowed! 



















https://www.pressprogress.ca/ezra_l...women_singing_o_canada_from_rebel_media_rally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Looks like our friend Ezra Levant is threatened by free speech after all. No raging grannies singing O Canada allowed!


Certainly not at an event for which you've rented a hotel room! Levant was correct.


----------



## Macfury

Guess they were just lying about the social license:

Enviros Attack Trudeau-Approved Pipeline | The Daily Caller



> Environmentalist are attacking a Canadian oil pipeline approved by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a self-proclaimed climate change warrior.
> 
> Activists with the Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain pipeline, a $6.8-billion project tripling the capacity of the northern Alberta-to-Burnaby pipeline system to nearly 1 million barrels of oil a day.





Freddie_Biff said:


> Though I'm sure there will be many naysayers on this board, I am thankful we have Rachel Notley in charge in Alberta, whose environment leadership and diplomacy have managed to get two pipelines approved by the Federal Liberal government that the PC's failed to accomplish in the last ten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alberta PoliticsThe Pipeline File: NDP's ‘social license' approach worked where Conservative shouting failed, it's that simple - Alberta Politics
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Happy Christmas everyone! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


>


Good grief man, that happened way back on November 27, 2014. Old and tired news oft repeated on your source, likely Facebook? And for the record it was $80,000 if you bother to check your facts.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Good grief man, that happened way back on November 27, 2014. Old and tired news oft repeated on your source, likely Facebook? And for the record it was $80,000 if you bother to check your facts.


Why is it in the "Progressive" thread?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Why is it in the "Progressive" thread?



Because progressives like me find it humorous that anti-progressives like you are bothered by it. Happy Festivus! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> Because progressives like me find it humorous that anti-progressives like you are bothered by it. Happy Festivus!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Happy Festivus to you, Frank. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

I actually think you should post more stuff about Levant. I didn't really know who he was until the progs at EhMac began to post news and clips.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Because progressives like me find it humorous that anti-progressives like you are bothered by it. Happy Festivus!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> And for the record it was $80,000 if you bother to check your facts.


Facts have never stood in the way of a good, old-fashioned Prog rant...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Facts have never stood in the way of a good, old-fashioned Prog rant...


Progs seem to be perpetually unhappy, aggrieved and agitated. If no facts are available, any rant will do.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Progs seem to be perpetually unhappy, aggrieved and agitated. If no facts are available, any rant will do.



Hey guys! Guess what day it is today? Not whine-about-progs day, that's for sure! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> Hey guys! Guess what day it is today? Not whine-about-progs day, that's for sure!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Dr.G. said:


> Paix, mon ami.



https://youtu.be/KX5Z-HpHH9g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Uh...Pin a Prog's ears back with facts day?

I jes' luvs me these little arbitrary rules that you guys come up with, ie., You can't talk about the dead like that. If I didn't like the SOB when he was alive, his death ain't changing much.

Christmas is as good a day to point out the flaws in a Prog's argument as any...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Hey guys! Guess what day it is today?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> Uh...Pin a Prog's ears back with facts day?
> 
> 
> 
> I jes' luvs me these little arbitrary rules that you guys come up with, ie., You can't talk about the dead like that. If I didn't like the SOB when he was alive, his death ain't changing much.
> 
> 
> 
> Christmas is as good a day to point out the flaws in a Prog's argument as any...



Merry F***ing Christmas, FeXL! 

https://youtu.be/g4G_qTwgzmk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> https://youtu.be/KX5Z-HpHH9g
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A SNL classic. Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Dr.G. said:


> A SNL classic. Shalom, mon ami.




They played it yesterday on that bastion of leftist snowflake prog propaganda station CBC Radio yesterday.  Oy vey. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> They played it yesterday on that bastion of leftist snowflake prog propaganda station CBC Radio yesterday.  Oy vey.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:lmao::clap::lmao: Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## SINC

As Ricky Ricardo would say, "This 'splains it all."


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

These prog gags are so aggressively dumb. Republicans are all about individual freedom and action, so Jesus would have been free to distribute the loaves and fishes as he chose. In prog land they would have sued him for failing to get department of health inspection on the new loaves and fish, expected him to charge a sales tax on the estimated value of the newly created food.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> In prog land they would have sued him for failing to get department of health inspection on the new loaves and fish, expected him to charge a sales tax on the estimated value of the newly created food.


And charged him for not having a business license & then notified the local union steward...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> And charged him for not having a business license & then notified the local union steward...


Then ordered him to cease all miracles until they could determine how much greenhouse gas was created in the production of fish and bread.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Then ordered him to cease all miracles until they could determine how much greenhouse gas was created in the production of fish and bread.


And everybody knows how much CO2 yeast creates. He'd either have to switch to unleavened or pay a carbon tax.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> And everybody knows how much CO2 yeast creates. He'd either have to switch to unleavened or pay a carbon tax.


Then sent packing because preaching Christianity would make the local diverse community feel "uncomfortable."


----------



## Freddie_Biff

One of many reasons I admire Alberta's premier. 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Too bad she doesn't know much about real issues that affect Albertans in the pocketbook. It figures though.

It is only one of the reasons I have zero respect for her.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> One of many reasons I admire Alberta's premier.


Throw in a folk festival and you're happy. Too bad she is causing Albertans to suffer.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Throw in a folk festival and you're happy. Too bad she is causing Albertans to suffer.



Not all Albertans. You are far too simplistic in your analysis. The PC's had 44 years to figure it out, and they bailed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Not all Albertans.


Obviously not people who work for the government and union employees.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Obviously not people who work for the government and union employees.



Clearly you are not an Albertan, whereas I have been all my life. Funny how you think you can speak for us. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Clearly you are not an Albertan, whereas I have been all my life. Funny how you think you can speak for us.


The thing is, outsiders and we who have only been Albertans for 40 years and who are not government or union employees can see and feel the hurt every day Notley is in power. Not so much others who have not yet felt the sting of an NDP government before. That's experience talking.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Clearly you are not an Albertan, whereas I have been all my life. Funny how you think you can speak for us.


You have been an Albertan all your life--funny how you speak for so few Albertans. I've experienced the horror of a Bob Rae NDP government in my own province and am watching the damage unfold exactly as he meted it out--philosophy over reality, socialism over growth, want over plenty. Only union members escaped the full blast of his malfeasance.

A couple of years from now after the next provincial election we'll see whether you or I understand Alberta better.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> The thing is, outsiders and we who have only been Albertans for 40 years and who are not government or union employees can see and feel the hurt every day Notley is in power. Not so much others who have not yet felt the sting of an NDP government before. That's experience talking.



Perhaps that's because many of us felt the sting of the Klein government previously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Perhaps that's because many of us felt the sting of the Klein government previously.


I liken that experience to 'Buckley's Mixture' which tastes awful, but it works. Klein's hard decisions made for a much better Alberta.

'Notley's Mixture' is poisoning the province.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

If you think either of these cluster****s has any chance of forming government in their current state by the next election, then you really don't know much about how elections work.



> EDMONTON — Alberta’s conservative political parties, two stubborn rams of provincial politics for almost a decade now, appear poised to lock horns once again in 2017.
> 
> An entirely new entity may emerge once the dust settles.
> 
> Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives, who will pick a new leader March 18, are roiled in debate in over whether they should try to merge with the Wildrose party.
> 
> The Wildrosers, in turn, have exposed faultlines of their own over whether to join forces with their former blood enemy or continue to capitalize on their Lazarus-like return to political relevance.
> 
> “I believe that if we continue on the path that we are as Wildrose that we’re going to be stronger and more ready to battle the NDP than ever before,” Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said in a year-end interview.
> 
> “We have seen a record number of sales of memberships and record number of people coming out to our rallies and our discussions over the past six months. They’ve seen us rise from the ashes like a phoenix and come back and be reborn into a much better party, a party that truly reflects Albertans.”
> 
> Two years ago, the Tories appeared to have delivered a pre-Christmas coup de grace to end once and for all the schism of Alberta’s right that opened under former PC premier Ed Stelmach.
> 
> Led by Danielle Smith, most of the Wildrose caucus crossed the floor to join then PC premier Jim Prentice, gutting Alberta’s Official Opposition and enraging voters.
> 
> Two years and one election later, the roles are basically reversed. The PCs were decimated in the 2015 election, reduced to third-party status while the Wildrosers under Jean bounced back and now sit with 22 members to remain Official Opposition.
> 
> The PCs are now running a race to replace Prentice as permanent leader. But the narrative of the contest has been dominated by one candidate — former Conservative MP Jason Kenney — and his promise that, if he wins, he will push the rank and file to merge with the Wildrose and form a new party, perhaps the Conservative Party of Alberta.
> 
> Kenney says vote splitting on the right allowed Premier Rachel Notley’s NDP to come up the middle and win a majority government in 2015, something that can’t be allowed to re-occur.
> 
> The plan has opened up divisions in both parties.
> 
> Progressive Conservative members voted overwhelmingly this past spring to not seek a merger, but instead rebuild their own party as the best choice for right-centre voters.
> 
> Two PC caucus members, Prab Gill and Mike Ellis, are already openly endorsing Kenney, rather than fellow caucus member and leadership candidate Richard Starke.
> 
> PC legislature member Sandra Jansen was also in the running for leader but quit the race, and the party, in November saying she had been verbally abused in person and on social media for her progressive views, singling out Kenney supporters.
> 
> Kenney has stated he, too, has been vilified.
> 
> Relations with Jansen and interim PC Leader Ric McIver had become so toxic, he didn’t find out she had quit to join Notley’s caucus until he read it on Twitter.
> 
> Another of the candidates, former PC MLA Donna Kennedy-Glans, quit the race as well. Both have said the progressive wing of the party is being forced out by social conservatism, a policy that would bring the PCs more in line with the Wildrose.
> 
> McIver disagrees.
> 
> “There was a period of time when I think our party drifted to the left and I think we’ve actually put ourselves back in the centre-right where we belong,” said McIver in a year-end interview.
> 
> “It’s the place I think most Albertans want their government to be.”
> 
> Kenney, meanwhile, has hit the leadership race like a sledgehammer.
> 
> I’m willing to put everything I’ve accomplished in politics on the line for this
> 
> He began running months before the race officially began. He bused in young people and gave them a one-on-one with former prime minister Stephen Harper prior to a vote for youth delegates in Red Deer in November.
> 
> Later, he was fined by the party after he hosted a hospitality suite just down the hall a delegate selection meeting in Edmonton.
> 
> On the Wildrose side, while Jean takes a wait-and-see approach, caucus finance critic Derek Fildebrandt is openly campaigning for the merger.
> 
> “I’m willing to put everything I’ve accomplished in politics on the line for this,” Fildebrandt told a Whitecourt radio station earlier this month.
> 
> Jean questioned the premise of Kenney’s pitch on vote splitting. He said it took years for Premier Brad Wall’s Saskatchewan Party to win power following the amalgamation of Liberal and Progressive Conservative members.
> 
> “We don’t have 10 years. We have to make sure that the NDP are stopped in the next election,” said Jean.
> 
> McIver said the fate of the PCs is where it should be, with the members.
> 
> “I believe that our members and only our members should make that decision (on merger),” said McIver.
> 
> “They’ll pick one of the four contenders and that will give us as a party a signal on where we need to go next — and we’ll go there.”


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...at+stopped+2017+will+year/12594032/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> If you think either of these cluster****s has any chance of forming government in their current state by the next election, then you really don't know much about how elections work.
> 
> 
> 
> ‘We have to make sure that the NDP are stopped': 2017 will be a year of reckoning for Alberta conservatives


On the contrary, it is you who have no conception of the absolute and total hate the vast majority of Albertans have for the NDP now.

It simply does not matter what happens on the right, a huge majority of votes will be cast against the NDP just like they were against Prentice and crew last time around and the NDP will be decimated like the Conservatives were. The NDP will never survive the onslaught of aggravated voters they will face in 2019 and once again be relegated to the ranks of the opposition, only this time for good. The Wildrose is the likely party to gain all those votes and the Conservatives will be disbanded after the next election is where the smart money is being bet. Their first act will be to kill the carbon tax and reinstate the coal generating stations to the cheering of Albertans.

Watch it happen.


----------



## FeXL

Why am I not surprised that you would give thumbs up to somebody who endorses a cobbled together holiday dreamt up by a racist, misogynistic, California, nut-job thug who spent time in the joint for assaulting women with a soldering iron & a vice, used images of North American foodstuffs (corn) to celebrate the African harvest over, of all times, winter solstice, & uses terms selected from a language spoken by a very small percentage of actual Africans rather than a language that far more would understand?

I jes' luvs me low information voters and politicians...

Waaaaait just a minute. This isn't yet another one of your feeble attempts at satire again, is it?



Freddie_Biff said:


> One of many reasons I admire Alberta's premier.


----------



## FeXL

I'm sorry, is that a call to authority, a logical fallacy? Yeppers.

Argument _fail_.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Clearly you are not an Albertan, whereas I have been all my life.


Funny how you think you can speak for me.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Funny how you think you can speak for us.


----------



## FeXL

They didn't bail. They had their asses handed to them because they were arrogant. 

Which is exactly why I don't want them back in a little over two years.



Freddie_Biff said:


> The PC's had 44 years to figure it out, and they bailed.


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> I liken that experience to 'Buckley's Mixture' which tastes awful, but it works. Klein's hard decisions made for a much better Alberta.
> 
> 'Notley's Mixture' is poisoning the province.


This. 100x...


----------



## FeXL

By the time Red Rachel gets done with you, you'll be wishing for those horrible Klein years...

Oh, & you're not still going on about that so-called 40% wage cut, are you?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Perhaps that's because many of us felt the sting of the Klein government previously.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> They didn't bail. They had their asses handed to them because they were arrogant.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why I don't want them back in a little over two years.



So who do you think will inherit the crown? The Wild Rose? With all the division on the right that continues? Yeah, good luck with that. If the right doesn't get its ****e together, you could well see another NDP term, as difficult as that might be for you to imagine. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> So who do you think will inherit the crown? The Wild Rose? With all the division on the right that continues? Yeah, good luck with that. If the right doesn't get its ****e together, you could well see another NDP term, as difficult as that might be for you to imagine.


What you continue to misunderstand is that it is not the right who will make change by amalgamating or whatever it is you think they should do.

It is the people of Alberta who will make that decision and I can assure you that they will toss out Notley and the NDP on their collective butts. 

My guess is that with the fracture on the right, they will vote as strongly for the Wildrose as they did for Nothead and her Dippers last time around and toss Red Rachel out on her ass. They will never vote Conservative again no matter how hard Jason Kenney tries. He too will be toast.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> What you continue to misunderstand is that it is not the right who will make change by amalgamating or whatever it is you think they should do.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the people of Alberta who will make that decision and I can assure you that they will toss out Notley and the NDP on their collective butts.
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that with the fracture on the right, they will vote as strongly for the Wildrose as they did for Nothead and her Dippers last time around and toss Red Rachel out on her ass. They will never vote Conservative again no matter how hard Jason Kenney tries. He too will be toast.



On that last point we can agree. Alberta has never returned a party to power once they have been voted out. However, there is a VERY siginificant chance of the right cancelling itself out again. The PC's and Wildrose aren't the only right wing choices in town. Personally, I'd like to see more parties on the right—Albertans want choice! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

"Get used to saying it: Madame President!"



Freddie_Biff said:


> However, there is a VERY siginificant chance of the right cancelling itself out again.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

I know some of you will disagree with this accolade, but I don't personally give a ****e. Well done, Premier Notley!










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

> CBC has named...


Now there's a shocker!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Now there's a shocker!



Glad to see you still consider ALL news sources before forming an opinion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I'm known for it!



Freddie_Biff said:


> Glad to see you still consider ALL news sources before forming an opinion.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> I'm known for it!



Well, actually you're known for selectively quoting from the sources, typically right or alt-right, that support the world view you espouse, but hey, if you'd like to think of yourself as being objective, then whatever floats your boat, mon ami. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Still haven't met a single person who calls themselves "alt-right." I think it's just a boogeyman label made up by progs who see their power to intimidate slipping away.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Well, actually you're known for selectively quoting from the sources, typically right or alt-right, that support the world view you espouse, but hey, if you'd like to think of yourself as being objective, then whatever floats your boat, mon ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Still haven't met a single person who calls themselves "alt-right." I think it's just a boogeyman label made up by progs who see their power to intimidate slipping away.



Of course you don't see yourself as alt-right. Most fascist regimes don't consider themselves to be fascist either. Nor do bullies ever see themselves as bullies. I wouldn't expect you to call yourself alt-right. And you probably don't think Trump was trying to appeal to the alt-right either, despite making the publisher of Breitbart News is top adviser. It's okay; others will see it, even if you don't. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I don't even know who the alt-right is. But if they voted for Trump they did their nation a great favour. 

Hey, Freddie--there's a Russian under your bed. Boo!



Freddie_Biff said:


> Of course you don't see yourself as alt-right. Most fascist regimes don't consider themselves to be fascist either. Nor do bullies ever see themselves as bullies. I wouldn't expect you to call yourself alt-right. And you probably don't think Trump was trying to appeal to the alt-right either, despite making the publisher of Breitbart News is top adviser. It's okay; others will see it, even if you don't.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> I don't even know who the alt-right is. But if they voted for Trump they did their nation a great favour.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Freddie--there's a Russian under your bed. Boo!



Here, let me google that for you: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

"A loose group of people." In other words hangers-on that the parties try to cut loose, in the same way as reasonable liberal Democrats are beginning to purge themselves of progs.




Freddie_Biff said:


> Here, let me google that for you:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, she did a bang up job with the Fort Mac fire. Just as soon as she got over her victory celebration hangover. As far as getting two pipelines approved, that wasn't done by her. That was done by The Hairdo...

Typical MotherCorpse journalism...



Freddie_Biff said:


> I know some of you will disagree with this accolade...


----------



## FeXL

SINC's got it. The right could be split 4 ways come next election & they'll still kick the NDP's butt. No way in hell Red Rachel gets elected again. They've still got 2 more years to **** off the populace. Wait for all the fallout from the Carbon Tax to hit the fan. We haven't even started, yet.



Freddie_Biff said:


> With all the division on the right that continues?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

fjnmusic said:


> This thread is for forum members who would like to consider some of the positive aspects of progressive governments that have been elected in Canada and its provinces. It is not for the complainers. No trolls please.
> 
> ETA: This thread can also serve as a discussion of progressive policies and governments in other parts of the world as well, especially with an election on the horizon in the USA. What is that makes one's views "progressive" as opposed to say, "conservative"? Is there a difference between "progressive" and "liberal" or "democrat"? Feel free to expand the scope as needed, but please always be respectful of others' views, especially those with whom you may disagree.
> 
> There are many other places where one can complain about progressive policies (The Alberta NDP Thread, ironically enough, among others), and so this thread is designed for those of us who see hope in progressive style governments and their leaders.
> 
> For instance, today the Royalty Review was released in Alberta, looking not nearly as scary as some people feared.
> 
> Royalties remain the same for Alberta oilsands projects, says Notley | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It is curious how the stated intent of a specific thread can so quickly be taken over and monopolized by hijackers. I thought there was an anti-progressive thread expressly set up for that purpose. Perhaps echo chambers just are not all that interesting after all. Paix mes amis, et Bonnie Année!










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

First mistake: Admitting you're a prog. 

Chit happens from there.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> First mistake: Admitting you're a prog.
> 
> 
> 
> Chit happens from there.



Wrong. Last I checked, we had something called free speech, and forum threads could be focussed on whatever the OP asks to attract people of like interest. Apparently, that makes you a prog too Don, along with Macfury and FeXL, since the three of you have posted here more than anyone else. Welcome to the prog club, mes amis! Dr G and CubaMark would be proud. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

> The founder of a Calgary commodities and trading firm says 2017 should be a good year for recovering oil prices.
> 
> We could even see $100 oil again within the next five years, according to Tim Pickering with Auspice Capital Advisors.
> 
> And his positive outlook doesn't hinge on the actions of OPEC.
> 
> "Regardless of OPEC cutting 500,000 or 1 million or 1.5 million barrels and sticking to that, we're generally positive and think we're going to be on a positive trajectory here for some time," he said. "The supply demand balance is coming back regardless of OPEC."
> 
> Pickering said he doesn't agree with some forecasts predicting oil will sit in the $40 to $60 per barrel range for a prolonged period.
> 
> Tim Pickering
> Tim Pickering, President and CIO of Auspice Capital Advisors Ltd. is predicting good things for oil prices in 2017. (Auspice Capital Advisors Ltd.)
> 
> "What we're seeing is a much more positive trajectory for the commodity and typically when we see that happen, it lasts for some time," he said.
> 
> Pickering believes enough factors are lining up, including the momentum of the market itself, to feel positive about 2017 and beyond.
> 
> "Oil doesn't like to stay stuck for too long," he said.
> 
> But his outlook isn't as positive for the labour market in 2017 as he predicts companies will continue to rein in spending and operate as lean as possible with better efficiency and cost-cutting still the top priority for most.
> 
> "These companies have been very aggressive and diligent at cutting costs and 2017 is still going to start with those measures very much at the forefront. Businesses are running differently now than three or four years ago."


$100 oil in the forecast, according to commodity investment boss - Calgary - CBC News


----------



## Macfury

$100 within the next five years? Notley will be gone by then.


----------



## FeXL

No such thing as a free lunch. Or, for that matter, a "safe" zone.

You want to celebrate Prog achievements? Fine. Better be able to defend your claims. With _facts_, not feelings, belief systems, unicorn farts or pixie dust.

Deal with it or move on to all those much lauded administered sites you fawn over...



Freddie_Biff said:


> It is curious how the stated intent of a specific thread can so quickly be taken over and monopolized by hijackers.


The iron. Quoting free speech out of one side of your mouth & then criticizing those who exercise that very privilege out of the other side. Hypocrite, much?

Free speech means being able to talk about sex, drugs & rock and roll in the GHG thread if the notion hits.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Last I checked, we had something called free speech...


And threads take on a life of their own. 

Instead of whining about it, put on your big girl panties & defend your position. That'll do more to preserve the intended integrity than any amount of p!$$ing & moaning. Nobody likes a whiner. However, people will take note of someone with a good, defensible position, even if they don't agree with them.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?



Freddie_Biff said:


> ...and forum threads could be focussed on whatever the OP asks to attract people of like interest.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> You want to celebrate Prog achievements? Fine. Better be able to defend your claims. With _facts_, not feelings, belief systems, unicorn farts or pixie dust.


There's always virtue signalling--progs swarm to it like flies.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> No such thing as a free lunch. Or, for that matter, a "safe" zone.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to celebrate Prog achievements? Fine. Better be able to defend your claims. With _facts_, not feelings, belief systems, unicorn farts or pixie dust.
> 
> 
> 
> Deal with it or move on to all those much lauded administered sites you fawn over...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The iron. Quoting free speech out of one side of your mouth & then criticizing those who exercise that very privilege out of the other side. Hypocrite, much?
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech means being able to talk about sex, drugs & rock and roll in the GHG thread if the notion hits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And threads take on a life of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of whining about it, put on your big girl panties & defend your position. That'll do more to preserve the intended integrity than any amount of p!$$ing & moaning. Nobody likes a whiner. However, people will take note of someone with a good, defensible position, even if they don't agree with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this so difficult for you to understand?



How does venom taste? You use it like mouthwash. But it must upset the stomach over time. Have a nice day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

*Why is the word progressive so repellent to some people?*

There was a time when even conservatives thought the word progressive was a good thing. 

It seems that extremists on the right and the left have co-opted the word to be either something negative or positive depending on your political bias.

There are only two other options to progressive, status quo or regressive. If times are good then status quo makes sense. If times are bad then progressive would seem to make sense. If times are really, really bad and things have changed too quickly then being regressive may be a good thing.

It is all in context and relative and the black and white positions that are often displayed here lack nuance and contextual detail. There are closer to 1000 shades of grey than 50...


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> There was a time when even conservatives thought the word progressive was a good thing.
> 
> It seems that extremists on the right and the left have co-opted the word to be either something negative or positive depending on your political bias.
> 
> There are only two other options to progressive, status quo or regressive. If times are good then status quo makes sense. If times are bad then progressive would seem to make sense. If times are really, really bad and things have changed too quickly then being regressive may be a good thing.
> 
> It is all in context and relative and the black and white positions that are often displayed here lack nuance and contextual detail. There are closer to 1000 shades of grey than 50...


Excellent points, screature. I for one am proud to be called a progressive, a liberal, a democrat, a kind person, etc. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> There was a time when even conservatives thought the word progressive was a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that extremists on the right and the left have co-opted the word to be either something negative or positive depending on your political bias.
> 
> 
> 
> There are only two other options to progressive, status quo or regressive. If times are good then status quo makes sense. If times are bad then progressive would seem to make sense. If times are really, really bad and things have changed too quickly then being regressive may be a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> It is all in context and relative and the black and white positions that are often displayed here lack nuance and contextual detail. There are closer to 1000 shades of grey than 50...



Good point, Screature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Dr.G. said:


> Excellent points, screature. I for one am proud to be called a progressive, a liberal, a democrat, a kind person, etc. Paix, mon ami.



How do you feel about "snowflake"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

Personally I am old fashioned and like my Dad before me, I refer to myself as a Red Tory, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A shade of grey if you will.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> How do you feel about "snowflake"?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not to answer for Dr. G. but for myself, so long as snow preceded flake it wouldn't bother me. They are beautiful and unique.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Not to answer for Dr. G. but for myself, so long as snow preceded flake it wouldn't bother me. They are beautiful and unique.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> How do you feel about "snowflake"?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hate the term, Frank, but it is apt for some people. Sadly, some people have been so sheltered from reality that just the mentions of "Donald Trump will soon be president" will drive them into a panic mode. I do believe in PTSD, but the fact that I may have to purge my online web courses at Memorial University of certain topics (e.g., learning disabilities/learning problems) or even certain trigger words, (e.g., stupid, slow, lazy, etc) is not something I look forward to. I am sensitive to the situations that students have experienced, but the fact that I might no longer be able to tell my students NOT to label students with words like "stupid, slow, lazy, etc" since I can't use these words is a bit much.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Personally I am old fashioned and like my Dad before me, I refer to myself as a Red Tory, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A shade of grey if you will.


Interesting. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative when it comes to spending wastes. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Not to answer for Dr. G. but for myself, so long as snow preceded flake it wouldn't bother me. They are beautiful and unique.


