GCn20

I agree that Pollievre engages in dog whistle politics. Dog whistle politics is not exclusive to the alt right, nor is it an indicator of being one. Most people would suggest that the Democrats in the US engaged in them for the entirety of Trump's term. That's is crazy. I don't defend the truckers way of protesting. It was wrong and misguided, but to call them white supremacist terrorists is batshit nuts.

Meeting with a trucker is alt right behavior? Who knew? You guys are reaching like a drowning child. This might be the most stupid leap of logic I have ever seen. You are seriously suggesting that every trucker in Ottawa was an alt-right white supremacist terrorist. Honestly...holy **** that's scary.

Please do me a favor and look up the definition of alt right and tell me what policies he has announced he would pursue that would make him classified as one. Oh no...she was a Trump supporter you know before she actually spoke out against him....burn the witch. You guys are comical.

No it most certainly is not no matter how much you jump up and down and say it is. That's just you carrying in US style politics of painting the other party as extreme into this debate. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the entire CPC party is alt-right. Laughable really....but you keep doing you on this. I don't disagree that Pierre is further to the right than the other candidates, but to suggest he is alt-right is the same as those who call Trudeau a communist. It is a gross exaggeration. I mean really....you think Pierre Pollievre is a white supremacist who wishes to replace democracy with a white nationalist state...or do you just not know what the definition of alt right is?

Never have believed in the alt-right. Not every CPC member, in fact the vast majority of CPC members, do not either. That's just the Liberal way of trying to minimize those who think differently than them and it is kind of gross really. That's US style politics and I thought we were better than that here in Canada. BTW, the CONS haven't had a leader since Harper. They've had guys in the role that were completely out of place being there. Trudeau managed to capitalize to thin minorities against no opposition really. But yeah....he's your man. I never said he wasn't in power, I said he underperformed badly because his popularity is waning. Kind of hard to refute that.

For sure. He has narrowly won the last two elections, and given the state of his opposition, is seriously underperforming. Keep on believing though. If you think that the last two elections is an endorsement of him than you are drinking the Liberal koolaid way too heavily. People plugged their nose and voted for him (and he did lose the popular vote) because no party emerged with any kind of alternative to him. Trudeau will not win another election.

Liberals need to get over the idea that Trudeau bashing doesn't work. The Cons have been in a state of disarray, rife with internal struggle, and rudderless leadership for the past 3-4 years at least....and yet they sit ahead in the popular vote in 2 elections and are pretty much in a tie right now with no leader with no clear direction of policy to speak of all on the strength of Trudeau bashing. A Trudeau led Liberal party gets worse for them, not better. The Trudeau bashing will not stop, nor should it, it's working. What they need to do is build some policy around that. I honestly believe Trudeau is a big liability to his party right now. He is an albatross they need to shake off sooner rather than later or it will eventually cost them.

I am not sure what OPEC will do to be honest, was just throwing it out there as one possibility. All I'm saying is that I would think OPEC is spending billions on carbon capture research, which may very well be the answer in the end, and will try infinitely hard to secure market for the fossil fuels they supply. Cutting production to get higher prices is not a great way to secure any business when you are in competition. A sound business model to keep demand high is essential. What that may look like I'm not sure but I can't imagine it won't involve some kind of incentive to their consumers. Developing nations may be who they target as most have energy needs and big oil would be a cheap short term solution for them. What most of us here in Canada fail to understand is that in many parts of the world there just isn't the hydro capability or potential to replace fossil fuels.

Will they? I'm not so sure at least in the immediate future. When you have super powers like Russia whose economy is dependant on oil I am not so sure. When OPEC is backed into a corner and starts making deals around the globe for cheap oil and natural gas do you think that there will be no takers. I am not that naive. Big oil may be looking like the ugly sister at a Saskatchewan social but there is still more than enough drunks at the party willing to dance with her. Honestly anyone thinking that fossil fuels are going away in the next 30 years on a global scale is dreaming in technicolor. I am certainly not suggesting that gives us permission to pollute and not try to address it as best as we can, however, part of our strategy needs to be as a producer of clean oil to help reduce the impact from countries that will take much longer than us to end their dependancy. Right now we are seeing oil taking it's lumps but anyone thinking the game is over is deluding themselves. As tech pushes demand down big oil will come back swinging to try and keep nations hooked on their product. RIght now demand is still high and big oil has only been minimally impacted, when demand reduces it will be interesting to see what their strategy for survival will be and who will be their dance partners. I think many hoping for a quick transition away from them are going to be very disappointed. Maybe I am just being overly pessimistic....hope that is the case but I know one thing, in most countries there are parties pushing hard for a quick exit from fossil fuels but in almost all these countries there are political parties who are willing to take a more long term phase out and keep the economy chugging along. Most of these countries will see those parties take power....no government lasts forever....and they will undo a lot of what the other government did and the cycle will repeat over and over and that inevitable will slow things down a great deal. We've seen this play out many times the world over in the past 20 years already. Next election there is a strong chance that we see Republicans in power in the US. Anyone thinking that the Libs will hold on forever here are dreaming as well. There is a breaking point as to how much people are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and when that pace overtakes their comfort level it will result in government change. Very few people are willing to suffer greatly economically for the greater good. Sorry to say but that's just reality, and reality is that in order to rapidly change that is what will need to happen. Quality of life is a very motivating factor in many voters decisions. If a government policy begins to adversely affect my quality of life I will vote against that policy, I am not alone in this, I think the reality is that the majority will as well. Governments around the world are very cognizant of this and that is why most climate change policy to date has been empty promises.