True. A snow flake is unique and beautiful ............ a snowflake as someone who cannot be exposed to reality is something else.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Dr.G. said:


> Hate the term, Frank, but it is apt for some people. Sadly, some people have been so sheltered from reality that just the mentions of "Donald Trump will soon be president" will drive them into a panic mode. I do believe in PTSD, but the fact that I may have to purge my online web courses at Memorial University of certain topics (e.g., learning disabilities/learning problems) or even certain trigger words, (e.g., stupid, slow, lazy, etc) is not something I look forward to. I am sensitive to the situations that students have experienced, but the fact that I might no longer be able to tell my students NOT to label students with words like "stupid, slow, lazy, etc" since I can't use these words is a bit much.
> 
> 
> 
> Paix, mon ami.



I suppose it's like being sensitive to which pronouns we use now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> I suppose it's like being sensitive to which pronouns we use now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


True. I am starting to understand the rationale underlying why some people want to be referred to as "they". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> I suppose it's like being sensitive to which pronouns we use now.


Snowflakes would be sensitive to such things. Others would use common sense.


----------



## FeXL

screature said:


> Why is the word progressive so repellent to some people?


Simply put, because of what it's come to represent.

Need examples? Head over to the Anti-Prog thread. For that matter, you can also hang here on the Prog thread & laugh at the so-called "achievements", too.

BTW, in my lexicon Prog is the shortened form of <spit>Prog.


----------



## FeXL

Dunno. I'd have to ask one of the Progs on the boards. They're the experts...



Freddie_Biff said:


> How does venom taste?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Happy New Year, mes amis! May we see great progress in the year ahead. ☮


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

May the progressives actually do something worthwhile in 2017!


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Happy New Year, mes amis! May we see great progress in the year ahead. ☮


That's a sure bet as long as you don't live in Alberta or Ontario, then not so much. Those two will have to reach deep into their wallets for every single item they buy and it gets worse in 2018 for Alberta as Knothead increases taxes yet again. Only good part is 2019 when the Alberta NDP get kicked out on their asses.


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> Happy New Year, mes amis! May we see great progress in the year ahead. ☮
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fine thoughts, Frank. May you have a good new year as well. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> That's a sure bet as long as you don't live in Alberta or Ontario, then not so much. Those two will have to reach deep into their wallets for every single item they buy and it gets worse in 2018 for Alberta as Knothead increases taxes yet again. Only good part is 2019 when the Alberta NDP get kicked out on their asses.



I heartily disagree, but that's to be expected. May the two of us find more to agree on than disagree on in the year ahead. In any event, we shall make progress in Alberta—we have a progressive government! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> May the progressives actually do something worthwhile in 2017!




On this we have some agreement! Better progress than regress. Or regrets. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> I heartily disagree, but that's to be expected. May the two of us find more to agree on than disagree on in the year ahead. In any event, we shall make progress in Alberta—we have a progressive government!


Surely you cannot be serious. Tax after regressive tax during the worst recession the province has had in years? :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> May the progressives actually do something worthwhile in 2017!


May the Progs just leave $h!t alone in 2017...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> May the Progs just leave $h!t alone in 2017...



I'm sure the Progs will leave Jason Kenney and his fellow Con men alone to fight it out amongst themselves, the Wild Rose and the rest of the right wing Cluster****s in Alberta. No point in getting involved in that one as they have a shootout Reservoir Dogs style. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

They could run a bullet-riddled corpse against what's left of Notley and log a decisive win!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> They could run a bullet-riddled corpse against what's left of Notley and log a decisive win!



You keep dreaming. There are too many radicals and losers in both the PC and WR camps to attract centrist voters at this point. The right has a ****load of work to do before 2019 in Alberta, and they are not off t a very good start. If 2015 was a protest vote (as some here claim), then what does the 2019 "party of the right" have to offer beyond more whining and moaning? There's certainly no unified party policy on the table because there is no unified party. Yes the NDP can be defeated, which is why they're getting 'er done while they can, but there is no viable alternative. Not yet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Are you kidding? Notley and her entire party are radicals. They will dump her with abandon just to experience the sweet relief of living life as it was before a cruel and careless taskmaster squashed the province flat with her avarice.



Freddie_Biff said:


> You keep dreaming. There are too many radicals and losers in both the PC and WR camps to attract centrist voters at this point. The right has a ****load of work to do before 2019 in Alberta, and they are not off t a very good start. If 2015 was a protest vote (as some here claim), then what does the 2019 "party of the right" have to offer beyond more whining and moaning? There's certainly no unified party policy on the table because there is no unified party. Yes the NDP can be defeated, which is why they're getting 'er done while they can, but there is no viable alternative. Not yet.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> You keep dreaming. There are too many radicals and losers in both the PC and WR camps to attract centrist voters at this point. The right has a ****load of work to do before 2019 in Alberta, and they are not off t a very good start. If 2015 was a protest vote (as some here claim), then what does the 2019 "party of the right" have to offer beyond more whining and moaning? There's certainly no unified party policy on the table because there is no unified party. Yes the NDP can be defeated, which is why they're getting 'er done while they can, but there is no viable alternative. Not yet.


So then, just how do you explain recent polls that say 75% of Albertans are against Red Rachel and the NDP? Huh?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> So then, just how do you explain recent polls that say 75% of Albertans are against Red Rachel and the NDP? Huh?



Well, if 25% vote PC, 25% vote WR, 25% vote for some other party and 25% vote NDP, you've still got a race that's too close to call. Do the Math. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Well, if 25% vote PC, 25% vote WR, 25% vote for some other party and 25% vote NDP, you've still got a race that's too close to call. Do the Math.


I did the math, but first applied the anger. 

Others 0%, 25% NDP, 45% WR and 30% Con equals Dippers gone. 

If the right unites it will go 75% right, Red Rachel 25% and toast. They really ought to have an anger symbol for math, shouldn't they? :lmao:

Never underestimate angry voters who had a carbon tax rammed up their butt being kind to the party with the ram.


----------



## FeXL

Reality check. What "other" party? Libs? 25%? Not a chance. <10%. And, you think after two more years of screwing over the Alberta populace Red Rachel's going to get 25%? Again, not a chance.

I've already made the call for next election. Rachel's out. Period.

And, I'll make another one. I'll be surprised if they receive >20% of the vote, even counting in the cranio-rectal inverted unionistas.

There will be a conservative gov't in power come next Alberta election. All that remains to be seen is whether it's the PC's or WR or some combination.

Milk it while you can, Freddie. This will be the last left-leaning gov't you'll see in Alberta in your lifetime.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Well, if 25% vote PC, 25% vote WR, 25% vote for some other party and 25% vote NDP, you've still got a race that's too close to call. Do the Math.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> Reality check. What "other" party? Libs? 25%? Not a chance. <10%. And, you think after two more years of screwing over the Alberta populace Red Rachel's going to get 25%? Again, not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already made the call for next election. Rachel's out. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> And, I'll make another one. I'll be surprised if they receive >20% of the vote, even counting in the cranio-rectal inverted unionistas.
> 
> 
> 
> There will be a conservative gov't in power come next Alberta election. All that remains to be seen is whether it's the PC's or WR or some combination.
> 
> 
> 
> Milk it while you can, Freddie. This will be the last left-leaning gov't you'll see in Alberta in your lifetime.



Boy, are you ever brave with those Conservative forecasts of yours. Rachel out? So hard to believe. Yet if she has (allegedly) a 75% disapproval rate, then that means she has a 25% approval rate. If one in four voters votes for her and split their vote among the remaining parties, no one has a guarantee, a fact that doesn't seem to sink in for you. Currently she's the only leader actually leading and doing what she promised to do, even if you don't like it. The clusterfukc on the right is nowhere near ready to become a viable alternative. Perhaps instead of whining, you should actually get your people organized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Boy, are you ever brave with those Conservative forecasts of yours. Rachel out? So hard to believe. Yet if she has (allegedly) a 75% disapproval rate, then that means she has a 25% approval rate. If one in four voters votes for her and split their vote among the remaining parties, no one has a guarantee, a fact that doesn't seem to sink in for you. Currently she's the only leader actually leading and doing what she promised to do, even if you don't like it. The clusterfukc on the right is nowhere near ready to become a viable alternative. Perhaps instead of whining, you should actually get your people organized.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wrong again Frank. Show us where she ever campaigned on or promised to enact bill 6, or a carbon tax. Go ahead show us.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Wrong again Frank. Show us where she ever campaigned on or promised to enact bill 6, or a carbon tax. Go ahead show us.




She campaigned on farm safety and taking steps to protect the environment. Klein campaigned on creating 104,000 jobs but never said anything about cutting education and healthcare wages and workforce numbers. Politicians often make vague promises of their intentions without laying out the specifics. Your point being? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

And you thought Trump wouldn't win, either.

My Conservative forecasts are conservative. Rachel is gone, gone, gone. And, although she may have a 25% approval rating right now before Albertans see the effects of her Carbon Tax, that is going to head south very soon. As of today she alienated the whole province and it ain't gonna get better.

You keep on fantasizing about a third party taking votes from the right. Who? Look at historical numbers. It sure as hell ain't going to be the Libs and there's no one else with enough panache to attract anything more than a few fringe voters.

If, if, if. If the rabbit hadn't stopped to take a crap he'd a beat the turtle.

I will guaran-gawdam-tee you Rachel & the Red Horde will be reduced to ashes comes next election. Even if the right is currently split it ain't gonna take much to beat them. You, sitting up there in the middle of NDP land, have no clew of the discontent in the rest of the province. You sure as hell ain't gonna read about from MotherCorpse anywhere. Just like you and the left never paid attention to the grass roots voters in the US. Ignore it at your peril.

As SINC pointed out, she never once mentioned a Carbon Tax. If she had, no way she got elected. Not in a province with this much invested in energy. And, I'm more than willing to have you explain to me exactly how a Carbon Tax, any Carbon Tax, "protects the environment". In addition, you can explain just how unionizing farm workers makes for a safe workplace.

Klein did note during campaigning that there were going to be cutbacks. Use your head. Where would that come from? Obviously, the biggest spenders in the province: healthcare & education.

As to your observation about whining, fukc you. Whenever someone gives you facts you can't refute your fallback position is to studiously ignore the post (either directly or through obfuscation) or to accuse them of whining. I'm pointing out patently obvious facts to an ideologue running on little more than faith.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Boy, are you ever brave with those Conservative forecasts of yours. Rachel out? So hard to believe. Yet if she has (allegedly) a 75% disapproval rate, then that means she has a 25% approval rate. If one in four voters votes for her and split their vote among the remaining parties, no one has a guarantee, a fact that doesn't seem to sink in for you. Currently she's the only leader actually leading and doing what she promised to do, even if you don't like it. The clusterfukc on the right is nowhere near ready to become a viable alternative. Perhaps instead of whining, you should actually get your people organized.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> And you thought Trump wouldn't win, either.
> 
> 
> 
> My Conservative forecasts are conservative. Rachel is gone, gone, gone. And, although she may have a 25% approval rating right now before Albertans see the effects of her Carbon Tax, that is going to head south very soon. As of today she alienated the whole province and it ain't gonna get better.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on fantasizing about a third party taking votes from the right. Who? Look at historical numbers. It sure as hell ain't going to be the Libs and there's no one else with enough panache to attract anything more than a few fringe voters.
> 
> 
> 
> If, if, if. If the rabbit hadn't stopped to take a crap he'd a beat the turtle.
> 
> 
> 
> I will guaran-gawdam-tee you Rachel & the Red Horde will be reduced to ashes comes next election. Even if the right is currently split it ain't gonna take much to beat them. You, sitting up there in the middle of NDP land, have no clew of the discontent in the rest of the province. You sure as hell ain't gonna read about from MotherCorpse anywhere. Just like you and the left never paid attention to the grass roots voters in the US. Ignore it at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> As SINC pointed out, she never once mentioned a Carbon Tax. If she had, no way she got elected. Not in a province with this much invested in energy. And, I'm more than willing to have you explain to me exactly how a Carbon Tax, any Carbon Tax, "protects the environment". In addition, you can explain just how unionizing farm workers makes for a safe workplace.
> 
> 
> 
> Klein did note during campaigning that there were going to be cutbacks. Use your head. Where would that come from? Obviously, the biggest spenders in the province: healthcare & education.
> 
> 
> 
> As to your observation about whining, fukc you. Whenever someone gives you facts you can't refute your fallback position is to studiously ignore the post (either directly or through obfuscation) or to accuse them of whining. I'm pointing out patently obvious facts to an ideologue running on little more than faith.



Your post was interesting until the last paragraph, where your usual acidity takes over. I was going to respond until I read that last bit, but you don't seem to know how to converse without getting nasty. So fukc you too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Even bigger news--it's going to take a Ralph Klein to clean up the massive piles of excrement left behind by the NDP nincompoops. If that premier decreases teachers' salaries by 2% over the next 50 years it will mean a 100% pay cut.


----------



## eMacMan

Freddie_Biff said:


> She campaigned on farm safety and *taking steps to protect the environment.* Klein campaigned on creating 104,000 jobs but never said anything about cutting education and healthcare wages and workforce numbers. Politicians often make vague promises of their intentions without laying out the specifics. Your point being?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A carbon Tax does nothing to protect the environment. Since the government is in a deficit mode by definition all proceeds go directly to the Rothchilds. The tax itself does nothing but fuel inflation. Any CO2 reduction would be entirely due to those on the poor end of the fiscal scale being turned out of their homes. 

Of course there are far more important environmental concerns being ignored, while the populace is distracted by the carbon scam. More bat and eagle killing windmills are being built to attempt to offset power losses caused by shutting down coal plants. Then there is the abysmal water quality on native reserves. Sewage treatment plants in almost every community need a lot of work...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Even bigger news--it's going to take a Ralph Klein to clean up the massive piles of excrement left behind by the NDP nincompoops. If that premier decreases teachers' salaries by 2% over the next 50 years it will mean a 100% pay cut.



Again, go back and read the original quote. 2 x 50 does equal 100% OF ONE YEAR'S WAGES. 5 x 8 is equilavent to 40% OF ONE YEAR'S WAGES. Don't twist. 

You really like to whine and bitch about "Red Rachel" but please explain to me who you believe would have the support of the province. Neither Brian Jean nor Jason Kenney appear eager to back down, nor does the rest of their respective parties, and that's just two of the many parties popping up like mushrooms on the right. So let's say the NDP are defeated in 2019; then what? You have offered no plausible alternative with any coherent plan for the future of Alberta. Just more whining and snivelling about how mean those NDP are. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

'Cause just anticipating your next content-free post is what makes my day.

The more you respond, the more your ignorance of the subject is displayed. The more you don't respond, the more I know you got nuttin'.

Win/win.



Freddie_Biff said:


> I was going to respond until I read that last bit...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

eMacMan said:


> A carbon Tax does nothing to protect the environment. Since the government is in a deficit mode by definition all proceeds go directly to the Rothchilds. The tax itself does nothing but fuel inflation. Any CO2 reduction would be entirely due to those on the poor end of the fiscal scale being turned out of their homes.
> 
> Of course there are far more important environmental concerns being ignored, while the populace is distracted by the carbon scam. More bat and eagle killing windmills are being built to attempt to offset power losses caused by shutting down coal plants. Then there is the abysmal water quality on native reserves. Sewage treatment plants in almost every community need a lot of work...



These are all legit concerns, eMacMan, especially with regards to water. It is the most valuable resource on the planet. As far as the carbon tax goes, government revenue must come from somewhere. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether the tax really helps the environment, but at least it's fairy distributed on all citizens. Klein' cuts were specifically aimed at a specific group's wages. I know because I was one of those groups. And when the government started showing surpluses, he didn't reward our sacrifice by repaying the loan. He kept gouging until we were able to get back half of what we'd given up "to help balance the budget" by the winning an arbitration ruling. We were seeking 28% and we got 14%. Now 14% might seem like a lot for one given year, and it is, but if you use Macfury's formula it's really only 1.75% or less over eight years. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> 'Cause just anticipating your next content-free post is what makes my day.
> 
> 
> 
> The more you respond, the more your ignorance of the subject is displayed. The more you don't respond, the more I know you got nuttin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Win/win.



Except that you are still not persuasive. You've been trying for years but the fact is you still got nuttin'. Happy New Year. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Unfukcing believable!!!

Math doesn't work that way!!! If you are using 50 years as a sample size you need to divide by 50 in order to get a yearly average. Look:

(2% each year for 50 years)/50 years. The 50's cancel out and you get, guess what, 2%!!! Same as (5% x 8 years)/8 years equals 5% cutback!!!

My cat, the stupid one, can figger this out.



Freddie_Biff said:


> 2 x 50 does equal 100% OF ONE YEAR'S WAGES. 5 x 8 is equilavent to 40% OF ONE YEAR'S WAGES. Don't twist.


----------



## FeXL

Not trying to be persuasive. I just present the facts. I expect rational human beings to figger it out on their own.

I can lead the horse to water. I can't make him drink.

BTW, you are dying of thirst. Jes' sayin'...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Except that you are still not persuasive.


----------



## eMacMan

Freddie_Biff said:


> These are all legit concerns, eMacMan, especially with regards to water. It is the most valuable resource on the planet. As far as the carbon tax goes, government revenue must come from somewhere. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether the tax really helps the environment, but at least it's fairy distributed on all citizens. Klein' cuts were specifically aimed at a specific group's wages. I know because I was one of those groups. And when the government started showing surpluses, he didn't reward our sacrifice by repaying the loan. He kept gouging until we were able to get back half of what we'd given up "to help balance the budget" by the winning an arbitration ruling. We were seeking 28% and we got 14%. Now 14% might seem like a lot for one given year, and it is, but if you use Macfury's formula it's really only 1.75% or less over eight years.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No it is not in the least fairly distributed. Those who are poorest will be hit far harder than everyone else. They will be facing additional home heating costs, additional transportation costs, and inflationary pressure from the Carbon Tax. Someone who has never wondered if their income that week will be adequate to pay the utilities bill and put food on the table, simply cannot comprehend how even a seemingly minor increase in expenses can harm those who have no real hope of increasing their income. 

Something tells me those on AISH will not be seeing any proceeds from that Carbon Tax.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> Not trying to be persuasive. I just present the facts. I expect rational human beings to figger it out on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> I can lead the horse to water. I can't make him drink.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, you are dying of thirst. Jes' sayin'...




You don't present the facts. You present your strongly slanted opinion and pretend it is a fact. The thing about wage cutbacks is that they become huge over time. Per year, 5% may not seem that bad, but IT DEPENDS HOW MANG YEARS IN A ROW THAT 5% RECURS. Perhaps you haven't had to insure wage cutbacks so you have no idea. What I know is that if my were supposed to be $70,000, then that's $28,000 out of my pocket that went to the "balancing the budget" cause, not out of yours. That's what happens when you make all your cuts come from the public sector rather than balance it out with a tax that hits everyone. A carbon tax may not be popular, but it is fair. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

eMacMan said:


> No it is not in the least fairly distributed. Those who are poorest will be hit far harder than everyone else. They will be facing additional home heating costs, additional transportation costs, and inflationary pressure from the Carbon Tax. Someone who has never wondered if their income that week will be adequate to pay the utilities bill and put food on the table, simply cannot comprehend how even a seemingly minor increase in expenses can harm those who have no real hope of increasing their income.
> 
> Something tells me those on AISH will not be seeing any proceeds from that Carbon Tax.



You are forgetting that there is a rebate for the poorest people. Anyone with a family salary of $140,000 or less breaks even. It is really more of a tax on the most wealthy members of society. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

And you do. A 5% cutback over 8 years is a 40% cutback. Rachel's smart. She's 50! There are dozens more but I can't be bothered.



Freddie_Biff said:


> You don't present the facts.


UUUUUGE!!!



Freddie_Biff said:


> The thing about wage cutbacks is that they become huge over time.


5% is 5%. Period. Everything else is just noise.

My lovely bride was subject to the very same 5% cutback you received. Did it sting? Yes! Did we need to make changes? Yes! However, we held our heads high, proud that we had contributed in some small fashion to Alberta's recovery, which benefitted everyone: our families, our friends, our neighbours, our fellow Albertans.

We weren't just thinking of ourselves. I guess perspective is everything...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Per year, 5% may not seem that bad, but IT DEPENDS HOW MANG YEARS IN A ROW THAT 5% RECURS.


You know nothing about me or mine. Don't even begin to presume. If only 5% and only for a couple of years...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Perhaps you haven't had to insure wage cutbacks so you have no idea.


Boohoo!!! Everybody made sacrifices. Not just public service. Some still are, long after the Klein years. I don't hear you bemoaning the loss of well over 100,000 oil-related jobs, all the while much of the public sector has seen raises. And, those are gone! Poof! Not just a 5% cutback but 100% toast. Walk around in those shoes for a while, then come back & talk about 5%!!! Whiner...

And a so-called "equitable" carbon tax is neither revenue neutral nor class safe. Or, for that matter, effective at doing anything but lining gov't coffers. It will all trickle down & that much anticipated refund cheque will be more a kick to the groin than adequate compensation.



Freddie_Biff said:


> ...then that's $28,000 out of my pocket that went to the "balancing the budget" cause, not out of yours. That's what happens when you make all your cuts come from the public sector rather than balance it out with a tax that hits everyone. A carbon tax may not be popular, but it is fair.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> Blah blah blah



Well I tried to explain, but it appears you have no interest or empathy for anything I have to say. You are hypercritical. And you are relentless, like a moth to a flame. If I ignore you, you criticize. If I respond, you criticize. Your modus operandi is insults and you seem not to be all that pleasant of a person at the best of times. You are infatuated with being right, not with being kind. Unless you can grow up and learn to converse like an adult, I'm sorry to say but you're just not worth my time. I know you are likely to make fun of this response, but I can't help that. Goading is what you do, the bully's trademark. There's not many people I write off, but sadly you are one. I truly hope you have a better year this year. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> You are forgetting that there is a rebate for the poorest people. Anyone with a family salary of $140,000 or less breaks even. It is really more of a tax on the most wealthy members of society.


So essentially this is not an enviro tax, but just a way to increase taxes on higher income earners.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> So essentially this is not an enviro tax, but just a way to increase taxes on higher income earners.



Yes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

Freddie_Biff said:


> You are forgetting that there is a rebate for the poorest people. Anyone with a family salary of $140,000 or less breaks even. It is really more of a tax on the most wealthy members of society.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not forgetting. I already pointed out that for a senior couple on a fixed income, the rebate falls $100 short of covering the NDP estimate of their increased expenses. I doubt that estimate includes the inflationary impact or even comes close to covering secondary and tertiary impacts of a Carbon tax. 

I have also pointed out why and how farmers, ranchers and greenhouse operators will be particularly hard hit. Ironically these are the very green industries we should be trying to protect and encourage.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> You are forgetting that there is a rebate for the poorest people. Anyone with a family salary of $140,000 or less breaks even. It is really more of a tax on the most wealthy members of society.


I call BULL on that one!

The wife and I have a combined retirement salary of less than half that $140,000. We will get a $300 rebate according to the Dippers on their screw you tax website.

All competent analysis has shown, with the trickle down taxes included, it puts the real cost per family in Alberta at $1,200 or more. That leaves us negative $900 and likely much more.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

eMacMan said:


> Not forgetting. I already pointed out that for a senior couple on a fixed income, the rebate falls $100 short of covering the NDP estimate of their increased expenses. I doubt that estimate includes the inflationary impact or even comes close to covering secondary and tertiary impacts of a Carbon tax.
> 
> I have also pointed out why and how farmers, ranchers and greenhouse operators will be particularly hard hit. Ironically these are the very green industries we should be trying to protect and encourage.



You have a point there. Also, with rebates you pay first then get reimbursed. This could be a problem for those whose budgets are already very tight. I'll be honest: I'm about as excited about the carbon tax as the next guy, but I'd like to see how it all pans out before I vilify it. There are many who seem to think a 5% wage cut is no big deal, so perhaps a 4.5% tax works out to about the same. We shall see, as a wise man I know likes to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> I call BULL on that one!
> 
> 
> 
> The wife and I have a combined retirement salary of less than half that $140,000. We will get a $300 rebate according to the Dippers on their screw you tax website.
> 
> 
> 
> All competent analysis has shown, with the trickle down taxes included, it puts the real cost per family in Alberta at $1,200 or more. That leaves us negative $900 and likely much more.



I would be concerned too if I were you, Don. Our combined salary is considerably more, and our expenses are great, so I would like to know what to expect as well. We certainly didn't save anything when electricity and gas were deregulated. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Progressive governments: getting things done.



















http://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ronmental-approval-for-kinder-morgan-pipeline




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

And it had nothing to do with Rachel Notley!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

And she's not too impressed with Jane Fonda's fly-by visit to Fort Mac.

https://www.facebook.com/CTVEdmonton/videos/1225523124149406/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Jane has done far less harm to Alberta than Notley, so what's the big deal?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Jane has done far less harm to Alberta than Notley, so what's the big deal?




Did you listen to what either person said? Or are you just spouting again? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I never spout. Notley is responsible for more jobs leaving Alberta than Jane Fonda ever will be. It's Notley who is kicking her own province while it's down, not Fonda. I think Rachel looked a little desperate in trying to take the focus away from the problems she's created for the province.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> I never spout. Notley is responsible for more jobs leaving Alberta than Jane Fonda ever will be. It's Notley who is kicking her own province while it's down, not Fonda. I think Rachel looked a little desperate in trying to take the focus away from the problems she's created for the province.



Well that's pretty much exactly the opposite of what she said or meant. I think you're interpretive skills may need some adjustment. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Well that's pretty much exactly the opposite of what she said or meant. I think you're interpretive skills may need some adjustment.


Actually it is the Dipper followers and unions whose skill are lacking, blind to the damage Red Rachel is wreaking on the people of Alberta.


----------



## FeXL

Woohoo... Who cares.

Actress Jane Fonda slams Justin Trudeau at oilsands conference in Edmonton

That said, here's a paragraph I'm having trouble...interpreting:



> Fonda also criticized the Alberta NDP government's plan to win social licence with its new climate laws, including a carbon tax and a coal phaseout by 2030, saying the idea was "ridiculous."


WTF? It comes across as Fonda actually being critical of the carbon tax, but that can't be right. Can it?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> Woohoo... Who cares.
> 
> 
> 
> Actress Jane Fonda slams Justin Trudeau at oilsands conference in Edmonton
> 
> 
> 
> That said, here's a paragraph I'm having trouble...interpreting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? It comes across as Fonda actually being critical of the carbon tax, but that can't be right. Can it?




Doubtful. Jane Fonda is about as helpful And invested in the people of Alberta as Bob Barker was about the elephant at the zoo. Many Notley haters were surprisingly impressed by her defense of the oil and gas industry in Alberta in spite of "prog" Fonda's assessment of the oil sands. See? Sometimes people don't nicely fit into the categories we set up for them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Notley wasn't defending the Alberta oil industry. She just didn't like to see Jane Fonda pissing on her turf---that's _her_ pissing ground!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Notley wasn't defending the Alberta oil industry. She just didn't like to see Jane Fonda pissing on her turf---that's _her_ pissing ground!



Nope. Now you're just being contrarian even moreso than libertarian. Read again. Focus. Read for comprehension this time. You can do it, Macfury. We have faith in you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You'd really have to be a slavish Notley fan to see that as anything beyond a turf war.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Nope. Now you're just being contrarian even moreso than libertarian. Read again. Focus. Read for comprehension this time. You can do it, Macfury. We have faith in you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> You'd really have to be a slavish Notley fan to see that as anything beyond a turf war.



You will see what you choose to see no matter what the truth may be. Notley has been consistent in her support of the oil and gas industry in Alberta. It's why she has been so focussed on environmental stewardship in order to get tidewater pipelines built. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean she's not doing her job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

She's taken a huge smelly dump on the oil and gas industry. Contractors in particular are suffering heavily under her gross malfeasance.

Her failed "environmental stewardship" program is simply a tax plan and has not contributed either to environmental acceptance of those pipelines or their approval.



Freddie_Biff said:


> You will see what you choose to see no matter what the truth may be. Notley has been consistent in her support of the oil and gas industry in Alberta. It's why she has been so focussed on environmental stewardship in order to get tidewater pipelines built. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean she's not doing her job.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

Which is exactly why I'm puzzled. "Traitor" and "concern about carbon taxes" simply do not equate...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Sometimes people don't nicely fit into the categories we set up for them.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> You will see what you choose to see no matter what the truth may be. Notley has been consistent in her support of the oil and gas industry in Alberta. It's why she has been so focussed on environmental stewardship in order to get tidewater pipelines built. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean she's not doing her job.


The truth of the matter is that Notley and Trudeau made a strictly political deal to each benefit their insatiable desire for more tax revenue and used the environment as an excuse to impose what amounts to nothing more than a sales tax on the people of Alberta and Canada. 

It had nothing to do with reducing carbon, won't change the world carbon amount, but was simply the cover story to achieve their mutual political gains. Those pipelines would have been approved no matter if Notley imposed a carbon tax or not. There was immense pressure on the feds to allow pipelines or the economy would further falter.

It is politics and politics alone for show value and invented to make stupid Canadians think they had actually done something progressive when in fact it was the most regressive thing they could have done during this recession.


----------



## FeXL

Yes, she has. Consistently little to no support. 

Hell, it took her close to a year to decide that the royalty scheme needed no changes! All the while investors looked elsewhere. Like Saskatchewan...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Notley has been consistent in her support of the oil and gas industry in Alberta.


----------



## Macfury

Notley supports the oil and gas industry like Obama supports the coal industry--how much money can we squeeze out of it before we kill it?



FeXL said:


> Yes, she has. Consistently little to no support.
> 
> Hell, it took her close to a year to decide that the royalty scheme needed no changes! All the while investors looked elsewhere. Like Saskatchewan...


----------



## Macfury

The progs at Davos have a great solution to a rejection of globalism--higher taxes. Yeah, that'll fix it...

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...th-redistribution-as-dalio-warns-on-populists



> “We need to go to a system where we are protecting workers, not jobs, and society will help people retrain or reorient,” Richard Baldwin, professor of international economics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, said in an interview in Davos. “There may just be a need to man up. We have to pay for the social cohesion that we need to keep our societies advancing, and accept that this may be a higher tax burden on people.”


----------



## Freddie_Biff

I just really enjoy Trump's personal Twitter touch. Makes him seem like the rest of us.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Sisters are doing it for themselves. We're making progress.









http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...make-voices-heard-d-n710356?cid=sm_fb_nbcnews


----------



## Macfury

This is the ultimate event for virtue signalling for white privilege this year!


----------



## FeXL

First off, that comes across as very condescending. I'm sure the "Sista's" appreciate that.

Second, wonder how many of them knew just who organized the march?

The Anti-Semite Who Organized the 'Women's March on Washington'



> It would be interesting to know how many of the useful idiots donning “pussy hats” at Saturday's massive “Women's March on Washington” had any idea—or even cared to know—who the principal organizers of the event were. The answer is undoubtedly close to zero, since the purpose of the entire charade—like all leftist charades—was merely to give the participants an opportunity to publicly signal their own moral superiority while smearing—as racists and fascists—anyone who doesn't accept socialism, identity politics, and perpetual grievance mongering as the ultimate expressions of the American Dream. But for those who actually have an aversion to mindless indoctrination, the facts will be rather disturbing.


Just the kind of person you'd love to bring home to meet mom & dad...

Related:

New Photos From The Women’s March In Washington D.C.



> The full force of the peaceful hate of the left was on display during the women’s march in Washington D.C.
> 
> From Madonna saying she has been thinking seriously about blowing up the White House to Satanists calling for President Trump to be beheaded, the true colors of the left were once again on display.


Some "progress"...

Where Were All The Women's March Protesters in November?



> Where were we in November?


Good question.

The Pointless Paranoia of the Women's Marches



> Excuse me if I don't get it. What exactly was motivating them?
> 
> Oh, right, Donald Trump, that vulgar misogynist who bragged about pu**y grabbing (asterisks to dissociate myself from Madonna, even though I'm aging too). I'm going to skip over the obvious - *these same women almost all ignored Bill Clinton actually doing (not just mouthing off about) similar activities in the Oval Office*, not to mention on numerous other occasions, some of which we know about and some of which we may not. *Further, these women didn't have much to say -- no demonstrations, no marches, maybe a few hashtags -- when radical Islamists of various stripes regularly kidnapped large numbers of women (Nigerians, Yazidis, Kurds, etc., etc.) from their homes and took them as sex slaves, often beheading them after they finished raping them. Nor did they even pipe up when honor killings were going on in their own backyard.*
> 
> I could go on. But those are just, shall we say, a few of the minor inconsistencies mixed with, perhaps, a soupçon of cognitive dissonance.


M'bold.

Curious, idn't it?

Some Sober Thoughts for Yesterday's Protesters



> Good to know that for millions of women, including celebrities like Madonna, Cher and Ashley Judd, the tipping point is not a woman having acid thrown in her face, is not a woman being buried up to her neck and being stoned to death, is not a woman being deprived of something as simple as being allowed to drive. No, for millions of women yesterday the tipping point was a man acting like a pig.
> 
> ...
> 
> *You'll forgive me if I hold the applause. Let me know when the march is scheduled for Riyadh.*


M'bold.

Exactly.

It’s hard to argue with a million pussy-marchers – especially the really nasty ones like Madonna - but possessing a vagina is a matter of biology, not a political argument: KATIE HOPKINS joins the women in Washington



> The left believes it is better than the rest. But it has prejudices of its own.
> 
> The same prejudices that saw guests at the Armed Services Inauguration Ball spat at. Or Madonna saying she'd like to blow up the White House. Or the very fact you fell out over what to name the Women's March in case it was divisive. Or for being too white.
> 
> They even snubbed Hilary Clinton as an honoree for the Women's March on Washington, because she was gracious and attended Trump's inauguration. Imagine how much that day hurt her, and yet they rejected her despite her courage. Shame on them.
> 
> These prejudices, these prevarications, this failure to stand for something, not represent everything, are exactly why people turn to Trump. And exactly why they lost and will continue to lose.
> 
> They are strong, I watched them today.
> 
> But they have to be better than this.
> 
> *You win if you offer a clear vision supported by this strength to get things done. Not just because you are a woman.*


M'bold.

We have a BINGO!!!

Oh, just in case you missed it, 3 of the last 4 articles authored by females who actually get it.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Sisters are doing it for themselves. We're making progress.


----------



## FeXL

Another female who gets it.

How the Women’s March Reinforced Every Negative Stereotype about Women EVER



> The platform of the Women’s March is nothing short than a list of opinionated vagaries written in leftspeak and completely lacking in factual citation. It was carefully designed to stimulate the passions of armchair activists who have and will remain ignorant of the majority of crimes committed against women around the world on a daily basis, at least the crimes that don’t suit the agenda of the organizers and supporters of the Women's Marches. Namely organizers like Linda Sarsour, an Islamic activist who supports the oppressive Saudi regime, openly meets with Hamas financiers, and romanticizes Sharia law. And supporters like Planned Parenthood, a business that participates in “human organ harvesting and the fetal body part trade.”
> 
> I scanned the Internet for any participant able to tell me very clearly what the Women’s March is supposed to be all about. The answer: Angry people who are mad that Trump got elected. The best way they felt they could vent that frustration? Wear vagina hats and carry placards of uteri. That’s right: If you want to throw the biggest temper-tantrum in American history, you just need to be a really big pussy.


More:



> *The Women’s March has done nothing more than highlight the utter abject failure that is modern feminism by focusing on feminists who happily personify every single negative stereotype about women. They are directionless airheads unable to properly channel their emotions verbally, let alone practically. So, they get together, stomp their feet and whine about nothing. But, you can’t say “nothing” because if you do they’ll start pulling out the PMS metaphors and threaten to…what, exactly? Go shopping? Drink wine? Pet a cat?*


Yeah, my bold.


----------



## SINC

Venezuela revisited.

https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/01/20/culturejam/


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Such a contrast to what's happening South of the border. I'm really glad I live in Canada right now. 










Real News Paula Simon's commentary: 


> Earlier this month, Justin Trudeau elevated Toronto MP Ahmed Hussen to his cabinet. Hussen is a lawyer. Hussen is a community leader. And Hussen is a refugee - who came to this country at the age of 16, as a orphan, worked his way through school, became leader of the Somali-Canadian community, and worked tirelessly to combat Islamic extremism, and to build strong relations with Toronto's Jewish community.
> 
> Today, Hussen tweeted proudly that he had just attended his first citizenship swearing-in since he became Minister of Immigration.
> 
> Think of the contrast. Here is a remarkable story of courage and success - the story of a boy who survived a brutal civil war, who survived the poverty and violence of Toronto's public housing projects, and who became a lawyer, an MP, and a cabinet minister.
> 
> This week, Donald Trump signed an executive order banning all Somalis - and all Yemenis, Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, and Sudenese - from entering (or reentering) the United States - even if they were already permanent residents with green cards, or if they already had valid work and student visa.
> 
> The law will ALSO ban Canadian citizens from those seven countries who hold dual citizenship - as well as Canadian permanent residents from those countries.
> 
> Does that mean that Canada's new minister of immigration will be banned from entering the United States, too?
> 
> I don't actually know the answer to that question - maybe he could enter on a special diplomatic passport - but the very fact that we have to ask the question should give us all pause.
> 
> The joke here? Hussen fled Islamic extremism in his home country. In Canada, he worked fearlessly to combat those who tried to recruit young Canadian Somalis to terrorist groups. Trump's ban isn't just an affront to human rights. It's insanely counter-productive.
> 
> Be proud, today, to live in a country where we can take full advantage of the talents, the brilliance and the courage of an Ahmed Hussen - and where we can fight extremism in our own ways.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Come on over to Canada. We have Tim Horton's coffee. 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Proud to be a snowflake. ❄


----------



## Macfury

Trust... but verify.


----------



## Beej

Seems appropriate for the thread. Democrats are undergoing a Blair vs Corbyn type debate. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRFBhCGwiag[/ame]


----------



## SINC

Beej said:


> Seems appropriate for the thread. Democrats are undergoing a Blair vs Corbyn type debate.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRFBhCGwiag


Wow! Now there is a blast from the past. Welcome back Beej!


----------



## Beej

SINC said:


> Wow! Now there is a blast from the past. Welcome back Beej!


Bolder and balder than ever. Thanks Sinc.


----------



## Dr.G.

Beej said:


> Bolder and balder than ever. Thanks Sinc.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> I just really enjoy Trump's personal Twitter touch. Makes him seem like the rest of us.


That post can't be real. You can see how the crayons were Photoshoped in, this kind of nonsense just adds fuel to the fire for Trump supporters. 

Don't feed the Troll!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> That post can't be real. You can see how the crayons were Photoshoped in, this kind of nonsense just adds fuel to the fire for Trump supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't feed the Troll!



The post is actually quite real, but the crayons were indeed photoshopped. It was meant to be a joke.

Here's another:


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> The post is actually quite real, but the crayons were indeed photoshopped. It was meant to be a joke.
> 
> Here's another:


I know but what I said stands: Don't feed the troll!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Thank god for Canada and some sober second thoughts prevailing. 









http://glbn.ca/MQbYdN


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


>


That pretty much sums it up. Except that those are American colours. In Canada they should be flipped horizontally. Just sayin'...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> That pretty much sums it up. Except that those are American colours. In Canada they should be flipped horizontally. Just sayin'...




True true.


----------



## Macfury

I'd like to thank "progressives" for hastening the advent of automated labour through their relentless push for higher minimum wages:

Wendy's to install ordering kiosks in 1,000 stores this year - News - The Columbus Dispatch - Columbus, OH


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> fjn, I don't think it's reasonable to start a thread that bars members from disagreeing with the premise.



No, of course you wouldn't, I can see now, because disagreeing is pretty much the only thing you know how to do. 

Have a nice day!


----------



## FeXL

Why the hell are you responding to a post from Jan 29, 2016 only now? 

Has MF's comment been sitting there, festering in your mind, for over a year?



Freddie_Biff said:


> No, of course you wouldn't, I can see now, because disagreeing is pretty much the only thing you know how to do.
> 
> Have a nice day!


----------



## Macfury

Feel the Bern! Artificially inflated salaries of $15 per hour have directly resulted in the affordability of "Flippy" the automated burger flipper. California burger chain CaliBurger is rolling them out to all of their locations:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Feel the Bern! Artificially inflated salaries of $15 per hour have directly resulted in the affordability of "Flippy" the automated burger flipper. California burger chain CaliBurger is rolling them out to all of their locations:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.



It's a tough one. Technological innovation givers and takers away. As far as minimum wage goes, how much do you think you would need to make ends meet if you were just entering the workforce? I know that on the other end, kids today have almost zero change of ever owning a home beyond living in a trailer park or living with their parents, because the costs have just become way too prohibitive. In my day, $15/hour would have been a wealthy man's wages, but today $15 will buy you one link of Mundare Sausage. Times have changed.


----------



## Macfury

There is a market price for labour. If you exceed that, the position will disappear. The rest of the discussion is academic.



Freddie_Biff said:


> It's a tough one. Technological innovation givers and takers away. As far as minimum wage goes, how much do you think you would need to make ends meet if you were just entering the workforce? I know that on the other end, kids today have almost zero change of ever owning a home beyond living in a trailer park or living with their parents, because the costs have just become way too prohibitive. In my day, $15/hour would have been a wealthy man's wages, but today $15 will buy you one link of Mundare Sausage. Times have changed.


----------



## FeXL

No, it's not. Burger flippers, fry guys & the like are minimum skill jobs that were never intended to command a wage sufficient to purchase a house with.



Freddie_Biff said:


> It's a tough one.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> In my day, $15/hour would have been a wealthy man's wages, but today $15 will buy you one link of Mundare Sausage. Times have changed.


Typical Dipper response. That price only applies in a retail grocer, like Safeway for example.

Savvy shoppers know full well they can buy the product for less than half that in either the Edmonton outlet, or at the processing plant in Mundare. And if you buy a case, closer to one third that price.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> No, it's not. Burger flippers, fry guys & the like are minimum skill jobs that were never intended to command a wage sufficient to purchase a house with.



Who said purchase a home? Paying the rent would be nice, however.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Typical Dipper response. That price only applies in a retail grocer, like Safeway for example.
> 
> 
> 
> Savvy shoppers know full well they can buy the product for less than half that in either the Edmonton outlet, or at the processing plant in Mundare. And if you buy a case, closer to one third that price.



That's wonderful. I used to buy them in Mundare for about $9 myself. The point was about inflation. Wages need to reflect the increased cost of living. It's the endless cat and mouse game of catch up. You know that. If your retirement pension is never indexed to inflation, there will come a point where you can't survive either.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> That's wonderful. I used to buy them in Mundare for about $9 myself. The point was about inflation. Wages need to reflect the increased cost of living. It's the endless cat and mouse game of catch up. You know that. If your retirement pension is never indexed to inflation, there will come a point where you can't survive either.


Matters not as by then I will be as dead as the Alberta NDP will be in 2019.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Matters not as by then I will be as dead as the Alberta NDP will be in 2019.



Perhaps you're right. What does it matter if the rest of the retired folks have to tough it out as long as you don't have to worry. How selfish of me.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Perhaps you're right. What does it matter if the rest of the retired folks have to tough it out as long as you don't have to worry. How selfish of me.


I guessed you missed the entire point of that post. You know. The part about the NDP being dead. Which makes the case for no issue for anyone in the future.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Wages need to reflect the increased cost of living.


Why do they need to do that? Wages are not a social program. Do you hire the most expensive plumber you can find because you want to help him to face the increased costs of living?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Why do they need to do that? Wages are not a social program. Do you hire the most expensive plumber you can find because you want to help him to face the increased costs of living?



If a worker has to work two jobs just to make ends meet, he's not going to be able to as much much effort into one of them or both of them. I'd rather have a worker that's committed to that one job than one that gets spread too thin.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> If a worker has to work two jobs just to make ends meet, he's not going to be able to as much much effort into one of them or both of them. I'd rather have a worker that's committed to that one job than one that gets spread too thin.


Then you would want to hire the person who costs the most!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Then you would want to hire the person who costs the most!



Well I probably wouldn't hire the one that charges the least, because I'm well aware that if you want quality, you may have to pay more. I mean, I do buy Apple products after all.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Well I probably wouldn't hire the one that charges the least, because I'm well aware that if you want quality, you may have to pay more. I mean, I do buy Apple products after all.


In that case, you get the retailer who charges the most!


----------



## Rps

I wasn't sure where to post this so I choose this spot. Here in Windsor I here is a movement (and I am sure this is everywhere) to the encourage young girls/women into STEM. When I was in public school and high school "girls" were always thE best ones at math and science. So this begs the question did the Blonde Joke cause the shift?

TV, movies and such when I was young didn't portray girls as weak or dumb in these areas.....are we brainwashing them into believing they are? Thoughts..


----------



## Macfury

I don't recall girls being the best at math or science. The top math marks in my school all went to males. This is just anecdotal stuff.

I run into large numbers of female engineers all the time. Why is it important to force-shift the gender goalposts on any occupation when this is occurring naturally over time?


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> I wasn't sure where to post this so I choose this spot. Here in Windsor I here is a movement (and I am sure this is everywhere) to the encourage young girls/women into STEM. When I was in public school and high school "girls" were always thE best ones at math and science. So this begs the question did the Blonde Joke cause the shift?
> 
> TV, movies and such when I was young didn't portray girls as weak or dumb in these areas.....are we brainwashing them into believing they are? Thoughts..





Macfury said:


> I don't recall girls being the best at math or science. The top math marks in my school all went to males. This is just anecdotal stuff.
> 
> I run into large numbers of female engineers all the time. Why is it important to force-shift the gender goalposts on any occupation when this is occurring naturally over time?


I agree with you MF, it is all anecdotal. 

In my advanced physics class there were almost an equal mix between boys and girls that excelled. It wasn't a matter of gender, it was a matter of interest, drive, ambition, ability, intellect, willing to work hard and study etc., etc. Those traits are not gender based.

So no Rps I don't think it is a matter of main stream media portraying girls "as weak or dumb in these areas". I think young people gravitate to what interests them, cut and dry.

Some kids are "party" people and some are academically inclined and some like to work with their hands and some like sports and physical activity etc., etc...

I think the main thing about secondary education is that it should provide the opportunity for the student/young person to find out what drives and motivates them amoung all those things and more.


----------



## Rps

While I do agree with both you Screature and Macfury, it would appear that the educationalist feel there is a definite gender gap in STEM. I find this curious.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> I wasn't sure where to post this so I choose this spot. Here in Windsor I here is a movement (and I am sure this is everywhere) to the encourage young girls/women into STEM. When I was in public school and high school "girls" were always thE best ones at math and science. So this begs the question did the Blonde Joke cause the shift?
> 
> 
> 
> TV, movies and such when I was young didn't portray girls as weak or dumb in these areas.....are we brainwashing them into believing they are? Thoughts..



When I was in high school, you were lucky if you had one or two girls in a Physics class of 20. University was not much different, especially in Engineering. I believe times have changed, so he balance of makes and females in the maths/sciences and the humanities is a little more balanced. However, among elementary teachers, for example, I still see an overwhelming majority of females. Junior high and high school teachers are more balanced gender-wise. There has been a shift, but not universally.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> While I do agree with both you Screature and Macfury, it would appear that the educationalist feel there is a definite gender gap in STEM. I find this curious.


I do no not know why you are saying this. Pedagogy is one thing, the individual talents, skills and interests of a young person/student is another.

My mother was the science lab tech at the high school I went to and I was very much pushed to go in that direction and I did even though I knew in my heart it was not right for me. So tell me how STEM would have helped me if I were female when that was not my heart's desire?


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> While I do agree with both you Screature and Macfury, it would appear that the educationalist feel there is a definite gender gap in STEM. I find this curious.


I find it curious that they are so focused on it. Why must everything work out 50/50?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I find it curious that they are so focused on it. Why must everything work out 50/50?


They're just looking for an axe to grind.
______

All through Math, Bio, Physics, Chem 10/20/30 in my high school classes were nearly even between males/females. Same with Math 31 (Calculus) and the non-academic math streams (13/15/23/33).

With one of our children currently attending university and taking engineering, they note there are various splits, depending on the discipline. Mechanical has the least females, with about 20%. The highest % of females is a near even split in Environmental.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I don't recall girls being the best at math or science.


I've noted this before but in my high school, they had separate top awards for males & females in Math & English. That said, rarely was there more than a couple of % difference between the two and any given year it could be either gender that had the highest mark.


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## Macfury

Who is blaming minorities for their woes?


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Who is blaming minorities for their woes?


And who the hell is David Yankovich?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> And who the hell is David Yankovich?


Of course when he says 937% raise he means that the boss had one raise of 24% raise in 1978 multiplied by 39 years.


----------



## Rps

screature said:


> I do no not know why you are saying this. Pedagogy is one thing, the individual talents, skills and interests of a young person/student is another.
> 
> My mother was the science lab tech at the high school I went to and I was very much pushed to go in that direction and I did even though I knew in my heart it was not right for me. So tell me how STEM would have helped me if I were female when that was not my heart's desire?


res ipsa loquitur,


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> res ipsa loquitur,


Well that is certainly not universally true and I fail to see how it applies here.


----------



## Rps

screature said:


> Well that is certainly not universally true and I fail to see how it applies here.


It applies because they are developing channeling programmes.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Well that is certainly not universally true and I fail to see how it applies here.


I'm puzzled as well.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> I find it curious that they are so focused on it. Why must everything work out 50/50?


Macfury, I think the feeling is that there will be a huge opportunity missed if we don't get all students (male and female) interested in the potential fields. However, and on a different note, we seem to be moving more to a service economy, which may or may not require the use of STEM.


----------



## Beej

Rps said:


> res ipsa loquitur,


The claims are promoted for political activism/ideology. Aside from problems with the concept of outcome oriented measures (Macfury already highlighted this), the inequality in overall university attendance is ignored. That's a political activism or ideological choice/assumption. In those cases, I want to hear from a large variety of political activists, and from different political ideologies.

I don't get the sense that university-related discussions have such diversity.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

SINC said:


> And who the hell is David Yankovich?












A relative.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

FeXL said:


> No, it's not. Burger flippers, fry guys & the like are minimum skill jobs that were never intended to command a wage sufficient to purchase a house with.


In Scandinavian countires people with those jobs all earn over $20 per hour, 6 weeks paid vacation, and the food prices are not much diffferent than here. The business owners still make a fair profit.

If a business cannot afford to pay it's workers a living wage, that business does not deserve to exist exist.

Up until a few decades ago, a simple mundane job, including flipping burgers paid enough to buy a home and raise a family. Everything is badly messed up and out of balance now.

A lot of well educated adults are stuck in these low wage mundane jobs in north america simply because no other options are available for them.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Macfury said:


> Why do they need to do that? Wages are not a social program. Do you hire the most expensive plumber you can find because you want to help him to face the increased costs of living?





Freddie_Biff said:


> If a worker has to work two jobs just to make ends meet, he's not going to be able to as much much effort into one of them or both of them. I'd rather have a worker that's committed to that one job than one that gets spread too thin.





Freddie_Biff said:


> If a worker has to work two jobs just to make ends meet, he's not going to be able to as much much effort into one of them or both of them. I'd rather have a worker that's committed to that one job than one that gets spread too thin.


"WAGES ARE NOT A SOCIAL PROGRAM"

Yes, the attitude of the billionaire Walmart owners, who pay their employees so little they need food stamps and other government subsidies just to survive. 

Walmart, who cause massive damage to many established communities everywhere they they go. Wiping out established local business, many that were in families for generations. These businesses paid their employees far more than Walmart ever will. 

Walmart, who led the field and caused many American and Canadian factories to close. Those factory workers made decent living wages while creating stable communities in the area. Instead the goods are being made in overseas sweatshops, with dangerous working slave labour conditions causing huge environmental damage.

Walmart and other businesses like it are just destructive parasites. They are corporate welfare bums, as their workforce is highly subsidized with tax dollars for social programs. These corporations will pay people as little as possible while the fat cats at the top draw huge salaries.


----------



## Macfury

Exactly. They can pay less because the government subsidizes the rest. The government should stop subsidizing businesses.



MazterCBlazter said:


> "WAGES ARE NOT A SOCIAL PROGRAM"
> 
> Yes, the attitude of the billionaire Walmart owners, who pay their employees so little they need food stamps and other government subsidies just to survive.
> 
> Walmart, who cause massive damage to many established communities everywhere they they go. Wiping out established local business, many that were in families for generations. These businesses paid their employees far more than Walmart ever will.
> 
> Walmart, who led the field and caused many American and Canadian factories to close. Those factory workers made decent living wages while creating stable communities in the area. Instead the goods are being made in overseas sweatshops, with dangerous working slave labour conditions causing huge environmental damage.
> 
> Walmart and other businesses like it are just destructive parasites. They are corporate welfare bums, as their workforce is highly subsidized with tax dollars for social programs. These corporations will pay people as little as possible while the fat cats at the top draw huge salaries.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> In Scandinavian countires people with those jobs all earn over $20 per hour, 6 weeks paid vacation, and the food prices are not much diffferent than here. The business owners still make a fair profit.
> 
> If a business cannot afford to pay it's workers a living wage, that business does not deserve to exist exist.
> 
> Up until a few decades ago, a simple mundane job, including flipping burgers paid enough to buy a home and raise a family. Everything is badly messed up and out of balance now.


I never met a burger flipper who owned a house. Maybe the cook. But taxes were lower and heavy regulation had not made everything so expensive. I checked the wages of a McDonald's worker in Sweden--$16 an hour at 30% income tax. In the US $14.50 an hour at 9% tax.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> I never met a burger flipper who owned a house. Maybe the cook. But taxes were lower and heavy regulation had not made everything so expensive. I checked the wages of a McDonald's worker in Sweden--$16 an hour at 30% income tax. In the US $14.50 an hour at 9% tax.



You may want to recheck those stats. McDonald's workers don't make much more than minimum wage, and the US minimum wage is considerably lower than Canada's on average. Which part of the US are you referring to?


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Macfury said:


> I never met a burger flipper who owned a house. Maybe the cook. But taxes were lower and heavy regulation had not made everything so expensive. I checked the wages of a McDonald's worker in Sweden--$16 an hour at 30% income tax. In the US $14.50 an hour at 9% tax.





Freddie_Biff said:


> You may want to recheck those stats. McDonald's workers don't make much more than minimum wage, and the US minimum wage is considerably lower than Canada's on average. Which part of the US are you referring to?


https://www.kcet.org/food/mcdonalds-workers-in-denmark-make-21-an-hour

Not quite accurate.

In Sweden McDonalds Burger flippers make around $17 US per hour as a starting wage for the day shift, another $3 per hour for working after 8PM, and after 1AM to 6AM an extra $6 per hour. Working Sat/Sun adds another $3 per hour.

In the USA McDonalds will pay you around $14.50 per hour if you work the graveyard shift, and whatever minimum wage is to start during the day shift.

McDonalds in the Vancouver BC area used to pay $18.50 CDN per hour and up for the graveyard shift, but in many locations have fired all the Canadians on those shifts and replaced them with TFW's from the Philippines who are paid minimum wage.


----------



## Macfury

So pretty close. Except in Sweden they take 1/3 of it in tax.

And soon, all of them will be replaced by fast food machines because their wages are high and their skill levels are low.



MazterCBlazter said:


> https://www.kcet.org/food/mcdonalds-workers-in-denmark-make-21-an-hour
> 
> Not quite accurate.
> 
> In Sweden McDonalds Burger flippers make around $17 US per hour as a starting wage for the day shift, another $3 per hour for working after 8PM, and after 1AM to 6AM an extra $6 per hour. Working Sat/Sun adds another $3 per hour.
> 
> In the USA McDonalds will pay you around $14.50 per hour if you work the graveyard shift, and whatever minimum wage is to start during the day shift.
> 
> McDonalds in the Vancouver BC area used to pay $18.50 CDN per hour and up for the graveyard shift, but in many locations have fired all the Canadians on those shifts and replaced them with TFW's from the Philippines who are paid minimum wage.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Macfury said:


> So pretty close. Except in Sweden they take 1/3 of it in tax.
> 
> And soon, all of them will be replaced by fast food machines because their wages are high and their skill levels are low.


The high cost of medical care and other things in the USA are very taxing.


----------



## Macfury

So basically a wash.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> "WAGES ARE NOT A SOCIAL PROGRAM"
> 
> Yes, the attitude of the billionaire Walmart owners, who pay their employees so little they need food stamps and other government subsidies just to survive.
> 
> Walmart, who cause massive damage to many established communities everywhere they they go. Wiping out established local business, many that were in families for generations. These businesses paid their employees far more than Walmart ever will.
> 
> Walmart, who led the field and caused many American and Canadian factories to close. Those factory workers made decent living wages while creating stable communities in the area. Instead the goods are being made in overseas sweatshops, with dangerous working slave labour conditions causing huge environmental damage.
> 
> Walmart and other businesses like it are just destructive parasites. They are corporate welfare bums, as their workforce is highly subsidized with tax dollars for social programs. These corporations will pay people as little as possible while the fat cats at the top draw huge salaries.





Macfury said:


> Exactly. They can pay less because the government subsidizes the rest. The government should stop subsidizing businesses.


IMO this is BS.

Owning a Mom and Pa shop that does well is not a right. If you can't compete then do something differently, if you can't you fail. Simple as that.

If Walmart can provide to the masses lower prices so at the end of the month a family has more money left in their pockets, that is a good thing. From what I have seen Walmart basically provides the same products as any small shop, just at cheaper prices. So how exactly are they corporate welfare bums? They get no funding from governments to do what the do, that statement is just pure BS. They can offer lower prices based on the shear volume of the product that they move.

If you are talking about that they pay less taxes because they are a corporation, it is not the same thing as a subsidy. If anyone has a business they can become incorporated so long as they file the forms and pay their taxes quarterly.

So once again if Walmart can provide the masses with the things that they need and leave more money in the pockets of the consumer how exactly is that a bad thing??? Except for the Mom and Pop shops that can't compete or are not clever enough to remain viable?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

MazterCBlazter said:


> https://www.kcet.org/food/mcdonalds-workers-in-denmark-make-21-an-hour
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> In Sweden McDonalds Burger flippers make around $17 US per hour as a starting wage for the day shift, another $3 per hour for working after 8PM, and after 1AM to 6AM an extra $6 per hour. Working Sat/Sun adds another $3 per hour.
> 
> 
> 
> In the USA McDonalds will pay you around $14.50 per hour if you work the graveyard shift, and whatever minimum wage is to start during the day shift.
> 
> 
> 
> McDonalds in the Vancouver BC area used to pay $18.50 CDN per hour and up for the graveyard shift, but in many locations have fired all the Canadians on those shifts and replaced them with TFW's from the Philippines who are paid minimum wage.



My daughter works at McDonald's in Alberta and makes minimum wage after three years, which is now $12.20 an hour. Certainly nowhere near the midnight shift people.


----------



## Macfury

I'm thinking mostly of social housing, in large cities, which I consider to be a subsidy to businesses paying low wages. Otherwise, they would have to pay enough for someone to actually afford rent.

As for the mom and pops, most of them have given me poor service at high prices. Any time I have tried to extend an olive branch and ask for a bit of a price break, they've convinced me to go to Best Buy or Home Depot. I like to support local businesses, but they have not made it easy.




screature said:


> IMO this is BS.
> 
> Owning a Mom and Pa shop that does well is not a right. If you can't compete then do something differently, if you can't you fail. Simple as that.
> 
> If Walmart can provide to the masses lower prices so at the end of the month a family has more money left in their pockets, that is a good thing. From what I have seen Walmart basically provides the same products as any small shop, just at cheaper prices. So how exactly are they corporate welfare bums? They get no funding from governments to do what the do, that statement is just pure BS. They can offer lower prices based on the shear volume of the product that they move.
> 
> If you are talking about that they pay less taxes because they are a corporation, it is not the same thing as a subsidy. If anyone has a business they can become incorporated so long as they file the forms and pay their taxes quarterly.
> 
> So once again if Walmart can provide the masses with the things that they need and leave more money in the pockets of the consumer how exactly is that a bad thing??? Except for the Mom and Pop shops that can't compete or are not clever enough to remain viable?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> *I'm thinking mostly of social housing, in large cities, which I consider to be a subsidy to businesses paying low wages. Otherwise, they would have to pay enough for someone to actually afford rent.
> *
> As for the mom and pops, most of them have given me poor service at high prices. Any time I have tried to extend an olive branch and ask for a bit of a price break, they've convinced me to go to Best Buy or Home Depot. I like to support local businesses, but they have not made it easy.


I think that is a bit of a stretch, I don' think there is actually any planned relationship between Corps and Govs when it comes to that.

However, I see where you are coming from but having been in the job market for almost a year and a half now, it is not at all that big Corps, like Walmart pay s**t wages, it is the also governments (Prov or Fed). In fact for more skilled labour the private sector actually pays more (in general) and when it comes to less skilled labour the government pays about the same.

I too like to support local businesses and do whenever I can, but with my current situation it becomes harder and harder. I have to buy things at a price that I can afford whether it comes from a conglomerate or the guy from down the street. If the guy from down the street could price match then I would buy it from him, but with no money to speak of I just can't do it if he charges a higher price. 

In general I think we all like to pay less for the things that we buy, whether it be from the guy down the street, or Walmart or Amazon. Unless you are fully flush with cash your money is more important to you and your family than it is to pay more to the person down the street who you are buying your stuff from, just to *support* a local business rather than yourself or your family.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

screature said:


> IMO this is BS.
> 
> Owning a Mom and Pa shop that does well is not a right. If you can't compete then do something differently, if you can't you fail. Simple as that.
> 
> If Walmart can provide to the masses lower prices so at the end of the month a family has more money left in their pockets, that is a good thing. From what I have seen Walmart basically provides the same products as any small shop, just at cheaper prices. So how exactly are they corporate welfare bums? They get no funding from governments to do what the do, that statement is just pure BS. They can offer lower prices based on the shear volume of the product that they move.
> 
> If you are talking about that they pay less taxes because they are a corporation, it is not the same thing as a subsidy. If anyone has a business they can become incorporated so long as they file the forms and pay their taxes quarterly.
> 
> So once again if Walmart can provide the masses with the things that they need and leave more money in the pockets of the consumer how exactly is that a bad thing??? Except for the Mom and Pop shops that can't compete or are not clever enough to remain viable?


The answer to why they are corporate welfare bums is clear in my post. Walmart is one of many multi billion dollar businesses whose workforce is paid so low that they require large amounts of government subsidy for housing, food, and other living expenses. Take away their government subsidy, and they cannot afford to work there anymore, let alone raise a family properly.

The previous employees did not need government subsidy and they paid more taxes, could afford local real estate, etc.

I used to visit some towns to shop in their very cool old shopping districts. Only problem is that after Walmart got a foothold in their town, half or more of these historic places are closed down. Why bother coming back to visit again?


----------



## MazterCBlazter

screature said:


> I think that is a bit of a stretch, I don' think there is actually any planned relationship between Corps and Govs when it comes to that.
> 
> However, I see where you are coming from but having been in the job market for almost a year and a half now, it is not at all that big Corps, like Walmart pay s**t wages, it is the also governments (Prov or Fed). In fact for more skilled labour the private sector actually pays more (in general) and when it comes to less skilled labour the government pays about the same.
> 
> I too like to support local businesses and do whenever I can, but with my current situation it becomes harder and harder. I have to buy things at a price that I can afford whether it comes from a conglomerate or the guy from down the street. If the guy from down the street could price match then I would buy it from him, but with no money to speak of I just can't do it if he charges a higher price.
> 
> In general I think we all like to pay less for the things that we buy, whether it be from the guy down the street, or Walmart or Amazon. Unless you are fully flush with cash your money is more important to you and your family than it is to pay more to the person down the street who you are buying your stuff from, just to *support* a local business rather than yourself or your family.


Hope that you find a decent way to earn a living. 

May I ask:
What kind of occupation are you looking for?
Are you willing to relocate if necessary?


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> I used to visit some towns to shop in their very cool old shopping districts. Only problem is that after Walmart got a foothold in their town, half or more of these historic places are closed down. Why bother coming back to visit again?


One of the big problems is that the residents let it happen. I once lived in a small town of under 2,000 with its own business infrastructure. After I left, the townspeople were really excited to see the first Tim Hortons move into town and their patronage killed any local competition. The local bank branch had a beautiful circa 1910 building and people were practically giddy to see it razed and replaced with a grey cinderblock building. The local independent pharmacist was quick to sell his business to a chain and work as an employee and everyone cheered.

I can't afford to pay $200 more for a washing machine, but often when I have patronized local restaurants and coffee shops, it's the people themselves who have chosen the chains over the locals and driven them out of business.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Macfury said:


> One of the big problems is that the residents let it happen. I once lived in a small town of under 2,000 with its own business infrastructure. After I left, the townspeople were really excited to see the first Tim Hortons move into town and their patronage killed any local competition. The local bank branch had a beautiful circa 1910 building and people were practically giddy to see it razed and replaced with a grey cinderblock building. The local independent pharmacist was quick to sell his business to a chain and work as an employee and everyone cheered.
> 
> I can't afford to pay $200 more for a washing machine, but often when I have patronized local restaurants and coffee shops, it's the people themselves who have chosen the chains over the locals and driven them out of business.





> *the residents let it happen*


You hit the nail right on the head here. I have seen this all too often as well. Canada has very little in the way of historicaly significant places and buildings etc. What little is here is not valued by the people. Very very sad state of affairs. 

Renouned Architect Arthur Erickson has had many of his BC homes demolished. They should have been preserved for historical reasons. 

If places of historical significance are preserved and the public is educated about it, it helps to build up the country, national pride, and also serves as a tourism boost. 

Sometimes I have been out for a walk, and I would see tourists asking locals about some historical landmark they heard about in europe or Asia etc., and local people would just give them dumb looks. Most of the time I could send them in the right direction and tell them a few things about what they were looking for. 

That 1910 historic building should have been preserved, and the new building put up elsewhere. Such a short sighted stupid waste, and there is a lot of that in Canada. I notice that Americans are much more protective, knowledgeable, and proud of their historical places. Compared to Canada, it is easy to find many locals knowledgeable and willing to speak with pride of their local buildings, history, and landmarks.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> The answer to why they are corporate welfare bums is clear in my post. Walmart is one of many multi billion dollar businesses whose workforce is paid so low that they require large amounts of government subsidy for housing, food, and other living expenses. Take away their government subsidy, and they cannot afford to work there anymore, let alone raise a family properly.
> 
> *The previous employees did not need government subsidy and they paid more taxes, could afford local real estate, etc.*
> 
> *I used to visit some towns to shop in their very cool old shopping districts. Only problem is that after Walmart got a foothold in their town, half or more of these historic places are closed down.* Why bother coming back to visit again?


Like said that is BS. Plenty of small companies and Govs pay s**t as well. Prove it! Small companies do not pay more for unskilled labour than large corporations on the whole. Why? Because they can't, because their profit margins are so small.

If they closed down it was because they couldn't compete or find a unique marketing/product strategy. Most likely they were lazy and just thought that their old customers would keep coming back even if it meant spending 20% + more for the same product.

What you speak of is some socialist/communist small community ideal that does not exist, at least in the modern world.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> Hope that you find a decent way to earn a living.
> 
> May I ask:
> What kind of occupation are you looking for?
> Are you willing to relocate if necessary?


Thank you.

I have had many occupations in fact, so I am looking for something that fits within my skill sets that I have developed over 25+ years of experience.

No not really, not until it becomes absolutely necessary. We have too much invested in being here and my wife and I are both over 50. So to pull up roots and relocate at this point in our lives would be an act of desperation... We are not quite there yet, but maybe sooner than we would like it might become necessary.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> One of the big problems is that the residents let it happen. I once lived in a small town of under 2,000 with its own business infrastructure. After I left, the townspeople were really excited to see the first Tim Hortons move into town and their patronage killed any local competition. The local bank branch had a beautiful circa 1910 building and people were practically giddy to see it razed and replaced with a grey cinderblock building. The local independent pharmacist was quick to sell his business to a chain and work as an employee and everyone cheered.
> 
> I can't afford to pay $200 more for a washing machine, but often when I have patronized local restaurants and coffee shops, it's the people themselves who have chosen the chains over the locals and driven them out of business.


Local governments let it happen because the residents would rather have jobs than old local landmarks that provide no income to them or employment for their hamlet. This is nothing new. If historical preservation societies want to plea their case at a town hall or city council they can. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose.

People tend to do what is in their best interest in the here and now and that has generally been the case... well since forever. There are exceptions of course but they are definitely in the minority.

What would you and MCB propose to make things any different and "better"?

Legislation? If so at what level? Municipal, Provincial, Federal, all three?


----------



## Macfury

You can't make it better if the people who live there don't care. In every case I mentioned there was no improvement in employment or economic opportunity. Just a large franchise business replacing a local operator--or a beautiful building historic replaced with something ugly. But the citizens were thrilled. I knew the bank manager and he had no objection either. Not much left to distinguish the town from dozens around it, but that's not a problem for them. If you don't value history or tradition there's no sense in passing regulations to force you to pretend you do



screature said:


> Local governments let it happen because the residents would rather have jobs than old local landmarks that provide no income to them or employment for their hamlet. This is nothing new. If historical preservation societies want to plea their case at a town hall or city council they can. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose.
> 
> People tend to do what is in their best interest in the here and now and that has generally been the case... well since forever. There are exceptions of course but they are definitely in the minority.
> 
> What would you and MCB propose to make things any different and "better"?
> 
> Legislation? If so at what level? Municipal, Provincial, Federal, all three?


----------



## MazterCBlazter

MacFury is correct, it is the will of the local people. If the local people are only interested in a quick short sighted dollar in their pocket and do not respect the local history has no chance of surviving. 

There are places I used to like to visit once in a while and shop and eat for the nostalgia. As most of these places have half the shops boarded up in Canada, I don't bother any more. Wonder how their tourist income is doing.

This small community ideal is disappearing faster in Canada than in the USA. I do not consider supporting the local community communist or socialsit by any means. There are a few exceptions here and there where the community pulled together and kept the town alive and thriving, but not enough.

B.C.'s tiniest towns set sights on growth by reinventing themselves

I think Grand Cache in Alberta took similar steps to keep the place thriving, whereas Gold river just folded, and it was in a beautiful location. A place only as good as it's people. One of the reason Japan does so well in a bad location and having to import all raw materials for anything it manufactures and exports.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

screature said:


> People tend to do what is in their best interest in the here and now and that has generally been the case... well since forever. There are exceptions of course but they are definitely in the minority.
> 
> What would you and MCB propose to make things any different and "better"?


Hell, people usually are very opinionated while at the same time are totally clueless as to what is in their own best interests. They just whine and complain as they shoot themsleves in the foot. They see things with very narrow vision, and then a stranger shows up in the neighborhood (immigrant refugee) and sees opportunities that all the locals cannot see, and after a little while has a thriving business going.

I have worked on projects with highly educated people, in particular engineers and scientists who were so narrow minded about working outside of their training they could not see the forest for the treees. They would blow off opportunities then people who could hardly speak the local language, set up shop right under their upturned noses. Meanwhile these highly educated bums were holding out for the work they wanted in their own neighborhood which never materialized.

I know people with education and training in various cities that could easily get really good work if they were willing to move, but they refuse to. Some have been unemployed or underemployed for years.

People have to be both unwilling to move, and work to build and improve the communities they live in. With the internet, it is very and economical easy to keep in contact with your network of people wherever you are.

Too many people need leaders to tell them what to do, and how to think, and motivate them, as they cannot do it on their own. Perople are all too often too worried about getting the disapproval or criticism of people who are just holding them back if they take a risk. So they stagnate. Usually in a small community that thrived, they have at least one effective leader who motivates the people to work together in a constructive direction. The small town MacFury mentioned did not have such leadership.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> You can't make it better if the people who live there don't care. In every case I mentioned there was no improvement in employment or economic opportunity. Just a large franchise business replacing a local operator--or a beautiful building historic replaced with something ugly. But the citizens were thrilled. I knew the bank manager and he had no objection either. Not much left to distinguish the town from dozens around it, but that's not a problem for them. If you don't value history or tradition there's no sense in passing regulations to force you to pretend you do





MazterCBlazter said:


> MacFury is correct, it is the will of the local people. If the local people are only interested in a quick short sighted dollar in their pocket and do not respect the local history has no chance of surviving.
> 
> There are places I used to like to visit once in a while and shop and eat for the nostalgia. As most of these places have half the shops boarded up in Canada, I don't bother any more. Wonder how their tourist income is doing.
> 
> This small community ideal is disappearing faster in Canada than in the USA. I do not consider supporting the local community communist or socialsit by any means. There are a few exceptions here and there where the community pulled together and kept the town alive and thriving, but not enough.
> 
> B.C.'s tiniest towns set sights on growth by reinventing themselves
> 
> I think Grand Cache in Alberta took similar steps to keep the place thriving, whereas Gold river just folded, and it was in a beautiful location. A place only as good as it's people. One of the reason Japan does so well in a bad location and having to import all raw materials for anything it manufactures and exports.





MazterCBlazter said:


> Hell, people usually are very opinionated while at the same time are totally clueless as to what is in their own best interests. They just whine and complain as they shoot themsleves in the foot. They see things with very narrow vision, and then a stranger shows up in the neighborhood (immigrant refugee) and sees opportunities that all the locals cannot see, and after a little while has a thriving business going.
> 
> I have worked on projects with highly educated people, in particular engineers and scientists who were so narrow minded about working outside of their training they could not see the forest for the treees. They would blow off opportunities then people who could hardly speak the local language, set up shop right under their upturned noses. Meanwhile these highly educated bums were holding out for the work they wanted in their own neighborhood which never materialized.
> 
> I know people with education and training in various cities that could easily get really good work if they were willing to move, but they refuse to. Some have been unemployed or underemployed for years.
> 
> People have to be both unwilling to move, and work to build and improve the communities they live in. With the internet, it is very and economical easy to keep in contact with your network of people wherever you are.
> 
> Too many people need leaders to tell them what to do, and how to think, and motivate them, as they cannot do it on their own. Perople are all too often too worried about getting the disapproval or criticism of people who are just holding them back if they take a risk. So they stagnate. Usually in a small community that thrived, they have at least one effective leader who motivates the people to work together in a constructive direction. The small town MacFury mentioned did not have such leadership.


So neither of you seem have any ideas as to how to change things despite your many words of protestation.

I asked you both directly:


> What would you and MCB propose to make things any different and "better"?
> 
> Legislation? If so at what level? Municipal, Provincial, Federal, all three?


You both seem to want to bitch about Walmart and their ilk, but what would either of you do if you had the power to change things? No more personal anecdotes, some policy recommendations please. It is all too easy to criticize but much more difficult to create change. So what are your suggestions to create change?

I am surprised that you MF would want to control the free market as it seems that is what you are suggesting.

Low prices are good for the masses so they have more money left at the end of the month to save for other things. I really do not see how you can argue against this.


----------



## Macfury

I've told you already, if that's how people choose democratically to live, I see no reason to force them to live in a way that makes them unhappy.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I've told you already, if that's how people choose democratically to live, I see no reason to force them to live in a way that makes them unhappy.


Not really, you still come across as being judgemental about their decisions:



> In every case I mentioned there was no improvement in employment or economic opportunity. Just a large franchise business replacing a local operator--*or a beautiful building historic replaced with something ugly.*





> *If you don't value history or tradition* there's no sense in passing regulations to force you to pretend you do


You are clearly passing some sort of value judgement. You can pretend that you aren't but your words are pretty clear... "or a beautiful building historic replaced with something ugly", "If you don't value history or tradition". These are value judgements of your own, so own them and do not pretend that you don't have a personal bias.

One that I personally do not understand. Just to say it again as you do not seem to get it, what is good for the masses is that they have more money left in their pockets at the end of the month after buying what they need to keep themselves and their family alive with something left to save. Tell me how that is a bad thing?

Also just to add I personally do not know of any Walmart that replaced any historic landmarks or buildings to build their stores, that would be far too expensive and cause too many red tape delays. They typically build in previously undeveloped land because it is cheap.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

screature said:


> So neither of you seem have any ideas as to how to change things despite your many words of protestation.
> 
> I asked you both directly:
> 
> 
> You both seem to want to bitch about Walmart and their ilk, but what would either of you do if you had the power to change things? No more personal anecdotes, some policy recommendations please. It is all too easy to criticize but much more difficult to create change. So what are your suggestions to create change?


I have provided a link with examples of small towns that have resisted negative change, and used their history as a tool to build their future.

What I would do is return to the Guild system to prevent these disasters altogether. Every professional association has an Alderman represented at city hall. If you want to open a business or buy property in a community, first you make your case to the city council and explain how you would be an asset to the community. 

You make your community as desireable as possible to live in, and then allow those with needed professions move in. This creates great stability, and allows the community to have great self determination.


Today having wealthy people who live elsewhere owning prime real estate causes nothing but problems where local people get squeezed out and their money removed from the local economy. Ownership of the best local real estate should only be for those that do the most for the community.

On a national level, I would strongly encourage all to buy made in Canada products first, and bring as much manufacturing into the country as possible. No reason to have clothing made overseas, most Canadian clothing used to be made in Manitoba. No reason for BC to import ferries from Europe. They can be made in BC again like they used to be. 

Imported foreign made products that compete with Canadian made products would be have additional taxes to be used as capital for Canadian start ups, marketing, and to train the workforce.

I would place extra taxes on all foreign owned real estate, especially high in the most desireable areas. Non Canadians with real estate in Vancouver and other good areas should have to pay through the nose for that priviledge. I would make it very easy for strong unions to be created in large foreign companies like Wal Mart. I would make vacations taken in Canada tax deductible, and increase vacation time to the 6 week European standard.

I would decrease the export of Canadian raw materials, and increase creation of finished products. When local industry and economy is strong enough, completely abolish export of those raw materials. At the same time, bring in the best people as citizenship candidates that can create businesses that turn raw materials into value added products.

etc. etc.


----------



## Macfury

I AM judgemental. But I'm also a libertarian. I can try to get someone to buy the building or get the business to spare the building. However, it belongs to them, not me and I have no right to force someone to preserve a building because I happen to like it. 

I don't see that any of the things I mentioned increased anyone's income or left them with any more money at the end of the month. They liked old things being replaced with new ones. At best, same number of people employed, but profits leaving the community instead of remaining there.

Yes, Wal-Mart typically locates at malls or on brownfield and greenfield properties. Their effort in Toronto to locate in Little Italy met some resistance and they quickly relented.



screature said:


> Not really, you still come across as being judgemental about their decisions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly passing some sort of value judgement. You can pretend that you aren't but your words are pretty clear... "or a beautiful building historic replaced with something ugly", "If you don't value history or tradition". These are value judgements of your own, so own them and do not pretend that you don't have a personal bias.
> 
> One that I personally do not understand. Just to say it again as you do not seem to get it, what is good for the masses is that they have more money left in their pockets at the end of the month after buying what they need to keep themselves and their family alive with something left to save. Tell me how that is a bad thing?
> 
> Also just to add I personally do not know of any Walmart that replaced any historic landmarks or buildings to build their stores, that would be far too expensive and cause too many red tape delays. They typically build in previously undeveloped land because it is cheap.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> I have provided a link with examples of small towns that have resisted negative change, and used their history as a tool to build their future.
> 
> What I would do is return to the Guild system to prevent these disasters altogether. Every professional association has an Alderman represented at city hall. If you want to open a business or buy property in a community, first you make your case to the city council and explain how you would be an asset to the community.
> 
> You make your community as desireable as possible to live in, and then allow those with needed professions move in. This creates great stability, and allows the community to have great self determination.
> 
> 
> Today having wealthy people who live elsewhere owning prime real estate causes nothing but problems where local people get squeezed out and their money removed from the local economy. Ownership of the best local real estate should only be for those that do the most for the community.
> 
> On a national level, I would strongly encourage all to buy made in Canada products first, and bring as much manufacturing into the country as possible. No reason to have clothing made overseas, most Canadian clothing used to be made in Manitoba. No reason for BC to import ferries from Europe. They can be made in BC again like they used to be.
> 
> Imported foreign made products that compete with Canadian made products would be have additional taxes to be used as capital for Canadian start ups, marketing, and to train the workforce.
> 
> I would place extra taxes on all foreign owned real estate, especially high in the most desireable areas. Non Canadians with real estate in Vancouver and other good areas should have to pay through the nose for that priviledge. I would make it very easy for strong unions to be created in large foreign companies like Wal Mart. I would make vacations taken in Canada tax deductible, and increase vacation time to the 6 week European standard.
> 
> I would decrease the export of Canadian raw materials, and increase creation of finished products. When local industry and economy is strong enough, completely abolish export of those raw materials. At the same time, bring in the best people as citizenship candidates that can create businesses that turn raw materials into value added products.
> 
> etc. etc.


Well I certainly don't agree with much of what you suggest but at least it answers my question. Thanks.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I AM judgemental. But I'm also a libertarian. I can try to get someone to buy the building or get the business to spare the building. However, it belongs to them, not me and I have no right to force someone to preserve a building because I happen to like it.
> 
> I don't see that any of the things I mentioned increased anyone's income or left them with any more money at the end of the month. They liked old things being replaced with new ones. At best, same number of people employed, but profits leaving the community instead of remaining there.
> 
> Yes, Wal-Mart typically locates at malls or on brownfield and greenfield properties. Their effort in Toronto to locate in Little Italy met some resistance and they quickly relented.


Thanks for your response.


----------



## Rps

Well guys, this is an interesting discussion, with rational responses. When I was younger the government used to have an ad campaign which stated if price and quality are equal buy Canadian. My family held that belief for years, but clearly others did not. It is not in our interest to appear protectionist.....economies cores change quickly today. In our 150 years we have moved from an agrarian economy to one that is mixed geographically. We do not seem to exploit our strengths in this area. 

Screature, economies of scale will always win out and that is really why the smaller guys cannot compete with the global companies.

What we need to do, within WTO rules, is created a capital pool to finance incubator areas, vest UIC funds by individual and if not used allow those to be rolled into RSPs, reduce Capital Gains tax the longer you hold the asset....meaning you are viewed as an owner rather than an investor, allow Universities and Colleges to hold patents on their research and fund commercialization of patents from Canada Pension investment, any government funding Canada must hold either shares or % of patent. Our foreign aid must be reduced to Canadian goods and not money.....in other words don't send money when seeds and shovels will do. At the forefront municipal, provincial and federal governments must have a common mission statement which places Canada first and all decisions made must meet this common mission in our best interests. Finally, WE must make a concious decision as to what type of country we want to live in....one that is global in orientation or one that places Canadians first, but which ever we choose it should meet our core values as a society......once we figure out what those might be.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Rps said:


> Well guys, this is an interesting discussion, with rational responses. When I was younger the government used to have an ad campaign which stated if price and quality are equal buy Canadian. My family held that belief for years, but clearly others did not. It is not in our interest to appear protectionist.....economies cores change quickly today. In our 150 years we have moved from an agrarian economy to one that is mixed geographically. We do not seem to exploit our strengths in this area.
> 
> Screature, economies of scale will always win out and that is really why the smaller guys cannot compete with the global companies.
> 
> What we need to do, within WTO rules, is created a capital pool to finance incubator areas, vest UIC funds by individual and if not used allow those to be rolled into RSPs, reduce Capital Gains tax the longer you hold the asset....meaning you are viewed as an owner rather than an investor, allow Universities and Colleges to hold patents on their research and fund commercialization of patents from Canada Pension investment, any government funding Canada must hold either shares or % of patent. Our foreign aid must be reduced to Canadian goods and not money.....in other words don't send money when seeds and shovels will do. At the forefront municipal, provincial and federal governments must have a common mission statement which places Canada first and all decisions made must meet this common mission in our best interests. Finally, WE must make a concious decision as to what type of country we want to live in....one that is global in orientation or one that places Canadians first, but which ever we choose it should meet our core values as a society......once we figure out what those might be.


Canada and Canadians rarely make trends. They usually just follow them, and go by whatever way the wind is blowing, and live their underachieving lives on autopilot. It is really hard to get Canadians motivated to get together to work together to accomplish anything great. Too much of a "can't do" humdrum "it can't be done" negative attitude. 

For the most part the truly ambitious will eventually leave. Canada's greatest export is it's actors and entepreneurs who can only go so far in the great white north. I don't know if attitudes will ever improve in Canada. I find people a lot more Gung Ho and enthusiastic in USA, Britian, and many Asian countries.

Like you I used to go out of my way to support Canadian business and the local community. Big problem is that too many Canadian people just don't care. All they want is their paycheque and only care about immediate family. They could care less about what the politicians and businesses are doing that damges their country and community unless it affects them directly.

Canadians are for the most part sellout artists. They will collectively sell property and national treasures that hurts their country and community. This is widespread and it has resulted in the housing crisis in Vancouver and elsewhere. Too many people would rather shop across the border to save a handful of dollars than boost their local economy.


----------



## Beej

Rps said:


> What we need to do, within WTO rules, is created a capital pool to finance incubator areas, vest UIC funds by individual and if not used allow those to be rolled into RSPs, reduce Capital Gains tax the longer you hold the asset....meaning you are viewed as an owner rather than an investor, allow Universities and Colleges to hold patents on their research and fund commercialization of patents from Canada Pension investment, any government funding Canada must hold either shares or % of patent. Our foreign aid must be reduced to Canadian goods and not money.....in other words don't send money when seeds and shovels will do. At the forefront municipal, provincial and federal governments must have a common mission statement which places Canada first and all decisions made must meet this common mission in our best interests. Finally, WE must make a concious decision as to what type of country we want to live in....one that is global in orientation or one that places Canadians first, but which ever we choose it should meet our core values as a society......once we figure out what those might be.


A lot of ideas in here, so thanks for the substantive post. I'll comment on a few.

The patent issue with universities goes two ways. I agree they should hold on to an ownership share, but their bureaucracies can significantly impede success in complex technologies when they insist on maintaining their share over the whole bundle of IP. So that needs work, but is worth figuring out.

I want politics as far from CPP decisions as possible. Handing such a large piggy bank to politicians would be dangerous. It took a lot of political pain to fix that program.

Funding R&D, whether through programs or tax credits, needs an ownership share. See universities for the difficulties, but something should be worked out, and then fixed a few years later because the first idea won't be the best idea.

The foreign aid thing is iffy. Countries can manipulate their foreign aid bragging rights by claiming something like MSRP for their in kind gifts. I prefer a clear approach to policy -- foreign aid is charitable work, so provide the most charity possible per dollar spent. Don't make it a jobs program.

Again, thanks for a thoughtful post.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Well guys, this is an interesting discussion, with rational responses. When I was younger the government used to have an ad campaign which stated if price and quality are equal buy Canadian. My family held that belief for years, but clearly others did not. It is not in our interest to appear protectionist.....economies cores change quickly today. In our 150 years we have moved from an agrarian economy to one that is mixed geographically. We do not seem to exploit our strengths in this area.
> *
> Screature, economies of scale will always win out and that is really why the smaller guys cannot compete with the global companies.*
> 
> What we need to do, within WTO rules, is created a capital pool to finance incubator areas, vest UIC funds by individual and if not used allow those to be rolled into RSPs, reduce Capital Gains tax the longer you hold the asset....meaning you are viewed as an owner rather than an investor, allow Universities and Colleges to hold patents on their research and fund commercialization of patents from Canada Pension investment, any government funding Canada must hold either shares or % of patent. *Our foreign aid must be reduced to Canadian goods and not money.....in other words don't send money when seeds and shovels will do. At the forefront municipal, provincial and federal governments must have a common mission statement which places Canada first and all decisions made must meet this common mission in our best interests.* Finally, *WE must make a conscious decision as to what type of country we want to live in....one that is global in orientation or one that places Canadians first, but which ever we choose it should meet our core values as a society......once we figure out what those might be*.


Absolutely I am well aware of that.

Sounds like Trump speak.

But what does that mean? Our society is not homogeneous so how can we ever determine what "our" values are when there is no collective "our"?

The best that we have to go with is already in place with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and even then tere is still disagreement depending on interpretation.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Absolutely I am well aware of that.
> 
> Sounds like Trump speak.
> 
> But what does that mean? Our society is not homogeneous so how can we ever determine what "our" values are when there is no collective "our"?


An excellent point, screature. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> But what does that mean? Our society is not homogeneous so how can we ever determine what "our" values are when there is no collective "our"?


By that logic, there can be no values at all unless everyone agrees.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> By that logic, there can be no values at all unless everyone agrees.


Exactly!

It is just a matter of facing the fact that different groups of people, even individuals, have differing values, morals, beliefs, culture, etc. 

The tricky part is when we try to make them all co-exist. That is the problem we are experiencing now and since time immemorial. Its nothing new.


----------



## Rps

screature said:


> Absolutely I am well aware of that.
> 
> Sounds like Trump speak.
> 
> But what does that mean? Our society is not homogeneous so how can we ever determine what "our" values are when there is no collective "our"?
> 
> The best that we have to go with is already in place with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and even then tere is still disagreement depending on interpretation.


Screature, my point exactly! On other threads some post about we should hold new comers to our Canadian Values......trouble is, no one can say what they are.


----------



## Rps

screature said:


> exactly! It is just a matter of facing the fact that different groups of people, even individuals, have differing values, morals, beliefs, culture, etc.
> 
> The tricky part is when we try to make them all co-exist. That is the problem we are experiencing now and since time immemorial. Its nothing new.


+ 100


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Screature, my point exactly! On other threads some post about we should hold new comers to our Canadian Values......trouble is, no one can say what they are.


Yes so we are in agreement.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> By that logic, there can be no values at all unless everyone agrees.


MacFury, our values change over time, the issue is not that we have a common set of values, but what do we do to those who do not hold them?


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> MacFury, our values change over time, the issue is not that we have a common set of values, but what do we do to those who do not hold them?


Absolutely, time marches on, some lead and some will follow. But then again there are those inbetween leaders and followers and say, "Wait! Why are we going this way, it seems to me, we would be better off going in a different direction".


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> MacFury, our values change over time, the issue is not that we have a common set of values, but what do we do to those who do not hold them?


By what set of values do you oppose:

1. Rape?
2. Genital Mutilation?

Perhaps the passing parade of ever-shifting values will sanctify these two acts, so why get bent out of shape over them?


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> By what set of values do you oppose:
> 
> 1. Rape?
> 2. Genital Mutilation?
> 
> Perhaps the passing parade of ever-shifting values will sanctify these two acts, so why get bent out of shape over them?


Time! As our values become societally solidified we tend to create laws to support some of them, your examples being notable. Medical marijuana might be on the cusp of social change but might not be raised to the value level. Gay marriage also.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Time! As our values become societally solidified we tend to create laws to support some of them, your examples being notable. Medical marijuana might be on the cusp of social change but might not be raised to the value level. Gay marriage also.


So no morals or values for you. Only legality?


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> So no morals or values for you. Only legality?


Not what I said.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Not what I said.


That seems to be the only way you can express a common value.


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> Perhaps the passing parade of ever-shifting values will sanctify these two acts, so why get bent out of shape over them?


The common value is equal treatment under the rule of law. An individual can advocate to change the law, including making unequal treatment part of the law. Something I do not like, but not inherently unCanadian.


----------



## screature

Beej said:


> The common value is equal treatment under the rule of law. An individual can advocate to change the law, including making unequal treatment part of the law. Something I do not like, but not inherently unCanadian.


Without a doubt.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That seems to be the only way you can express a common value.


IMO you do not seem to appreciate the point that Rps is making and that's fine, but your trite comment is definitely out of place when it comes to Rps. He has always been reasonable and polite. I do not always agree with him nor he with me, but we try to keep it civil and polite despite our differences and that I have to say is mostly becuase of Rps. 

I can get very argumentative, BIG SURPRISE! But it is different with Rps, Dr.G and Tilt just to name a few, they keep things civil and so when I reply to them I try my best to do the same.

So IMO your condescension is out of place.

You probably don't care and I am Ok with that.


----------



## Macfury

I meant it only in the context of our discussion. That is, in RPS's attempts to define values/morality, he was clearly leaning to the legal. A point meant to draw out the discussion. RPS and i have always been on good terms and I enjoy exchanging ideas with him.



screature said:


> IMO you do not seem to appreciate the point that Rps is making and that's fine, but your trite comment is definitely out of place when it comes to Rps. He has always been reasonable and polite. I do not always agree with him nor he with me, but we try to keep it civil and polite despite our differences and that I have to say is mostly becuase of Rps.
> 
> I can get very argumentative, BIG SURPRISE! But it is different with Rps, Dr.G and Tilt just to name a few, they keep things civil and so when I reply to them I try my best to do the same.
> 
> So IMO your condescension is out of place.
> 
> You probably don't care and I am Ok with that.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I meant it only in the context of our discussion. That is, in RPS's attempts to define values/morality, he was clearly leaning to the legal. A point meant to draw out the discussion. RPS and i have always been on good terms and I enjoy exchanging ideas with him.


So it is Ok to be trite and condescending depending on the context of the discussion... Hmm...

I have been to far too many House of Commons Committee meetings I guess... But I have developed a radar for the trite and condescending, no matter how subtle.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> So it is Ok to be trite and condescending depending on the context of the discussion... Hmm...
> 
> 
> 
> I have been to far too many House of Commons Committee meetings I guess... But I have developed a radar for the trite and condescending, no matter how subtle.



Some practitioners are anything but subtle.


----------



## Macfury

No intention. It was brief, but not condescending. Your radar on behalf of other members is working overtime.



screature said:


> So it is Ok to be trite and condescending depending on the context of the discussion... Hmm...
> 
> I have been to far too many House of Commons Committee meetings I guess... But I have developed a radar for the trite and condescending, no matter how subtle.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> No intention. It was brief, but not condescending. Your radar on behalf of other members is working overtime.



Thing is, you have to be on a higher intellectual plane in the first place in order to be condescending.


----------



## Rps

Hi Screature, I didn't take Macfury's reply as a whack. He simply was asking a question on whether the laws create the common values. Which is a valid question. In my view our laws contain some of our values but not all....or inotherwords not all values become basis for laws.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> Hi Screature, I didn't take Macfury's reply as a whack. He simply was asking a question on whether the laws create the common values. Which is a valid question. In my view our laws contain some of our values but not all....or inotherwords not all values become basis for laws.



Can you think of a law that doesn't have its basis is in a value, Rps? Even driving g on the right side of the road would seem to have its origin in safety and organization. Neither of these are universal values, but they sure do help save a lot of lives.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Can you think of a law that doesn't have its basis is in a value, Rps? Even driving g on the right side of the road would seem to have its origin in safety and organization. Neither of these are universal values, but they sure do help save a lot of lives.


You're missing the point. The question is whether common values can only be expressed in laws.


----------



## Rps

Freddie_Biff said:


> Can you think of a law that doesn't have its basis is in a value, Rps? Even driving g on the right side of the road would seem to have its origin in safety and organization. Neither of these are universal values, but they sure do help save a lot of lives.


Frank, how about gay marriage, do we value it per se, not sure but the law was instituted because society had changed its view on the topic.....but was it a value. Income tax comes to mind....do Canadians have a value which states we want and cherish income tax. Values are often confused by people. To me the test of a value is when it's stepped on we react beyond our norm. So, in a work environment if the company goes against our values we quit. With a country we either leave it or go to war with it. Many times we don't even recognize that our values have been stepped on.....we just feel upset about something. Values are hard things to say we collectively hold and can be listed. Laws however may go against our values....such as abortion, gay marriage or military conscription.


----------



## Beej

Rps said:


> To me the test of a value is when it's stepped on we react beyond our norm.


An important point. Thanks for thinking out loud on this difficult topic.


----------



## screature

So be it, I will take you at your word.

God almighty does that really sounds just too pretentious!, How about this::

Cool dude, it's awright.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Hi Screature, I didn't take Macfury's reply as a whack. He simply was asking a question on whether the laws create the common values. Which is a valid question. In my view our laws contain some of our values but not all....or inotherwords not all values become basis for laws.


Fair enough and my apologies to MF for my misunderstanding.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> Frank, how about gay marriage, do we value it per se, not sure but the law was instituted because society had changed its view on the topic.....but was it a value. Income tax comes to mind....do Canadians have a value which states we want and cherish income tax. Values are often confused by people. To me the test of a value is when it's stepped on we react beyond our norm. So, in a work environment if the company goes against our values we quit. With a country we either leave it or go to war with it. Many times we don't even recognize that our values have been stepped on.....we just feel upset about something. Values are hard things to say we collectively hold and can be listed. Laws however may go against our values....such as abortion, gay marriage or military conscription.



Well, I would say that gay marriage (or even just marriage) and income tax are reflective of the values of those that create the laws. They may not be your values, but they'll be the values of whatever part of the population elected the winning party and so they get to make the decisions. Gay marriage reflects the value of equality and income tax reflects the value of shared expenses, a socialist leaning. 

I absolutely agree that our values may be in conflict with the values of the day or the values of the majority or even just the values of the power-holders; witness the reaction to Bill 6 in Alberta for example. The NDP and Rachel Notley in particular very much value farm safety, but a great many farmers in Alberta value independence. I don't know what the long and short of it is whether the law was a success or whether anyone went to the poorhouse, but I haven't heard many complaints about that law recently. Maybe it's like OS updates: people tend to complain a lot until they get used to the way the new system operates and adapt. 

But certainly, I would say someone's or some group's values are at the core of every law we have. I don't see how it could be otherwise.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> You're missing the point. The question is whether common values can only be expressed in laws.



No point missed. In fact, that is the point. People feel strongly enough about something they value to institute a law to uphold that value. Take the law about minimum age for drinking, for example. In Alberta, collectively the people decided that 18 was fair, whereas in other provinces, 19 or even 21 is the norm. Why only 18 in Alberta? Collectively, people must have decided at some point that young adults are mature enough at that age to handle that responsibility. Does the biology of young adults differ from province to province? Nope. But the group values appear to, or the law would be the same across Canada.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Frank, how about gay marriage, do we value it per se, not sure but the law was instituted because society had changed its view on the topic.....but was it a value. Income tax comes to mind....do Canadians have a value which states we want and cherish income tax. Values are often confused by people. To me the test of a value is when it's stepped on we react beyond our norm. So, in a work environment if the company goes against our values we quit. With a country we either leave it or go to war with it. Many times we don't even recognize that our values have been stepped on.....we just feel upset about something. Values are hard things to say we collectively hold and can be listed. Laws however may go against our values....such as abortion, gay marriage or military conscription.


More than half of what is codified in law is offensive to me. Even the idea that someone created a law so that they could beat me over the head with their own values is repulsive. The greater the scope of the law, the more likely I am to find it offensive. Morality is (mores are?) local and efforts to force national values federally or provincially through law creates this sort of dislocation.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> More than half of what is codified in law is offensive to me. Even the idea that someone created a law so that they could beat me over the head with their own values is repulsive. The greater the scope of the law, the more likely I am to find it offensive. Morality is (mores are?) local and efforts to force national values federally or provincially through law creates this sort of dislocation.



Yet you believe in democracy, no? Majority rules? If so, then you also accept that the values of the majority shall be foisted upon the rest, whether the rest likes it or not.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Yet you believe in democracy, no? Majority rules? If so, then you also accept that the values of the majority shall be foisted upon the rest, whether the rest likes it or not.


No, I don't believe in that sort of democracy.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> No, I don't believe in that sort of democracy.



You don't believe in "that sort" of democracy? What "sort" of democracy do you believe in?


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Yet you believe in democracy, no? Majority rules? If so, then you also accept that the values of the majority shall be foisted upon the rest, whether the rest likes it or not.


Not a chance do I believe in that kind either. That is the tactic of Red RATchel who during the campaign never once mentioned a carbon tax and then shoved it down our throats. That is is NOT democracy, that is NDP dictatorship.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Not a chance do I believe in that kind either. That is the tactic of Red RATchel who during the campaign never once mentioned a carbon tax and then shoved it down our throats. That is is NOT democracy, that is NDP dictatorship.



You prefer the Conservative-style dictatorship, no?


----------



## Rps

Freddie_Biff said:


> You don't believe in "that sort" of democracy? What "sort" of democracy do you believe in?


Well I am sure this will cause a ruckus, but we do not live in a democracy. We do have democratic processes but we are not a democracy.

Ask yourself this question.....has the government ever past a law that you strongly disagree with. Now ask your self, if the government has a majority government do you have any voice to stop or amend it outside of insurrection? We loose our democracy during majority governments.....


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> You prefer the Conservative-style dictatorship, no?


No I prefer an honest government. A government who campaigns on a stated platform and then sticks to the platform. The Alberta NDP failed to mention anything about bill 6 or the carbon tax in their platform. That makes them not only dishonest, but outright liars.


----------



## Rps

SINC said:


> No I prefer an honest government. A government who campaigns on a stated platform and then sticks to the platform. The Alberta NDP failed to mention anything about bill 6 or the carbon tax in their platform. That makes them not only dishonest, but outright liars.


Not so sure I agree here. If a party does not say it is going to do something, then it does something I would not say they are liars. However, if a government says it will do something, such as no more FPTP, then cancels that idea in power that would be a "lie"


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Well I am sure this will cause a ruckus, but we do not live in a democracy. We do have democratic processes but we are not a democracy.
> 
> Ask yourself this question.....has the government ever past a law that you strongly disagree with. Now ask your self, if the government has a majority government do you have any voice to stop or amend it outside of insurrection? We loose our democracy during majority governments.....


Exactly. 

Also, my idea of government is one that would be severely limited by its constitution in what it could force others to do. Simply stating "we have a majority" is not enough. In a true democracy Notley's carbon tax would already be gone, and both she and Kathleen Wynne would be out of office--because people would simply hold a referendum to make it happen.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> Well I am sure this will cause a ruckus, but we do not live in a democracy. We do have democratic processes but we are not a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself this question.....has the government ever past a law that you strongly disagree with. Now ask your self, if the government has a majority government do you have any voice to stop or amend it outside of insurrection? We loose our democracy during majority governments.....



Well, I don't believe democracy means you're going to agree with every law that the government comes up with. But the majority, even if the majority is 40% of those that voted in a multiparty representative democracy, which may actually be, say, 20% of the total population, still gets its way. Majority, minority, I'm not sure it matters that much. A democracy will always have a sizeable part of the population that doesn't approve. Or you can have an odd situation like the US where Trump lost the election by some 3 million votes, based on the will of the people, but still became President through the bizarre phenomenon known as the Electoral College. I don't know that dictatorships are so wonderful, or governments that call themselves "democracies" even though there is only one name on the ballot, and they track who voted and who didn't. Perhaps "democracy" sounds good in principle but is hard to actually do. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government—with the exception of all the rest.


----------



## Rps

That is not really quite accurate Frank. In a democracy the minority is not protected. In a republic the constitution protects the minority. In our Crown Republic/Constitutional Monarchy we have a constitution. However on key issues which affect the mass, I agree with Macfury that a proposition approach might even out the proportional disparity in the geopolitical areas of the country. But it is a slow and costly governing process I think.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> No I prefer an honest government. A government who campaigns on a stated platform and then sticks to the platform. The Alberta NDP failed to mention anything about bill 6 or the carbon tax in their platform. That makes them not only dishonest, but outright liars.



Klein promised 104,000 jobs, which was why I voted for him, and he certainly didn't promise to fire teachers and nurses. Do you approve of what he did? He was also an outright liar.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> That is not really quite accurate Frank. In a democracy the minority is not protected. In a republic the constitution protects the minority. In our Crown Republic/Constitutional Monarchy we have a constitution. However on key issues which affect the mass, I agree with Macfury that a proposition approach might even out the proportional disparity in the geopolitical areas of the country. But it is a slow and costly governing process I think.



I see your point. I don't think the minority in the US is protected very well right now, and we do have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, which goes a long way to protecting minorities. Take francophone citizens outside outside of Quebec, or anglophone citizens inside of Quebec, for example. I don't think a Republic is God's gift to governance. Proportional representation only benefits the minority parties, and so is unlikely to ever be embraced by the ruling majority party. Minority gov't's can be very inefficient, though the checks and balances are certainly emphasized. Look how many years it took Harper to gain "absolute power" for example, and it only took him one term to lose that majority gov't. I'd have to agree with Churchill on this one; democracies may be flawed, but they're better than the alternative.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Well, I would say that gay marriage (or even just marriage) and income tax are reflective of the values of those that create the laws. They may not be your values, but they'll be the values of whatever part of the population elected the winning party and so they get to make the decisions. Gay marriage reflects the value of equality and income *tax reflects the value of shared expenses, a socialist leaning. *
> 
> I absolutely agree that our values may be in conflict with the values of the day or the values of the majority or even just the values of the power-holders; witness the reaction to Bill 6 in Alberta for example. The NDP and Rachel Notley in particular very much value farm safety, but a great many farmers in Alberta value independence. I don't know what the long and short of it is whether the law was a success or whether anyone went to the poorhouse, but I haven't heard many complaints about that law recently. Maybe it's like OS updates: people tend to complain a lot until they get used to the way the new system operates and adapt.
> 
> But certainly, I would say someone's or some group's values are at the core of every law we have. I don't see how it could be otherwise.


Actually in Canada income taxes were imposed to support the the expenses of WWI, it was supposed to be temporary:



> Unlike the United Kingdom and the United States, Canada avoided charging an income tax prior to the First World War. The lack of income tax was seen as a key component in Canada's efforts to attract immigrants as Canada offered a lower tax regime compared to almost every other country. Prior to the war, Canadian federal governments relied on tariffs and customs income under the auspices of the National Policy for most of their revenue, while the provincial governments sustained themselves primarily through their management of natural resources (the Prairie provinces being paid subsidies by the federal government as Ottawa retained control of their natural resources for the time being). The federal Liberal Party considered the probable need to introduce an income tax should their negotiation of a free trade agreement with the United States in the early 20th century succeed, but the Conservatives defeated the Liberals in 1911 over their support of free trade. The Conservatives (Tories) opposed income tax as they wanted to attract immigrants primarily from the United Kingdom and the United States, and they wanted to give immigrants some incentive to come to Canada.
> 
> Wartime expenses forced the Tories to re-consider their options and in 1918, the wartime government under Sir Robert Borden, imposed a "temporary" income tax to cover expenses. Despite the new tax the Canadian government ran up considerable debts during the war and were unable to forego income tax revenue after the war ended. *With the election of the Liberal government of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, much of the National Policy was dismantled and income tax has remained in place ever since*.


Income taxes in Canada

Nothing "socialist" about it at all. It was akin to Kings taking money from the poor to pay for the rich and has been that way ever since.


----------



## Macfury

Absolutely, screature. Prior to that it was primarily excise taxes.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> More than half of what is codified in law is offensive to me. Even the idea that someone created a law so that they could beat me over the head with their own values is repulsive. The greater the scope of the law, the more likely I am to find it offensive. Morality is (mores are?) local and efforts to force national values federally or provincially through law creates this sort of dislocation.


Agreed. But there are limits like the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both of which are imperfect as someone's Utopia is another one's Dystopia.

So you choose where you want to live, where the basic values are somewhat similar to your own and you go from there.


----------



## Rps

Well gentlemen, and any ladies present, I must say this is one of the better, and might I add, most civil discussions in a long time. Maybe now would be a good time to introduce my 5th rule of Government....... If it doesn't make sense it's political.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Well I am sure this will cause a ruckus, but we do not live in a democracy. We do have democratic processes but we are not a democracy.
> 
> Ask yourself this question.....has the government ever past a law that you strongly disagree with. Now ask your self, if the government has a majority government do you have any voice to stop or amend it outside of insurrection? We loose our democracy during majority governments.....


Democracy is a mythic ideal. It can only truly exist when there are small numbers of people involved (just like anarchy, now that is going ruffle some feathers for sure ). 

What we live in (for the last several hundreds of years) is a plutarchy, around the world for the most part, Canada included.

So yes Rps I mostly agree with you, except that we don't even have a real voice in minority governments either. Everything is decided from on high in the House of Commons and the Senate. We have no say in the matter. We vote for people who we believe will represent our individual interests best, or we choose the lesser of evils. Once the election is over, until the next election we have no say at all. Cut and dry.

Whether a Majority or a Minority Government that is how it works (unless there is some "scandal" like the Duffy affair ). Just that under a Minority Government there needs to be some backroom deals for the Government to stand or there is a vote of non-confidence and the Government falls and then we have another election.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> I see your point. I don't think the minority in the US is protected very well right now, and we do have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, which goes a long way to protecting minorities. Take francophone citizens outside outside of Quebec, or anglophone citizens inside of Quebec, for example. I don't think a Republic is God's gift to governance. Proportional representation only benefits the minority parties, and so is unlikely to ever be embraced by the ruling majority party. Minority gov't's can be very inefficient, though the checks and balances are certainly emphasized. Look how many years it took *Harper to gain "absolute power*" for example, and it only took him one term to lose that majority gov't. I'd have to agree with Churchill on this one; democracies may be flawed, but they're better than the alternative.


Ahh but wasn't that something! He was a clever devil and he had the failings of Chretien and Martin to boot in his favour... Gomery....?

So Harper got a minority Gov. No big surprise, the Westerns hated the Libs, the rest of the country had some doubts... Most obviously in the TO region. So he was able to step in, with a whole s##t load of work from local volunteers. 

Plus the Libs were divided... Stephan Dion, Michael Ignatieff ? They were destined to lose.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Actually in Canada income taxes were imposed to support the the expenses of WWI, it was supposed to be temporary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income taxes in Canada
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing "socialist" about it at all. It was akin to Kings taking money from the poor to pay for the rich and has been that way ever since.



Thanks for the clarification, Steve. I imagine as Canada's population rose, those in charge discovered that there's only so much they could provide without a tax base of some sort. It's like the GST; everybody complained at first at this measure introduced by Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives, but every government since then, red or blue, has embraced it and the wealth it brings in, and people just sort of got used to it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Rps said:


> Well gentlemen, and any ladies present, I must say this is one of the better, and might I add, most civil discussions in a long time. Maybe now would be a good time to introduce my 5th rule of Government....... If it doesn't make sense it's political.



Agreed, Rps. It is best to stick to the topic at hand rather than attack the person holding an opposing view. Good to see some maturity on all sides emerging.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Democracy is a mythic ideal. It can only truly exist when there are small numbers of people involved (just like anarchy, now that is going ruffle some feathers for sure ).
> 
> 
> 
> What we live in (for the last several hundreds of years) is a plutarchy, around the world for the most part, Canada included.
> 
> 
> 
> So yes Rps I mostly agree with you, except that we don't even have a real voice in minority governments either. Everything is decided from on high in the House of Commons and the Senate. We have no say in the matter. We vote for people who we believe will represent our individual interests best, or we choose the lesser of evils. Once the election is over, until the next election we have no say at all. Cut and dry.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether a Majority or a Minority Government that is how it works (unless there is some "scandal" like the Duffy affair ). Just that under a Minority Government there needs to be some backroom deals for the Government to stand or there is a vote of non-confidence and the Government falls and then we have another election.




I don't think we have NO say. Lobbyists have a say. Between elections the best way to have some influence is to lobby the government on behalf of your organization. It's what Ezra Levant does, and he certainly gets a much larger platform to offer his opinion than the average blogger or citizen does. Lobbyists are perfectly legal too—except they're supposed to show some restraint during campaign cycles.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> I don't think we have NO say. Lobbyists have a say. Between elections the best way to have some influence is to lobby the government on behalf of your organization. It's what Ezra Levant does, and he certainly gets a much larger platform to offer his opinion than the average blogger or citizen does. Lobbyists are perfectly legal too—except they're supposed to show some restraint during campaign cycles.


Trust me, when you are in power with a majority you couldn't give a a rat's ass about lobbyists... and also in some Minorities. MPs in general meet with lobbyists depending on who the lobbyists are and what party they support.

Certainly during the first or even second Harper minority they didn't give a rat's ass abought the Sierra Club or any other environmental org. They had no supporters there so why bother taking the time to meet with them?

And even if what you say were true, you still have no voice. It Is just that of a lobbyist and not yours.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Trust me, when you are in power with a majority you couldn't give a a rat's ass about lobbyists... and also in some Minorities. MPs in general meet with lobbyists depending on who the lobbyists are and what party they support.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly during the first or even second Harper minority they didn't give a rat's ass abought the Sierra Club or any other environmental org. They had no supporters there so why bother taking the time to meet with them?
> 
> 
> 
> And even if what you say were true, you still have no voice. It Is just that of a lobbyist and not yours.



True enough. Would you consider Ezra Levant to be more of a lobbyist or more of a member of the press?


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> True enough. Would you consider Ezra Levant to be more of a lobbyist or more of a member of the press?


Hmm... I don't think he is either. I think he is an advocate of and for himself and what he believes in and a s**t disturber who sometimes has a valid point. 

He is a character, somewhat like Howard Stern, overblown opinions, crass words for those who he does not like, overblown opinions, crass words for those who he does not like; rinse and repeat.

I met the man many years ago when he was just a staffer on Parliament Hill like me. He seemed to be a nice enough fellow and clearly well spoken, but obviously hyper-partisan and this was way before Harper was on the scene.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Hmm... I don't think he is either. I think he is an advocate of and for himself and what he believes in and a s**t disturber who sometimes has a valid point.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a character, somewhat like Howard Stern, overblown opinions, crass words for those who he does not like, overblown opinions, crass words for those who he does not like; rinse and repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> I met the man many years ago when he was just a staffer on Parliament Hill like me. He seemed to be a nice enough fellow and clearly well spoken, but obviously hyper-partisan and this was way before Harper was on the scene.



I learned today that he was one of the "snack pack" along with Jason Kenney. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Hmm... I don't think he is either. I think he is an advocate of and for himself and what he believes in and a s**t disturber who sometimes has a valid point.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a character, somewhat like Howard Stern, overblown opinions, crass words for those who he does not like, overblown opinions, crass words for those who he does not like; rinse and repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> I met the man many years ago when he was just a staffer on Parliament Hill like me. He seemed to be a nice enough fellow and clearly well spoken, but obviously hyper-partisan and this was way before Harper was on the scene.



I learned today that he was one of the "snack pack" along with Jason Kenney.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> I learned today that he was one of the "snack pack" along with Jason Kenney.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I don't know what that is supposed to mean.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> I don't know what that is supposed to mean.



It was the nickname of the fast food eating group of up and comers, including Rob Anders and Rahim Jaffer. 



> Elected in the riding of Calgary Southeast in 1997 at the age of 28, Kenney became part of the “Snack Pack,” a group of young Reformers that loved greasy food and tormenting the Liberal government.
> 
> The Pack included Alberta MPs Rob Anders and Rahim Jaffer, as well as staffer Ezra Levant, who would all go on to future controversies. It figured prominently in a 1998 stunt that saw Reformers don sombreros and dance to a hired mariachi band in the lobby of the Senate to draw attention to the chronic absenteeism of a senator who was often sunning himself in Mexico.



https://postmedia.us.janrainsso.com...atives+jason+kenney+where/13142540/story.html


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Thanks for the clarification, Steve. I imagine as Canada's population rose, those in charge discovered that there's only so much they could provide without a tax base of some sort. It's like the GST; everybody complained at first at this measure introduced by Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives, but every government since then, red or blue, has embraced it and the wealth it brings in, and people just sort of got used to it.


What made you think there was no tax base prior to income tax? And what makes you think people don't hate the GST now?


----------



## FeXL

Sure, the gov't will. The people haven't...



Freddie_Biff said:


> ...every government since then, red or blue, has embraced it and the wealth it brings in, and people just sort of got used to it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> What made you think there was no tax base prior to income tax? And what makes you think people don't hate the GST now?



Why do you like to barge in on every conversation I have with someone else?


----------



## FeXL

ehMac is a public, open forum. Invitations to respond not required. Open season on both basic stupidity & wilful ignorance.

If you want to have a private conversation, use PM...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Why do you like to barge in on every conversation I have with someone else?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> ehMac is a public, open forum. Invitations to respond not required. Open season on both basic stupidity & wilful ignorance.
> 
> If you want to have a private conversation, use PM...


Took the words out of my mouth. What a load of entitled arrogance!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> ehMac is a public, open forum. Invitations to respond not required. Open season on both basic stupidity & wilful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to have a private conversation, use PM...



Yup, and there's something called netiquette and something called trolling. Look them up if you don't know what they mean. Macfury is not the only person I'd like to have a conversation with around here, but he's always the first to respond. Every. Time. It seems. Extra points for being alert I suppose.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Took the words out of my mouth. What a load of entitled arrogance!



And you're entitled to ask away and I'm entitled to ignore. Have a nice day.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> And you're entitled to ask away and I'm entitled to ignore. Have a nice day.


Seriously--just don't respond. Then it won't be a conversation.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Seriously--just don't respond. Then it won't be a conversation.



Likewise.

Don't you have a job to go to?


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Likewise.


Do what pleases you.


----------



## FeXL

I won't have to dig very deep into ehMac history to find posts from you that fall something short of "netiquette" & well into "trolling" territory. And a fair distance beyond, I might add.

Now, if yer born again, fine. You go, girl. :clap::clap: Just make sure you don't let it lapse like you've always done.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Yup, and there's something called netiquette and something called trolling.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> It was the nickname of the fast food eating group of up and comers, including Rob Anders and Rahim Jaffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://postmedia.us.janrainsso.com...atives+jason+kenney+where/13142540/story.html


That was so long ago and so what? Who cares?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> That was so long ago and so what? Who cares?



Well, it was also in yesterday's newspaper, which is how I found about it. I think what's interesting is the company Kenney keeps, or kept. It's just a part of the discussion, Steve.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

FeXL said:


> I won't have to dig very deep into ehMac history to find posts from you that fall something short of "netiquette" & well into "trolling" territory. And a fair distance beyond, I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if yer born again, fine. You go, girl. :clap::clap: Just make sure you don't let it lapse like you've always done.



Condescension. You can do better, FeXL.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Well, it was also in yesterday's newspaper, which is how I found about it. *I think what's interesting is the company Kenney keeps, or kept. *It's just a part of the discussion, Steve.



Why? Basically 3 decades ago now? 

So some guys on the right that knew each other in Ottawa went out together on a somewhat regular basis and ate chite and bitched and moaned about Libs? Who cares what is the big deal?

30 years ago I may have been on magic mushrooms with friends from university. Maybe one of them went on to become a serial killer, it has nothing to do with me. Who cares?!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Do what pleases you.



And the other part? I can't post all day because I work during the daytime hours, but I like to catch up in the evenings if the mood strikes me. As I started this thread, I try to take some responsibility for the decorum here. Discussions can be very interesting and also civil, as Rps had noted, provided all members are good with being civil to one another. We don't have to agree to get along.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Why? Basically 3 decades ago now? Who cares?



What's with the attitude, Steve? You were pretty civil yesterday. I found the history of Jason Kenney to be fairy interesting, truth be told. I didn't know much about him, so I did some more reading. No need to be critical of that fact.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> What's with the attitude, Steve? You were pretty civil yesterday. I found the history of Jason Kenney to be fairy interesting, truth be told. I didn't know much about him, so I did some more reading. No need to be critical of that fact.


I had more to say... see above.

Yeah there was a little bit of attitude on my part because I find it passing strange that you dislike Kenney and Levant and then you ask me what I think of Levant and then cite that they had lunch together 30 years ago and were supposedly some part of a "club" that was named by some random journalist to try to demean them all.

It is widely known you don't like Kenney, but seriously I don't know why you even care, he is running for the leadership of a Party that you will never vote for. 

I'm not some pawn in your game. Lots more attitude now with that post!!


----------



## Macfury

I'm actually quite civil. You're very quick to take offense. Just relax--pay no attention to me. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> And the other part? I can't post all day because I work during the daytime hours, but I like to catch up in the evenings if the mood strikes me. As I started this thread, I try to take some responsibility for the decorum here. Discussions can be very interesting and also civil, as Rps had noted, provided all members are good with being civil to one another. We don't have to agree to get along.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> I'm actually quite civil. You're very quick to take offense. Just relax--pay no attention to me.



I'm actually pretty slow to take offense. I'm pretty patient most of the time. If we can both try to be more civil, that would be appreciated.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> I had more to say... see above.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there was a little bit of attitude on my part because I find it passing strange that you dislike Kenney and Levant and then you ask me what I think of Levant and then cite that they had lunch together 30 years ago and were supposedly some part of a "club" that was named by some random journalist to try to demean them all.
> 
> 
> 
> It is widely known you don't like Kenney, but seriously I don't know why you even care, he is running for the leadership of a Party that you will never vote for.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not some pawn in your game. Lots more attitude now with that post!!



Why it matters, Steve, is that I believe people often don't stray far from their roots. Plenty of posters here criticize Justin T as having come from a position of privilege as though that marked him for life. The article from the Calgary Sun, a fairly conservative paper, is the source of the story, not me. The snack pack nickname apparently stuck because it went with a group of like-minded individuals. Rahim Jaffer wasn't exactly the poster boy for integrity, having had his buddy fake his interview for a radio show, and Ezra Levant stands for everything I don't. So, yeah, it's relevant. Call it confirmation bias if you want, but that story confirms many of my concerns about the guy who believes he will be the next premier of Alberta.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Why it matters, Steve, is that I believe people often don't stray far from their roots. Plenty of posters here criticize Justin T as having come from a position of privilege as though that marked him for life. The article from the Calgary Sun, a fairly conservative paper, is the source of the story, not me. The snack pack nickname apparently stuck because it went with a group of like-minded individuals. Rahim Jaffer wasn't exactly the poster boy for integrity, having had his buddy fake his interview for a radio show, and Ezra Levant stands for everything I don't. So, yeah, it's relevant. Call it confirmation bias if you want, but that story confirms many of my concerns about the guy who believes he will be the next premier of Alberta.


It makes me just a little more hopeful, and I thank you for that.


----------



## screature

Freddie_Biff said:


> Why it matters, Steve, is that I believe people often don't stray far from their roots. Plenty of posters here criticize Justin T as having come from a position of privilege as though that marked him for life. The article from the Calgary Sun, a fairly conservative paper, is the source of the story, not me. The snack pack nickname apparently stuck because it went with a group of like-minded individuals. Rahim Jaffer wasn't exactly the poster boy for integrity, having had his buddy fake his interview for a radio show, and Ezra Levant stands for everything I don't. So, yeah, it's relevant. Call it confirmation bias if you want, but that story confirms many of my concerns about the guy who believes he will be the next premier of Alberta.


Fine, that is your opinion. Personally I know plenty of people who stray (myself for one) very far from their roots because they wanted to get away from them.

When I graduated high school in Quebec I had the choice of going to CEGEP or Qualifying Year at Carleton University. I opted for Carleton because I didn't want to have anything to do with the people that I went to high school with and most of them would have been at CEGEP and I would have see them every day.

The only person that I still associate with from high school is my doctor.

So no it's not relevant to me, it is to you, so we shall have to agree to disagree that you should be judged by the company that you kept in your long distant past.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> It makes me just a little more hopeful, and I thank you for that.


So why is that exactly?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

screature said:


> Fine, that is your opinion. Personally I know plenty of people who stray (myself for one) very far from their roots because they wanted to get away from them.
> 
> 
> 
> When I graduated high school in Quebec I had the choice of going to CEGEP or Qualifying Year at Carleton University. I opted for Carleton because I didn't want to have anything to do with the people that I went to high school with and most of them would have been at CEGEP and I would have see them every day.
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that I still associate with from high school is my doctor.
> 
> 
> 
> So no it's not relevant to me, it is to you, so we shall have to agree to disagree that you should be judged by the company that you kept in your long distant past.



Fair enough. Everyone has a life to live and their own decisions to make along the way. I still keep in touch with friends I've known since grade 2, but perhaps I'm unusual that way.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> It makes me just a little more hopeful, and I thank you for that.



Always nice to provide others with hope. Paix, min ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Here is an example of why a person's past associations and stated beliefs are very relevant to their present and future actions and decision making. If you see Kenney as the saviour for the right in Alberta, you may want to take a closer look.



> 6 severely abnormal things new Alberta PC leader Jason Kenney says he believes
> 
> Well, here we are.
> 
> Jason Kenney, former cabinet minister from the Reform-wing of the old Harper Conservatives, has been crowned the new leader of Alberta's Progressive Conservatives.
> 
> But during his coronation speech, Kenney didn't do much to put to rest the concerns of moderate Tories that their new leader is a touch too extreme when he invoked the memory of Ralph Klein and spoke of "severely normal" people.
> 
> 
> Severely normal people?
> 
> As Athabasca University professor Gloria Filax explains, "severely normal" people has a severely loaded history:
> 
> "Klein used the phrase 'severely normal' interchangeably with a fictitious pair he called 'Martha and Henry' in his pronouncements about socially contentious issues. Severely normal came to stand in for an Alberta subject who was: adult, right-wing, conservative, fundamentalist Christian, white, straight, worked hard, eschewed big-G government, male. All others in the province became 'not normal' in relation to 'severely normal discourse'."
> 
> 
> Whatever he meant by that, one thing's for sure: if you spend a little time digging beneath the surface, Kenney probably wouldn't meet most people's definition of "severely normal" himself.
> 
> Just consider a few things the new PC leader has actually said he believes:
> 
> 1. Schools brainwash children with anti-conservative beliefs
> 
> During an interview with Ezra Levant's Rebel Media, an alt-right website disavowed by Conservative leadership candidates and slammed by media outlets around the world, Kenney stated that he believes the "schooling system" has "hard-wired" Millennials with anti-conservative beliefs:
> 
> "I think it's the first generation to come through a schooling system where many of them have been hard-wired with collectivist ideas, with watching Michael Moore documentaries, with identity politics from their primary and secondary schools to universities. That's kind of a cultural challenge for any conservative party, any party of the centre-right, and we've got to figure out how to break that nut."
> 
> Kenney, who is not a parent, has previously stated he believes other people's children would be better off taught at home rather than going to schools run by "the state":
> 
> "I, and I believe the vast majority of Canadian parents, believe that the first and best school is at home and that the first and best teachers are parents and not the state."
> 
> 2. Constitutional powers are passed down to Canadians from God
> 
> During the 2015 election, Kenney told an evangelical Chinese business group in Richmond Hill, Ontario he believes the "supremacy of God" is more supreme than the authority of Parliament and the courts.
> 
> "Canada is founded upon principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law," Kenney said, explaining that he interprets the preamble of the Charter of Freedoms to mean constitutional powers come from God – even though constitutional experts say the preamble is "all but ignored by the Supreme Court."
> 
> Kenney also said Charter rights flow from "being created in the likeness and image of God ... because if our rights are just given to us by a majority, or by the Parliament, or by the state, or by the judges, they can take those rights away."
> 
> As a Reform MP, Kenney offered the same bogus argument on abortion and assisted-dying to claim "the right to life" is "inalienable":
> 
> "We do not create ourselves and we therefore do not create our own rights, but we are created and rights are bestowed upon us. Fundamental human rights such as the right to life are inalienable. Even individuals cannot through the exercise of some radical personal autonomy alienate rights which cleave to the human nature of individuals because they were granted to us by our Creator.
> 
> This is what the preamble of our constitution suggests."
> 
> 3. Carbon dioxide is good
> 
> 
> Thought pumping large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere of a planet was a bad thing for its climate?
> 
> Despite what scientists tell you, Kenney tweeted last year that carbon dioxide is no biggie because trees like CO2.
> 
> Kenney also told a supporter last December that he thinks climate change is a "natural" phenomenon:
> 
> "We all know climate change exists because it's a natural part – the climate's been changing since the beginning of time, right?"
> 
> And Kenney added:
> 
> "We shouldn't indoctrinate students into the most extreme view about [climate change], I don't think we should be teaching in our schools that whatever David Suzuki says is gospel truth."
> 
> 4. "Bohemian" youths are "unconsciously" promoting communism
> 
> Kenney also has pretty out-of-touch and over-the-top ideas about the fashion choices of "bohemian" youths.
> 
> In a Calgary speech last summer, Kenney condemned youths who "unconsciously" promote communism as they "walk down a fashionable part of a Canadian street these days":
> 
> "If you go to a university campus or walk down a fashionable part of a Canadian street these days, you're likely to see young people unconsciously displaying symbols associated with this ideology of violence ...
> 
> It is essential for us to ensure that those young people now and in the future understand that if they walk down the street with a Mao cap, with a red star emblazoned on their t-shirt, with an image of Che Guevara or Lenin or Karl Marx or the hammer and sickle, that this isn't some charming, sophisticated, bohemian image of counterculture ... Yes, we must stigmatize those symbols of a inhumane ideology."
> 
> Got that? Hope old man Kenney made himself clear, you charming, sophisticated, bohemian teenagers!
> 
> 5. Marxist professors are working to "suppress" Canada's "Christian patrimony"
> 
> Here's an interesting bit of trivia about Jason Kenney – he subscribes to some pretty wild conspiracy theories too.
> 
> 
> Speaking at an Italian religious conference in 2012, Kenney described a small group of Marxist academics are using "multiculturalism" in an effort to "suppress completely the Christian patrimony of Canada."
> 
> Kenney would go all the way down the rabbit hole, linking European "multiculturalism" to a "radical academic theory of cultural relativism that was really inspired by the Frankfurt school of Marxists." The Southern Poverty Law Center has labelled that story a "conspiracy theory," one that attempts to blame the legacy of the 1960s counterculture on a "tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s":
> 
> The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called "Frankfurt School" of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, "family values," and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left.
> 
> Kenney's not alone – the same story has been floated by InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
> 
> 
> 6. Women talking about abortion? What's next? "The Church of Satan"?
> 
> Let's fire up the wayback machine and take a look at an interview young Kenney did with CNN:
> 
> As an anti-abortion activist in college, Kenney opposed the efforts of a group of law students to talk about abortion on campus.
> 
> Here's what Kenney had to say about those who say "free speech" should cover providing information about women's reproductive health on campus:
> 
> "We have to ask these valiant defenders of 'free speech' if they would be active if the university were refusing access to the Klu Klux Klan. If the [University of San Francisco] were to accept or support the activities of a group whose objective is to legalize prenatal murder, on what basis could it refuse similar assistance to groups promoting racism? On what basis could it refuse the establishment of a cell of the Man-Boy Love Association that calls for the legalization of pedophilia? On what basis could it refuse access to a fascist club or a cell of the Church of Satan? Only a radical relativism that gives more importance to rules than to truth could justify accepting such cases."
> 
> Last summer, a right-wing anti-abortion group called on supporters to purchase PC memberships in a bid to help Kenney take over the party and elect him Alberta's "pro-life premier."


https://www.pressprogress.ca/6_seve...berta_pc_leader_jason_kenney_says_he_believes


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> So why is that exactly?


That Kenney would stay close to his roots.


----------



## Macfury

I like the first five. I am no fan of abortion, but campus freedom of expression is the important issue here.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Here is an example of why a person's past associations and stated beliefs are very relevant to their present and future actions and decision making. If you see Kenney as the saviour for the right in Alberta, you may want to take a closer look.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That Kenney would stay close to his roots.


Ok I see.


----------



## Macfury

San Francisco progs are considering a robot tax for companies investing in automation:



> With fears about the job-killing effects of automation growing every day, once unthinkable ideas are starting to get an airing. A universal basic income (UBI)–where the government gives everyone enough money to live on–has lots of supporters, especially in Silicon Valley. And now some prominent individuals are calling for a tax on robots. The thinking: If you make robots more expensive, there will be more public funds to help retrain workers (or pay for that basic income)–and the higher cost might keep some companies from buying robots and quickly tanking the employment rate.


What that would do is ensure that only large multi-nationals could afford to automate, while they trounced medium and small-sized competitors. I'll bet they support this idea big time.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40400920/one-san-francisco-politician-is-exploring-a-tax-on-robots


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> San Francisco progs are considering a robot tax for companies investing in automation:
> 
> 
> 
> What that would do is ensure that only large multi-nationals could afford to automate, while they trounced medium and small-sized competitors. I'll bet they support this idea big time.
> 
> https://www.fastcompany.com/40400920/one-san-francisco-politician-is-exploring-a-tax-on-robots


Yep that sounds about right to me as to what would happen if such a tax were put into place. It is somewhat astounding me that some policy makers don't things through regarding the consequences of their proposed actions. I think they need to play more chess and even billiards to try to hone their thoughts regarding what comes next.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Yep that sounds about right to me as to what would happen if such a tax were put into place. It is somewhat astounding me that some policy makers don't things through regarding the consequences of their proposed actions. I think they need to play more chess and even billiards to try to hone their thoughts regarding what comes next.


One of the worst regulations supported by restaurant chains involved forcing BBQ houses to install extremely expensive fume filters so that townsfolk in Austin, Texas would be spared the smell of cooking BBQ (I should be so lucky!) The result was to create a regulation unaffordable to many of the mom and pop BBQ houses--but affordable to the chain restaurants.

Wal-Mart does this often as well, supporting what would seem to be counterproductive ideas. For example, it might support a higher minimum wage knowing that this would drive its independent competitors into bankruptcy.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> One of the worst regulations supported by restaurant chains involved forcing BBQ houses to install extremely expensive fume filters so that townsfolk in Austin, Texas would be spared the smell of cooking BBQ (I should be so lucky!) The result was to create a regulation unaffordable to many of the mom and pop BBQ houses--but affordable to the chain restaurants.
> 
> *Wal-Mart does this often as well, supporting what would seem to be counterproductive ideas. For example, it might support a higher minimum wage knowing that this would drive its independent competitors into bankruptcy.*


We have had a similar discussion before regarding Walmart and whether they are a good or bad thing when they enter into a community. I have done plenty of reading on the topic and the reviews are definitely mixed depending on where you live and where you work in the Walmart supply chain. But the same is true for almost any big multinational corporation, Apple included.

I do not see Walmart as any better or worse than other corporations who seek market dominance in their relative domain. As for Moms and Pops, Walmart and their ilk are not going away anytime soon, so they have to get creative to stay in business, develop a niche market for example where you are not going to directly compete with the megacorps. That is way of the future for small businesses that want to stay small.


----------



## Beej

*Clinton versus Sanders on Wall Street Support*

Not my political preference, but I think this guy has a good grasp of where the young progressive end of the Democrats are looking. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msmkV-cE-64[/ame]


How this meshes with the larger tent that is the Democrat party is more complex. I expect lots of conflict. 

A reminder of when widely shared ideological differences are papered over for too long:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_protest_activity

Or, more simply put: Trump.


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## Macfury

Caring for one another is a moral position. Institutionalized as a political stance, it's an extreme position where one's own efforts come to naught because the fruits of one's labour are confiscated under duress.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Not everybody hates the Alberta carbon tax. Some of the companies that are needed to revive the company seem to be in favour. 









http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/energy-ceos-carbon-tax-alberta-calgary-chamber-1.4076358


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Not everybody hates the Alberta carbon tax. Some of the companies that are needed to revive the company seem to be in favour.
> 
> Energy CEOs praise Alberta's carbon tax at Calgary Chamber event - Calgary - CBC News


Well duh, of course these jerks would favour a tax that revives their companies. Consumers hate the tax with a passion and will make the NDP pay in two short years now.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Well duh, of course these jerks would favour a tax that revives their companies. Consumers hate the tax with a passion and will make the NDP pay in two short years now.



You could leave out the "well duh" part, Don.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> You could leave out the "well duh" part, Don.


I could, but it would not have nearly the effect on revealing such an obvious statement by those jerks.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Well duh, of course these jerks would favour a tax that revives their companies. Consumers hate the tax with a passion and will make the NDP pay in two short years now.


Each of them will now get massive handouts courtesy of the carbon tax, making them complicit in massive consumer rip-off. This is the definition of fascism that most people miss--government working hand-in glove with business to dominate the citizenry.


----------



## FeXL

The people who like it can have it...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Not everybody hates the Alberta carbon tax.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> The people who like it can have it...


The people who have generous government jobs will receive compensation to shield them from the cruel tax that others are facing. Doesn't bother them a bit.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> The people who have generous government jobs will receive compensation to shield them from the cruel tax that others are facing. Doesn't bother them a bit.


Ya know, I'm not convinced. And I'm thinking of this mostly from the teacher's perspective.

Teacher's salaries are usually a hot topic in the news. If Red Rachel announces a 4.5% (or more) increase for teachers (and other civil servants) over the course of the next 2 years to "offset" the carbon tax, John Q Public will find out & she'll be burnt toast. She's going to be toast anyway but this will completely & entirely alienate her from the rest of the voters in the province.

Not only that, but the 4.5% will only offset the carbon tax, not actually give an increase. While many of the Progs will not be able to cipher that themselves, their negotiators will & they will scream blue murder.

StatsCan notes ~146,000 public sector workers in Alberta in 2012. That number has gone up some since. Global News notes there were ~2.5 million eligible voters in Alberta in 2015 & ~1.5 million voted. Assuming nearly all the civil servants voted (not a brash assumption), that means about 10% of the voters were from the public sector.

Now, you're always going to have a few freaks & weirdos who actually want the NDP in power, as opposed to those who simply voted for them as a form of protest against the Conservatives & Wildrose. Since 1971 in Alberta, the number of elections where the Commies have had more than a single digit levels of seats is two: '86 & '89 with 16 each. Every other election, save 2015, has been 4 or less seats.

That said, I don't see how 10% of the voting population will be able to save her bacon. No way, no how. 

And, not everybody drinks the Prog kool-aid in the first place. I know a number of teachers in our area who did not cast a vote for Red Rachel.

She's backed herself into a corner with this one & there is no way out. Raise public service wages at a time where nearly everybody else is struggling, she alienates the few traditionally non-NDP voters who still support her. Not raise public service wages & alienate your core supporters.

It's a perfect storm... beejacon


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> Assuming nearly all the civil servants voted (not a brash assumption), that means about 10% of the voters were from the public sector.


1) Thank you for using the beejicon. I get royalties.

2) I think voting influence tends to have a family and friends impact. The 10% could easily be 20% based on the civil servant's spouse, network of friends, and the businesses that they spend their money at. A greater number of people are having good times than just the direct beneficiary.

That said, I agree with the general conclusion that the NDP will lose the next election, short of incompetence from their opponents. Just don't underestimate how much they learned from Bob Rae's half measures. Keep the base happy.


----------



## FeXL

Beej said:


> 1) Thank you for using the beejicon. I get royalties.


Yer welcome! 



Beej said:


> 2) I think voting influence tends to have a family and friends impact. The 10% could easily be 20% based on the civil servant's spouse, network of friends, and the businesses that they spend their money at. A greater number of people are having good times than just the direct beneficiary.


Oh, agreed. It's my understanding that Red Rachel has hired a ton of public servants but I don't know how many. I don't see 20% as out of the question. However, I still don't see that as being enough for re-election. Especially in what I predict will be a sizeable voter turnout. More people hit the polls when they're unhappy with the current gov't. Far too many pissed off people in Alberta right now & it'll only get worse over the next 24 months.


----------



## Macfury

Progressives are so compassionate that they don't want to see hunger strikers go hungry:

Yale Grad Students Go On "Symbolic"; Hunger Strike Where They're Allowed to Eat



> A group of Yale University graduate students announced Tuesday evening that they would be undertaking a hunger strike to pressure the administration into granting them better union benefits. The strike is taking place in front of University President Peter Salovey’s home.
> 
> "Yale wants to make us wait and wait and wait … until we give up and go away," the eight members of the graduate student union Local 33 announced. "We have committed ourselves to waiting without eating."
> ....
> *As it turns out, the hunger strike might not put anyone's health in peril. According to a pamphlet posted on Twitter by a former Yale student, the hunger strike is "symbolic" and protesters can leave and get food when they can no longer go on.*


----------



## Macfury

Psychiatrist Robin Skynner understands "progressives":

“If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour.”


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Progressives are so compassionate that they don't want to see hunger strikers go hungry:


Well, the Republicans are there to help! Never let it be said the right doesn't want to feed the world...

Holy BBQ! Someone at Yale has a sense of humor!



> And this morning, I stumbled across this tweet:
> 
> _Yale College Republicans barbecuing by union fast site pic.twitter.com/qf687cckxB
> 
> — gabrielwinant (@gabrielwinant) April 28, 2017_​
> I don’t know what’s more shocking to me. That Yale has Republicans or that someone at Yale has a sense of humor.
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> The guy who tweeted this out was hard-pressed to find the funny.
> 
> But I find it all manner of hilarious.


Me, too...


----------



## Macfury

Something we may have expected:



> Surprise, surprise. Men who are physically weak are more likely to favor socialist policies.
> 
> An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, ​found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.


Study: Physically Weak Men More Likely To Be Socialists | Daily Wire


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Something we may have expected:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Physically Weak Men More Likely To Be Socialists | Daily Wire



Uh huh. And what's the corollary? Conservatives are knuckle-walkers?


----------



## FeXL

More like conservatives don't require constant supervision from their gov't...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Uh huh. And what's the corollary? Conservatives are knuckle-walkers?


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Uh huh. And what's the corollary? Conservatives are knuckle-walkers?


The opposite of weak... strong!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> The opposite of weak... strong!




Yes, they have deodorant fragrances for that.


----------



## Macfury

That's the problem with progs--they should wear anti-perspirants. The deodorants only mask their odours.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> That's the problem with progs--they should wear anti-perspirants. The deodorants only mask their odours.




You would know. You're claiming to be the strong one.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> You would know. You're claiming to be the strong one.


...says the man with the wizened biceps...


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## Macfury

Looks good to me!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Looks good to me!




Maybe you stop criticizing the left so much then. It appears you are one.


----------



## Macfury

I like the left if it keeps moving the centre to the right!


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


>


:lmao::lmao:


----------



## Macfury

I'm leaving an open, unsupervised bowl in an underprivileged neighbourhood, then distributing what's left to everyone else.


----------



## Macfury

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pressure-builds-on-venezuela-with-big-payments-due-this-week-1509010203

Progressivism on parade in Venezuela. Maybe they didn't go far enough to succeed.


----------



## Macfury

From Twitter @Steve_Hanke



> I compute the implied annual inflation rate on a daily basis by using PPP to translate changes in the VEF/USD exchange rate into an annual inflation rate. The chart below shows the course of that annual rate, which last peaked at 3473% (yr/yr) in late October 2017. At present, Venezuela’s annual inflation rate is 2875%, the highest in the world.


If only they had gone more priogressive, this could have been avoided.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Perhaps Alberta's economy is not in such bad shape after all. This from today's Globe & Mail. 



> No one should feel sorry for Alberta
> 
> Of the many tactics that Jason Kenney used to win the leadership of the United Conservative Party, perhaps the most effective was the anger he stoked among his base over Alberta's perceived lot in life.
> 
> The narrative went something like this: the province is a shell of its former self; the NDP has ruined everything; the rest of the country is against us but we won't be on our knees much longer. Mr. Kenney will Make Alberta Great Again.
> 
> While it may make for a compelling, applause-inducing campaign storyline, it bears little resemblance to reality. The truth is, there are many provinces in this country that would love to have Alberta's so-called problems. They would love to be leading the country in economic growth. They would kill to have the highest GDP per capita in the land. Major cities would be thrilled if their economy was surging the way Calgary's is at 4.6 per cent, with employment, housing starts and retail sales all making remarkable gains.
> 
> Story continues below advertisement
> 
> Read also: Who's afraid of Jason Kenney?
> 
> This idea of Alberta as this poor, woe begotten, economic basket-case is a myth, one that opposition politicians here like to trade on. But it's a fairy tale.
> 
> There is no denying the bottom-line numbers we see in provincial budgets: A $10-billion deficit in the past provincial budget; a $10-billion deficit in the one before that. Unquestionably, a problem created by the giant hole in provincial royalty revenues created by the harsh drop in oil prices.
> 
> Still, at the same time, you have to ask yourself what is going on. In the 2015-16 budget, for instance, expenditures were $48.9-billion; in the latest budget they are $54.9-billion. In a relatively short period of time, the NDP government has added billions in spending while the province is climbing out of an oil recession. Spending is growing at a rate that exceeds population growth, plus inflation, which isn't sustainable if you aren't selling crude at $100 (U.S.) a barrel.
> 
> Now let's take a look at what's going on next to Alberta, in British Columbia, a province roughly the same size, population-wise. In its past budget, it forecast revenues of $52.4-billion (Canadian) and expenditures of $51.9-billion, for a small surplus. And B.C. does this without the help of the oil patch.
> 
> What is the biggest difference between the two? One word: taxes.
> 
> Alberta has no sales tax, B.C. has a 7-per-cent sales tax. B.C.'s corporate tax rate is higher than Alberta's too. And there are other forms of fees and levies B.C. has that Alberta doesn't. There isn't a province in the country whose tax rate is anywhere near as low as Alberta's. It is something former premier Ralph Klein called the Alberta Advantage. And believe it or not, Jason Kenney was talking throughout the campaign about bringing it back – like it's something that's been lost.
> 
> Story continues below advertisement
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> Think about this: if Alberta introduced B.C.'s level of taxation – which is the second lowest in the country – it would bring in $8.7-billion in revenue. That pretty much takes care of the province's deficit right there, without having to make any adjustments to expenditures – which Alberta politicians throughout the years have shown a reluctance to do.
> 
> Even bringing in a modest 5-per-cent sales tax would be worth, by most estimates, around $5-billion – which would make serious inroads into their fiscal problems.
> 
> But that is considered heresy in Alberta. So instead, politicians and others here moan and whine about how horrible things are, how awful the province is being treated by Ottawa and other jurisdictions, all of which is only adding to the province's woes.
> 
> It's a joke.
> 
> The fact is Alberta politicians have created much of the mess the province is in – not oil prices, not Quebec, not Ottawa, not B.C. For years, they relied on oil revenues to keep taxes low and spending high – the highest per capita spending in the country. The province spent like the good times would never end, with no plan for the day the music stopped or at least slowed down.
> 
> Story continues below advertisement
> 
> "Alberta's deficit is a choice and not due to broad economic factors," University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe told me this week. "We could have a balanced budget tomorrow and still have the lowest taxes in the country."
> 
> But that would be hard. That would take guts. It's much easier to complain about how mean everyone is being to them instead. Soon, however, that ploy will only engender deep, wide-scale resentment, and Alberta could feel more alone than ever.


https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/op.../+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links


----------



## Macfury

Exactly. Alberta's deficit is a choice made by the NDP. Kenney will fix it by cutting spending.


----------



## FeXL

Imagine how good it would be if we didn't have Red Rachel spending 10's of millions of dollars on virtue signalling, unneeded public servants, gov't make-work projects, etc., etc., etc...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Perhaps Alberta's economy is not in such bad shape after all. This from today's Globe & Mail.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Imagine how good it would be if we didn't have Red Rachel spending 10's of millions of dollars on virtue signalling, unneeded public servants, gov't make-work projects, etc., etc., etc...


A few years of NDP government can teach a province a horrible lesson about bad voting choices--but it won't permanently kill the economy. However, like the guy falling off the CN Tower, you can only say "so far so good" for a limited amount of time.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

What has the NDP done for Alberta? Read on...

Alberta NDP highlights: 
- inherited $7 BILLION in debt from Prentice government. 
- banned corporate and union donations. 
- brought farm safety up to code long overdue and in line with every other employer in Alberta by passing Bill 6. 
- increased corporate tax from 10% to 12%. Less corporate welfare and only applies to profits. Then lowered small business tax by 1% in 2017 so 10% LESS. 
- reviewed royalties like everyone asked and basically left them alone. 
- $6.2 billion for energy jobs through the carbon tax program. Another $3.4 billion for rebates. Farms are exempt and large emitters like oil sands are exempt and flight out of Alberta are exempt. 
- progressive tax system vs flat tax. Still lowest taxes in Canada and lower than Klein era. 
- $35 billion in infrastructure jobs over next 5 years underway. Creating jobs we asked for and need. 
- left our healthcare intact and no $1000 yearly fees like the PCs wanted. 
- reversed planned PC govt. funding cuts to education, healthcare and public services. 
- fighting for pipelines to both coasts 
- AND got two major pipeline approvals and counting. 
- added 2 big royalty incentives for drillers that take effect immediately. 
- added beer tax and grant to protect Alberta small brewers. Later added local distilleries and wineries to the deal. 
- progressively raising minimum wage to $15/hr lifting people out of poverty. 
- tore up the federal leap manifesto. 
- added Alberta jobs grant. Alberta pays 2/3rds of any employees training up to $10,000 per individual. 
- suing private power companies who colluded and made a secret deal. 
- fired the entire board of agriculture financial services after ridiculous spending was discovered. 
- passed transgender rights bill. 
- passed essential services legislation. Allows strikes and lockouts by public sector workers, while still requiring ‘essential’ public services to be available to the general public during such labour disruptions. 
- passed the SHARP program to provide home equity loans to seniors to help repair and stay in their homes. 
- added public servants to the sunshine list for earners over $125,000. 
- amended school bargaining by adding an employer bargaining association. 
- added new rule that allows victims of violence to end their leases early without penalty to leave an unsafe home. 
- froze post secondary tuition and fees for two years. 
- passed the predatory lending act. 
- Payday lending: Stopped 600 percent predatory interest rates on payday loans to prevent Albertans from spiraling into poverty. Alberta now has the country’s strongest protections and lowest interest rates for borrowers. 
- Door-to-door sales: Prohibited misleading, aggressive sales tactics by banning door-to-door sales of energy products and services, including furnaces, hot water tanks, air conditioners, windows, energy audits and electricity and natural gas contracts. 
- Electricity price cap: Introduced a price cap to make life more affordable and ensure electricity bills are fair. 
- New home buyer protection: Introduced a builder licensing framework to protect consumers as well as the reputation of good builders. 
- extended bars patio hours. 
- $239 million for provincial park upgrades. 
- spent $647 million fighting Ft Mac fire and getting residence extended EI. 
- said no support to Trudeau carbon tax without coastal pipeline concessions. 
- fixed the Klein power contracts and worked out a very good deal to phase out coal plants and convert them to ng. Costing us nothing. They get paid through a pay structure that uses the money they pay as emissions to buy them out. 
- added grant program for non profits so they don't pay carbon tax. 
- protected the castle wilderness area by creating a provincial park and limiting off-highway vehicles (ohv) use. 
- cut CEO pay, bonuses and perks at 23 Alberta corps, agencies and commissions saving $16 million a year. Under the new framework, Guy Kerr, CEO of the Workers' Compensation Board, will earn $396,720 instead of $896,206. 
NDP Government continues to demonstrate progress on its commitment to invest in Albertans. As of Nov. 30, 2016, there were 324 major capital projects ($5 million or more) underway in Alberta including: 
- Parkdale: one of 40 Seniors and Housing projects
- 40 Affordable Supportive Living Initiative projects 
- 23 road and bridge projects 
- 22 major health facilities projects 
- 9 post-secondary projects 
- Calgary Cross Cancer Center 
- New hospital in Edmonton 
- Red Deer Courthouse 
- Red Deer Interchange QE II 
- $10 million for nutrition program for all schools. 
- added 1296 daycare openings across the province at $25/day. Creating 119 jobs for this pilot project. Fulfilling another promise. 
- NDP working alongside the Federal Liberals created the 24-month pilot program in Alberta which will stop the use of TFWS in 29 skilled positions in Alberta. 
- passed Bill 202 a Wildrose Bill that allows people to sue for posting sex pics etc. 
- passed off-highway vehicles (ohv) helmet law May 15th 2017. 
- passed Bill 12 requires new home builders to be licensed and govt. posts their track record etc for consumers by 2018. 
- grant of $500,000 will go toward the Trade Winds to Success Training Society’s 16-week pre-apprenticeship program. 
- spending 10 million on the integrated training program which will add 11 new job training programs for unemployed Albertans. 
- $16.4 million over 4 years towards dual credit programs for highschool kids. 
- STEP is a 4 to 16 week wage subsidy program available to summer student jobs. Budget 2017 has $10 million budgeted for STEP. Companies get a $7/hr wage subsidy. 
- spent 10 million to fix Calgary's bobsled track.
- $235 million loaned out to help clean up abandoned oil wells. 
- passed Bill 17 improving labor laws. - $20 million over 4 yrs for school playgrounds. 
- $1.7 million to upgrade provinces homeless facilities. 
- added the micro grant program in January of 2017 and then doubled the grant in June 2017. Small businesses can get $10,000 voucher to help with overseas marketing. 
- June 2017 NDP fires agriculture boards for corruption and taking bribes and gifts. 
- July 2017 $665,000 grant to the Canadian Indigenous Language and Literacy Development Institute will help enhance Indigenous language acquisition for Alberta students by ensuring instructors can acquire training and certification. 
- July 2017 NDP provides universal coverage for Mifegymiso. Ergo, supporting greater choice for women when it comes to their reproductive health. 
- August 2017 $450K grant to help Hanna amid coal phase-out. 

With 53 school projects – both new schools and modernizations – opening for students this month, government’s commitment to meet the needs of Alberta’s growing student population has created approximately 21,600 new student spaces and modernized or replaced an additional 15,000 student spaces.
September 2017:...
- 53 school projects opening for Alberta students
- approximately 21,600 new student spaces created
- more than 15,000 student spaces modernized or replaced

October to December 2017:
- 9 school projects scheduled to open for students
- more than 1500 new student spaces to be created
- approximately 4800 to be modernized or replaced

January to April 2018:
- 13 school projects scheduled to open for students
- almost 8000 new student spaces to be created
- approximately 1800 to be modernized or replaced

Now THIS is good Governmenthere are some highlights of the NDP.
Alberta NDP highlights: 
- inherited $7 BILLION in debt from Prentice government. 
- banned corporate and union donations. 
- brought farm safety up to code long overdue and in line with every other employer in Alberta by passing Bill 6. 
- increased corporate tax from 10% to 12%. Less corporate welfare and only applies to profits. Then lowered small business tax by 1% in 2017 so 10% LESS. 
- reviewed royalties like everyone asked and basically left them alone. 
- $6.2 billion for energy jobs through the carbon tax program. Another $3.4 billion for rebates. Farms are exempt and large emitters like oil sands are exempt and flight out of Alberta are exempt. 
- progressive tax system vs flat tax. Still lowest taxes in Canada and lower than Klein era. 
- $35 billion in infrastructure jobs over next 5 years underway. Creating jobs we asked for and need. 
- left our healthcare intact and no $1000 yearly fees like the PCs wanted. 
- reversed planned PC govt. funding cuts to education, healthcare and public services. 
- fighting for pipelines to both coasts 
- AND got two major pipeline approvals and counting. 
- added 2 big royalty incentives for drillers that take effect immediately. 
- added beer tax and grant to protect Alberta small brewers. Later added local distilleries and wineries to the deal. 
- progressively raising minimum wage to $15/hr lifting people out of poverty. 
- tore up the federal leap manifesto. 
- added Alberta jobs grant. Alberta pays 2/3rds of any employees training up to $10,000 per individual. 
- suing private power companies who colluded and made a secret deal. 
- fired the entire board of agriculture financial services after ridiculous spending was discovered. 
- passed transgender rights bill. 
- passed essential services legislation. Allows strikes and lockouts by public sector workers, while still requiring ‘essential’ public services to be available to the general public during such labour disruptions. 
- passed the SHARP program to provide home equity loans to seniors to help repair and stay in their homes. 
- added public servants to the sunshine list for earners over $125,000. 
- amended school bargaining by adding an employer bargaining association. 
- added new rule that allows victims of violence to end their leases early without penalty to leave an unsafe home. 
- froze post secondary tuition and fees for two years. 
- passed the predatory lending act. 
- Payday lending: Stopped 600 percent predatory interest rates on payday loans to prevent Albertans from spiraling into poverty. Alberta now has the country’s strongest protections and lowest interest rates for borrowers. 
- Door-to-door sales: Prohibited misleading, aggressive sales tactics by banning door-to-door sales of energy products and services, including furnaces, hot water tanks, air conditioners, windows, energy audits and electricity and natural gas contracts. 
- Electricity price cap: Introduced a price cap to make life more affordable and ensure electricity bills are fair. 
- New home buyer protection: Introduced a builder licensing framework to protect consumers as well as the reputation of good builders. 
- extended bars patio hours. 
- $239 million for provincial park upgrades. 
- spent $647 million fighting Ft Mac fire and getting residence extended EI. 
- said no support to Trudeau carbon tax without coastal pipeline concessions. 
- fixed the Klein power contracts and worked out a very good deal to phase out coal plants and convert them to ng. Costing us nothing. They get paid through a pay structure that uses the money they pay as emissions to buy them out. 
- added grant program for non profits so they don't pay carbon tax. 
- protected the castle wilderness area by creating a provincial park and limiting off-highway vehicles (ohv) use. 
- cut CEO pay, bonuses and perks at 23 Alberta corps, agencies and commissions saving $16 million a year. Under the new framework, Guy Kerr, CEO of the Workers' Compensation Board, will earn $396,720 instead of $896,206. 
NDP Government continues to demonstrate progress on its commitment to invest in Albertans. As of Nov. 30, 2016, there were 324 major capital projects ($5 million or more) underway in Alberta including: 
- Parkdale: one of 40 Seniors and Housing projects
- 40 Affordable Supportive Living Initiative projects 
- 23 road and bridge projects 
- 22 major health facilities projects 
- 9 post-secondary projects 
- Calgary Cross Cancer Center 
- New hospital in Edmonton 
- Red Deer Courthouse 
- Red Deer Interchange QE II 
- $10 million for nutrition program for all schools. 
- added 1296 daycare openings across the province at $25/day. Creating 119 jobs for this pilot project. Fulfilling another promise. 
- NDP working alongside the Federal Liberals created the 24-month pilot program in Alberta which will stop the use of TFWS in 29 skilled positions in Alberta. 
- passed Bill 202 a Wildrose Bill that allows people to sue for posting sex pics etc. 
- passed off-highway vehicles (ohv) helmet law May 15th 2017. 
- passed Bill 12 requires new home builders to be licensed and govt. posts their track record etc for consumers by 2018. 
- grant of $500,000 will go toward the Trade Winds to Success Training Society’s 16-week pre-apprenticeship program. 
- spending 10 million on the integrated training program which will add 11 new job training programs for unemployed Albertans. 
- $16.4 million over 4 years towards dual credit programs for highschool kids. 
- STEP is a 4 to 16 week wage subsidy program available to summer student jobs. Budget 2017 has $10 million budgeted for STEP. Companies get a $7/hr wage subsidy. 
- spent 10 million to fix Calgary's bobsled track.
- $235 million loaned out to help clean up abandoned oil wells. 
- passed Bill 17 improving labor laws. - $20 million over 4 yrs for school playgrounds. 
- $1.7 million to upgrade provinces homeless facilities. 
- added the micro grant program in January of 2017 and then doubled the grant in June 2017. Small businesses can get $10,000 voucher to help with overseas marketing. 
- June 2017 NDP fires agriculture boards for corruption and taking bribes and gifts. 
- July 2017 $665,000 grant to the Canadian Indigenous Language and Literacy Development Institute will help enhance Indigenous language acquisition for Alberta students by ensuring instructors can acquire training and certification. 
- July 2017 NDP provides universal coverage for Mifegymiso. Ergo, supporting greater choice for women when it comes to their reproductive health. 
- August 2017 $450K grant to help Hanna amid coal phase-out. 

(Continued)


----------



## Freddie_Biff

(Continued)

With 53 school projects – both new schools and modernizations – opening for students this month, government’s commitment to meet the needs of Alberta’s growing student population has created approximately 21,600 new student spaces and modernized or replaced an additional 15,000 student spaces.
September 2017:...
- 53 school projects opening for Alberta students
- approximately 21,600 new student spaces created
- more than 15,000 student spaces modernized or replaced

October to December 2017:
- 9 school projects scheduled to open for students
- more than 1500 new student spaces to be created
- approximately 4800 to be modernized or replaced

January to April 2018:
- 13 school projects scheduled to open for students
- almost 8000 new student spaces to be created
- approximately 1800 to be modernized or replaced

Now THIS is good Government


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 18m2

That's a huge list but can the Alberta wallet fund all the programs on top of the $7 Billion they inherited? 

Just askin'.


----------



## Macfury

They have so few achievements, Freddie listed them twice!

Most of these are just pork barrel spending, using borrowed money. Others limit the competitiveness of private enterprise while enriching fat cats in the public sector.


----------



## SINC

18m2 said:


> That's a huge list but can the Alberta wallet fund all the programs on top of the $7 Billion they inherited?
> 
> Just askin'.


Nope, not at this time without going over 70 B in debt. That's billion!

The NDP are out of control and spending recklessly Charging their wishes on a credit our grandchildren and great grandchildren will still be paying off.

No regard whatsoever for taxpayers.


----------



## Macfury

Trust progressives to see unbridled spending unmatched by revenue as an achievement.

By that standard, Greece and Venezuela are overachievers!



SINC said:


> Nope, not at this time without going over 70 B in debt. That's billion!
> 
> The NDP are out of control and spending recklessly Charging their wishes on a credit our grandchildren and great grandchildren will still be paying off.
> 
> No regard whatsoever for taxpayers.


----------



## FeXL

I could go through that list & point out the folly of just about every one of those wunnerful things Red Rachel has foisted down our throats. Many of them I already have.

However, I'm just going to let the fine people of this province express their love for her & her ilk in 18 months or so, during the election.

Na, Na, Na, Hey-Hey, Good-bye... :clap:



Freddie_Biff said:


> What has the NDP done for Alberta? Read on...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

18m2 said:


> That's a huge list but can the Alberta wallet fund all the programs on top of the $7 Billion they inherited?
> 
> 
> 
> Just askin'.




A fair question. Can they afford not to? We already know from the Klein years what happens when he ignore the importance of investing in your own future—the next generation has to pay the bill.


----------



## Macfury

Yes, the province could afford not to.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/opinion/the-road-ahead-ian-brodie-opinion-ndp-rachel-notley-1.4515387


----------



## SINC

freddie_biff;2603746[url=http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/opinion/the-road-ahead-ian-brodie-opinion-ndp-rachel-notley-1.4515387 said:


> The NDP and a possible path to a second victory - CBC News | Opinion[/url]


Bwahahaha! Dream on!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Bwahahaha! Dream on!



Nice thoughtful and articulate reply.


----------



## Macfury

What was your articulate original post?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Nice thoughtful and articulate reply.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Well-played, Premier Notley. 



> Alberta's new allies and Notley's finest hour
> 
> ‘Suddenly this province seems to have some national allies in unlikely places'
> 
> Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and her NDP government had a rough start after winning a historic provincial election in 2015, but the tide may be turning, writes freelance journalist Jen Gerson.
> Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and her NDP government had a rough start after winning a historic provincial election in 2015, but the tide may be turning, writes freelance journalist Jen Gerson. (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)
> It's been a long time coming, but Alberta finally seems to be winning.
> 
> After years of smarting on the wrong side of too many pipeline proxy battles and dead-duck scandals, the legitimate complaints of this beleaguered province seem to be earning their due. And much of this has to be credited to Premier Rachel Notley.
> 
> The past few weeks, culminating in her wine ban, have been her finest hour. This could go down as Notley's "Peter Lougheed" moment.
> 
> "Let the Western bastards drown in decent plonk" may not have quite the same ring to it, but the spirit of the thing stands.
> 
> Alberta's new allies
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is campaigning for Alberta in lefty outlets like the National Observer.
> 
> We might fairly ask whether the prime minister is doing enough, but at least there can be no question that this is a man who is trying to fight for Alberta's interests — even if those interests align neatly with a defence of his own jurisdictional authority. It feels warm and bubbly.
> 
> He gave an interview and said of the B.C. premier, "John Horgan is actually trying to scuttle our national plan on fighting climate change." Horgan's plans to stall out Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline by tacking on more diluted bitumen studies appears to be going nowhere.
> 
> Whatever leverage Horgan might have claimed on this file is largely gone, outside a narrow base. He overplayed his hand and has created a national interest in getting behind Alberta.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Energy Board on Thursday issued three decisions that will allow Kinder Morgan to begin construction on the Burnaby Mountain tunnel entrance of the line, although the decision is still subject to municipal and provincial permits. It also approved the line's route.
> 
> Site C Review 20171211
> NOT AN ALLY: B.C. Premier John Horgan, who leads a minority NDP government that is propped up with support from Green Party MLAs, has tried to stall the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. (Chad Hipolito/Canadian Press)
> 
> And on the domestic front, United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney is outflanked on one of his strengths. Notley has outmanoeuvered him with a trade war retaliation that does almost no harm to Alberta business. This is a stark contrast to his own proposal, which included cutting oil shipment permits to B.C. in order to force a temporary fuel crisis.
> 
> The wine embargo is making the same point. It was a brilliant political chess move that seems to have repositioned all of the other players on the board to Alberta's advantage.
> 
> OPINION: Weaponizing wine: Notley's engineering a federal crisis in her battle with B.C.
> OPINION: The Alberta vs. B.C. pipeline fight. Now it's war.
> This province has had a rough couple of years.
> 
> After years of watching its primary industry paraded about as an evil effigy of the fight against climate change, suddenly this province seems to have some national allies in unlikely places. It remains to be seen if that will be enough, but in a roundabout way, Horgan has handed Notley an incredible political gift.
> 
> And she has shown the instincts to unwrap it.
> 
> A legendary response
> 
> The CBC archives retain a delightful clip that highlights the crisis of the National Energy Program — and Lougheed's still-legendary response to it.
> 
> On a Thursday night in November 1980, the premier delivered a long speech to local televisions stations. In it, as a result of the federal government's plan to pay less than the world rate for Alberta's oil reserves, Lougheed said he had decided to retaliate.
> 
> "We decided … that we should reduce the rate at which we are producing our oil to about 85 per cent of its capacity," he told the province. "But with two very important conditions, which I want to emphasize to Albertans. The first condition is this: if there becomes any shortage problem in Canada, we will suspend such order. We will not put any Canadian in an position of being concerned with regard to supply."
> 
> He went on. "Secondly we, of course, would cancel such an approach if we can get to sit down and negotiate with the federal government a new and fair arrangement."
> 
> hi-lougheed-852
> Peter Lougheed, who was premier of Alberta from 1971 to 1985, delivered a legendary response to the federal government's National Energy Program in 1980. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
> 
> It was a great bit of blackmail.
> 
> Albertans were overwhelmingly supportive, agreeing with the patrician premier at a rate of five-to-one.
> 
> Note the tone here: it is with great reluctance that we must kick the country in the shin. Always, Alberta sought to be fair, to operate within the boundaries of federal jurisdiction.
> 
> That late former premier was never more beloved than the moment when he promised to cut the oil taps eastward, inspiring then-mayor Ralph Klein to coin the everyman bumper sticker phrase: "Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark."
> 
> This is a policy that played well with everyone.
> 
> Lougheed, Klein, even Don Getty — Albertans love a premier who can pick a fight and win.
> 
> It's a crowd-pleaser, every time.
> 
> Hitting her stride
> 
> The NDP's ideology may not be a natural fit for Alberta, but Notley is still one of this province's prodigal children. And after almost three years in office she seems to have finally hit her stride. She now has a statesman-like air, a polite but cutting defence of her province in the nation.
> 
> Her first few years have been marked by contentious policy shifts like carbon taxes, climate change policies, farm worker legislation, minimum wage hikes and high rates of debt accrual: none of it has gone over well in a deeply pro-energy province that was suffering a serious economic recession.
> 
> OPINION: The NDP and a possible path to a second victory
> Notley now seems to have found a way to play the middle, softening hard-line NDP ideology with a kind of plucky Alberta practicality and grit. One might disagree with Notley and the NDP at home, but what Albertan won't cheer for his own in the away stands?
> 
> And, it must be noted, that for all the hell and fury her climate change plan has earned, Trudeau is now using it as a cudgel in the fight for Trans Mountain.
> 
> Trudeau Town Hall 20180201
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is blaming B.C. Premier John Horgan for putting the national climate change plan at risk. (Jason Franson/Canadian Press )
> 
> "Social Licence" is a stupid, meaningless bit of jargon (Alberta's climate change policies haven't "bought" anything, least of all the consent of British Columbia). But it sure can be effective leverage. As Horgan is learning.
> 
> Trudeau told the National Observer, "By blocking the Kinder Morgan pipeline, he's putting at risk the entire national climate change plan, because Alberta will not be able to stay on if the Kinder Morgan pipeline doesn't go through.
> 
> "If the Kinder Morgan pipeline doesn't go through, Alberta will withdraw its support for the national plan on climate change. We will not have them fighting to reach their carbon targets, and we will not, then, have them as partners in reaching our Paris targets," Trudeau added.
> 
> To translate this into Klein-speak: Hear that, lefties?
> 
> You want to hit those climate change targets; we'll start burning barrels of tar and rolling them down hills into pristine muskeg filled with duck ponds for sport if you don't start to play fair. We'll take out a few caribou herds while we're at it. We'll call it Alberta Barrel Ball.
> 
> Of course, this point sets up a bluff that Notley may not be willing to call.
> 
> Tallying corpses
> 
> Is this NDP government really going to cut its oilsands emissions cap and scrap the carbon tax if B.C. continues to obfuscate? Given these were key tenets of Notley's agenda and, presumably, her legacy, it seems unlikely that she would renege.
> 
> Jason Kenney would think nothing of it, however.
> 
> That's the balance that the rest of Canada needs to weigh right now. There are no viable climate change targets without Alberta's co-operation. Undermine Notley, as Horgan has done, and any small chance she may have at re-election will disappear. Support her, on the other hand, and the country can show Alberta that it's been paying attention.
> 
> The nation needs to understand that this province has tried, very hard, to address its environmental concerns while struggling through a downturn.
> 
> The smart money is still on a UCP win next election, but note: Kenney is having a harder time scoring points against the NDP of late. It's difficult for him to play Alberta's white knight when her current premier is already suited up and tallying corpses in the fray.
> 
> He seems to be agreeing and standing in line with Notley more often than not — what other option does he have?
> 
> When Kenney was voted leader of the newly merged conservative party, he was prepared for a relentless slate of attacks on social issues. What he couldn't have expected was this; something far worse.
> 
> That Notley would own his.
> 
> Calgary: The Road Ahead is CBC Calgary's special focus on our city as it passes through the crucible of the downturn: the challenges we face, and the possible solutions as we explore what kind of Calgary we want to create. Have an idea? Email us at [email protected]
> 
> More stories from the series:
> 
> OPINION | Campaign against oil. Why the 'also running' political parties in Alberta should take risks
> OPINION | The UCP and the dangers of frozen thinking
> FULL COVERAGE | Calgary: The Road Ahead
> This column is an opinion. For more information about our commentary section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rachel-notley-pipeline-wine-winning-1.4538035


----------



## Macfury

There it is in a nutshell:


> The smart money is still on a UCP win next election...


The window dressing round it is really weak. Trudeau's support will help her chances in Alberta? A wine embargo? This is a list of NDP victories?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> There it is in a nutshell:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The window dressing round it is really weak. Trudeau's support will help her chances in Alberta? A wine embargo? This is a list of NDP victories?




Excellent work on the selective reading, once again.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Excellent work on the selective reading, once again.


You posted this. Tell me what you find remotely hopeful here for an NDP victory.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> You posted this. Tell me what you find remotely hopeful here for an NDP victory.



Assuming you can read, the author lays out the case for some very good strategy by Premier Notley at the expense of the new premier of BC. Read it or don't; I'm not going to summarize the article for you.,


----------



## Macfury

It looks like run-of-the-mill political meandering to me. If it looks like political master strategy to NDP voters, I guess I can accept that.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Assuming you can read, the author lays out the case for some very good strategy by Premier Notley at the expense of the new premier of BC. Read it or don't; I'm not going to summarize the article for you.,


----------



## SINC

Yeah, so many journalists are card carrying Dippers as well, which might be possible here as well.


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## SINC

Can't see how that meme changes anything, particularly Dipper journalists?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

The oil industry approves of Premier Notley's stance. 



> Premier Notley praised by Alberta's energy industry for tough stance in pipeline dispute
> 
> 'She has shown some incredible leadership on this file,' says oilwell drilling representative
> 
> Alberta Premier 2017121
> After imposing a boycott on B.C. wine last week, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley formed a panel of experts to advise her on the province's options if B.C. blocks the federally approved pipeline expansion. (Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)
> Premier Rachel Notley's hard line against B.C. for its pushback on the Trans Mountain pipeline is earning her praise from members of Alberta's energy industry.
> 
> "We are very supportive of Premier Notley. She has shown some incredible leadership on this file," Mark Scholz, head of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, said Thursday at a panel discussion in Red Deer.
> 
> "It's really too bad that two Western provinces have to duke it out, so to speak, on this issue."
> 
> Notley slams B.C. proposal to restrict shipments of diluted bitumen as unconstitutional
> OPINION | Campaign against oil. Why the 'also running' political parties in Alberta should take risks
> After imposing a boycott on B.C. wine last week, Notley formed a panel of experts to advise her on Alberta's options if B.C. blocks the federally approved pipeline expansion.
> 
> The project is considered critical because it would deliver Alberta oil to overseas markets at a time crude is trading at a steep discount at home.
> 
> Notley's conservative opponents have attempted to portray the premier as an enemy of industry, pointing to what they call the province's job-killing carbon tax.
> 
> Mark Scholz CAODC
> Mark Scholz, head of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, heaped praise on Premier Rachel Notley on Thursday for her stance against B.C. in the ongoing dispute over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. (CBC)
> 
> But the NDP leader has earned some street cred of sorts from the industry in the past week over her battle with B.C.
> 
> "We are very pleased that the government of Alberta is standing up for Alberta, standing up for jobs and standing up for fairness in Canada," said Jeff Gaulin, vice-president of communications for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), adding he backs Notley's creation of a panel to further explore Alberta's options.
> 
> Gaulin said the energy industry in Canada has three main needs right now: additional investment, more infrastructure like pipelines, and innovation.
> 
> "We're really challenged right now, and Canada is falling behind with increasing costs and new rules and complex regulatory systems from government," he said.
> 
> "We're finding ourselves challenged to attract the investment needed to create and sustain jobs here in Alberta, but really, across Canada. Oil and gas is a global industry and Canada will fall behind further if we're not careful."
> 
> Alberta launches petition, email tool to rally support for Trans Mountain pipeline
> MORE OIL NEWS | Fight over bankrupt oil company lands at Supreme Court
> MORE OIL NEWS | TransCanada plans $2.4B expansion of natural gas pipeline system


http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/alberta-energy-panel-trans-mountain-1.4537745


----------



## SINC

This of course changes nothing. Notley will be gone in a year or so. Try asking any Albertan you know in any venue you visit. Or do you even try to feel the pulse of the province Freddie?


----------



## Macfury

The big oil companies were given kickbacks by Notley and were assured that the carbon tax would land squarely on the backs of Albertans. Why shouldn't they be on board?



Freddie_Biff said:


> The oil industry approves of Premier Notley's stance.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> This of course changes nothing. Notley will be gone in a year or so. Try asking any Albertan you know in any venue you visit. Or do you even try to feel the pulse of the province Freddie?



It seems I must be tuned in to the pulse of a much younger generation than you, Don.


----------



## Macfury

Ask Freddie to track down the source of that 97% figure... he won't be able to justify the numbers. This is what you get when you substitute cheap Internet memes for analysis.

(Love the picture of climate change being examined in a test tube!)



SINC said:


> Can't see how that meme changes anything, particularly Dipper journalists?


----------



## Macfury

Can I see your collection of fidget spinners?



Freddie_Biff said:


> It seems I must be tuned in to the pulse of a much younger generation than you, Don.


----------



## wonderings

Freddie_Biff said:


>


How many people believed the earth was flat? Do we get a list of all 100% of the scientists and how each of them voted on this issue?

I am not really for or against climate change, I am no expert in the field but I do listen to what people have to say and there are credible people who do take issue with it which to me is enough too say give it more thought and more research rather then just label people as fools because they did not agree with the mass group think. 

This whole "agree with us or be ostracized" is a bit too Orwellian for my liking. Come on board completely and never question that great democracy of scientists who vote in favour of facts rather then prove them. 

Scientists should be able to handle scrutiny and admit when they are wrong... if they are. It's not personal, it's just science.


----------



## Macfury

The 97% figure has already been widely debunked. The study used ridiculous criteria to eliminate scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic warming models (did they publish in a handful of journals that always support global warming, for example). Of 12,000 abstracts the author figured that 34% expressed an opinion and 33% reportedly supported AGW. So 33 divided by 34 = 97%. A further assessment by other researchers showed that only *41* of the 12,000 abstracts actually supported the author's assertions.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

Freddie won't acknowledge the complexity of such arguments--he prefers to communicate in memes




wonderings said:


> How many people believed the earth was flat? Do we get a list of all 100% of the scientists and how each of them voted on this issue?
> 
> I am not really for or against climate change, I am no expert in the field but I do listen to what people have to say and there are credible people who do take issue with it which to me is enough too say give it more thought and more research rather then just label people as fools because they did not agree with the mass group think.
> 
> This whole "agree with us or be ostracized" is a bit too Orwellian for my liking. Come on board completely and never question that great democracy of scientists who vote in favour of facts rather then prove them.
> 
> Scientists should be able to handle scrutiny and admit when they are wrong... if they are. It's not personal, it's just science.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

wonderings said:


> How many people believed the earth was flat? Do we get a list of all 100% of the scientists and how each of them voted on this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not really for or against climate change, I am no expert in the field but I do listen to what people have to say and there are credible people who do take issue with it which to me is enough too say give it more thought and more research rather then just label people as fools because they did not agree with the mass group think.
> 
> 
> 
> This whole "agree with us or be ostracized" is a bit too Orwellian for my liking. Come on board completely and never question that great democracy of scientists who vote in favour of facts rather then prove them.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists should be able to handle scrutiny and admit when they are wrong... if they are. It's not personal, it's just science.




A fair assessment. But how about Jim or Chuck or Biff or the average guy on the street? Shouldn't climate change deniers be held to the same level of scrutiny?


----------



## FeXL

What about them? Can they defend their argument? Does their argument make sense?

Are you employing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority that only "climate scientists" can be knowledgable & informed on the topic?



Freddie_Biff said:


> But how about Jim or Chuck or Biff or the average guy on the street?


Freddie, can you give me a short list of anybody who denies that climate changes? Do you actually know anybody who denies that climate changes? Have you read anywhere of anybody who denies that climate changes?

Jes' askin'...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Shouldn't climate change deniers be held to the same level of scrutiny?


----------



## wonderings

Freddie_Biff said:


> A fair assessment. But how about Jim or Chuck or Biff or the average guy on the street? Shouldn't climate change deniers be held to the same level of scrutiny?


I personally do not give them much though or bother getting into the argument more so then there are reputable people on both sides who say for and against. 

What more is Jim, Chuck, Biff or I going to accomplish or even conclude with ZERO experience studying climate change? It all comes down to faith really unless you are in the field and can understand it and study it. I have faith that this reputable person has done the right work. The issue is again when both sides of the question claim to have done that work and both come from reputable schools or organizations. It is the job of the scientific community to show without a shadow of a doubt if something is fact or to say this is merely a theory and they are still looking into it.


----------



## Macfury

Most climate change "science" is based on models with predetermined outcomes. If I create a model of world climate and ascribe high sensitivity to minute traces of CO2, then the outcome will be plenty of warming. Since there is no readily available history conflating CO2 concentrations with climate, it's up to the AGW crowd to prove their point--not up to skeptics to prove the opposite. If I claim your community will be attacked by spotted kangaroos, it's not incumbent upon you to prove to me that it won't happen. All you can do is state that it has never happened before and that I'd better offer some solid proof for you to listen any further.



wonderings said:


> I personally do not give them much though or bother getting into the argument more so then there are reputable people on both sides who say for and against.
> 
> What more is Jim, Chuck, Biff or I going to accomplish or even conclude with ZERO experience studying climate change? It all comes down to faith really unless you are in the field and can understand it and study it. I have faith that this reputable person has done the right work. The issue is again when both sides of the question claim to have done that work and both come from reputable schools or organizations. It is the job of the scientific community to show without a shadow of a doubt if something is fact or to say this is merely a theory and they are still looking into it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

wonderings said:


> I personally do not give them much though or bother getting into the argument more so then there are reputable people on both sides who say for and against.
> 
> 
> 
> What more is Jim, Chuck, Biff or I going to accomplish or even conclude with ZERO experience studying climate change? It all comes down to faith really unless you are in the field and can understand it and study it. I have faith that this reputable person has done the right work. The issue is again when both sides of the question claim to have done that work and both come from reputable schools or organizations. It is the job of the scientific community to show without a shadow of a doubt if something is fact or to say this is merely a theory and they are still looking into it.



A reasonable answer to a complex question.


----------



## SINC

So, how are those progs making out moulding our youth?


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> So, how are those progs making out moulding our youth?


Related!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> So, how are those progs making out moulding our youth?




Straw man much?


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Straw man much?


Hardly. Murphy was one of the best ever and a head and shoulders over any kid today who gets PTSD from being bullied or teased. 

We sucked up that crap, spit it our and made a life for ourselves doing whatever it took. No counsellors or support groups or all that other chite that happens today. We made it or not on our own courage and resolve. Today's generation can never make that claim.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Straw man much?


What part of what SINC said is the "straw man"?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> What part of what SINC said is the "straw man"?



Who is the person in the second picture? Can't see he rings a bell.


----------



## Macfury

Attacking a "straw man" is addressing a distorted form of the opponent's argument, by attacking some point the opponent never actually made. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> Who is the person in the second picture? Can't see he rings a bell.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Attacking a "straw man" is addressing a distorted form of the opponent's argument, by attacking some point the opponent never actually made.




A straw man argument is also one where you set up the pieces so they have no choice but to fall the way you want in order to discredit your opponent. The man in the second picture could be anyone. Your own prejudice is why you would see a self-absorbed prog.

https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/


----------



## Macfury

What did you see?



Freddie_Biff said:


> The man in the second picture could be anyone. Your own prejudice is why you would see a self-absorbed prog.


----------



## Macfury

These progressive tears are like sweet wine:


> If Trump has destroyed Obama’s substantive legacy at home and abroad, the left has gutted Obama’s post-racial cultural vision. And those of us who saw him as an integrative bridge to the future, who still cling to the bare bones of a gradually more inclusive liberal order, find ourselves on a fast-eroding peninsula, as cultural and political climate change erases the very environment we once called hope.


Obamaâ€™s Legacy Has Already Been Destroyed


----------



## Macfury

Millennial tells why his parents sought to evict him from NY home | Daily Mail Online

Is this a straw man, Freddie, or just a progressive?



> US millennial, 30, who was evicted from his parents' home by a judge, tells how a bitter row over his own son sparked the row and how he dropped out of college because it was too hard. Michael Rotondo, 30, spoke with DailyMail.com after he was ordered out of his parents' Camillus, New York home by a judge on Tuesday. The college drop out said he has lived away from home once in his life, about eight years ago


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> A straw man argument is also one where you set up the pieces so they have no choice but to fall the way you want in order to discredit your opponent. The man in the second picture could be anyone. Your own prejudice is why you would see a self-absorbed prog.
> 
> https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/


Feel free to put a pic of anyone of that age in as a substitute for the guy in the picture. Doesn't really matter, the message is still true.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Millennial tells why his parents sought to evict him from NY home | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a straw man, Freddie, or just a progressive?




Neither. He's a mooch.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Feel free to put a pic of anyone of that age in as a substitute for the guy in the picture. Doesn't really matter, the message is still true.




Don, Don, Don. You can't just make **** up and call it a fact.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Neither. He's a mooch.


Yeah, you're probably right.


----------



## FeXL

Once again, the iron...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Don, Don, Don. You can't just make **** up and call it a fact.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Don, Don, Don. You can't just make **** up and call it a fact.


You make up math, so whats the difference?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> You make up math, so whats the difference?




A very convincing argument coming from a Con man.


----------



## Freddie_Biff




----------



## Macfury

The steep decline is the function of how many workers the NDP drove into the EI program. If only 60,000 had been on EI to begin with, then the number would have been a zero drop.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> The steep decline is the function of how many workers the NDP drove into the EI program. If only 60,000 had been on EI to begin with, then the number would have been a zero drop.




A poor explanation. The NDP didn't "drive" anyone into the EI program. They went there when the oil and gas industry collapsed due to the drop in oil prices. Pay attention, Macfury.


----------



## Macfury

Some were driven onto EI by oil and gas price drops--the rest by NDP policy. My point is that the number you supplied looks very bad on the NDP. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> A poor explanation. The NDP didn't "drive" anyone into the EI program. They went there when the oil and gas industry collapsed due to the drop in oil prices. Pay attention, Macfury.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Wow! This thread has been spared. For now. I wonder if we can play nicely and keep it going?


----------