Alberta school of politics. He's pandering to the base that wields a lot nomination power. No surprise there. General election he will have to tone it down considerably or get crushed unless, of course, Trudeau is still leader in which case he is playing it right.

Maybe so...but I think people are realistically overestimating the world's ability and want to get off of fossil fuels. The fact of the matter is that here in the West we can grouse about the need for change but realistically that change needs to happen in countries that don't really care to do so. Funny enough I have been grousing about this for around 25-30 years now.

Marcel the monkey will be busy QBing them by game 5.

Kind of kills any legit shot he had at cracking their game day lineup. It will be PR at best for Drew.

Gotta be honest...I couldn't care less who they have to listen to on the radio. At the end of the day it's a Rider game so it's gonna be crap no matter what.

I'll argue for more oil production right now, all day...every day. I believe that thinking us not producing oil is a good thing is kind of naive. The world demand for oil is there and it's not going away any time soon. That's just straight up fact. The environmentalists can act like this is an issue that Canada has any say in but it simply doesn't. What we can control is providing clean oil production from a country that is a reliable world leader in peace and democracy. Tired of this B.S. that us producing oil will diminish the world....just the opposite really. It's time we take some of the business away from the Venezuelans, Russians, and Saudi's who use the money to make the world a dangerous place for all and don't give a fig about global warming and never will. So long as those countries don't care we will never break our dependancy on oil completely. Canada can become a major player by taking a larger segment of the oil industry then moving the world to be green and using a healthy portion of our oil wealth that is created to do so.

I like the Cody Fajardo rule they brought in. He's been faking committing then running some more for years and it was a pretty blatant abuse of the rule. I am sure Rider fans will object to that rule change though, they thought it was brilliant every time he did it. I don't mind that rule change. There was not much incentive to keep the no yards after the ball hit the turf.

Agreed. Cosmetic changes at best.

I thought they both agreed to put up 250 million into an arena with cost overruns to be paid by Flames, and then the city kept adding on to the build and the deal fell through. No way in hades i would put up 250-300 million without the equivalent ownership stake. It would be highly unusual for an ownership group to signficantly fund an arena or stadium without requiring ownership.

I thought the deal was 50/50 and fell through over a cost over run? You are suggesting that the Flames would have had no ownership stake in the building but were on the hook for 300 million? No wonder they walked if that was the scenario. If it was City building and owning and Flames getting all revenues then that is equally as bad of a deal.

So how exactly would Tsuu Tina ever recover it's money? It wouldn't. No wonder the City of Calgary bailed....what a horrible deal. They have just ruined the CFL game. Just putting the first overly exaggerated opinion out there. Seriously though, I like the hashmark rule and really the other rules are just changing them for the sake of changing them, they won't do much.

You are suggesting that the reserve would own the stadium and arena and lease it to the Flames and Stamps? Rich or not, that's a heckuva gamble. I could see the Stamps easily taking such a deal, but I'm not so sure the Flames would without a piece of the arena pie and a big say in how it operates....and that's where things get pretty sticky with INAC. A 200 million dollar stadium hosting the Stamps literally has almost zero chance of paying for itself on 9 dates a year, whether it is through leasing, concert venue, and economic spin off in the immediate area. It would make no sense for Tsuu TIna to do a stadium unless a pile of money was coming from the feds, prov, and city....and we all know how that is working out. An arena has a chance to pay itself off, but not many NHL owners are interested in playing in a building they have no stake in.

I agree. Manitoba has had great uptake numbers on the vaccine, and as a whole, I think a progressive attitude towards them except maybe in some of the more rural areas. I am as fearful as anyone about another mass scale outbreak but I see this as a big nothing burger really. It's an outdoor venue with the overwhelming majority being fully vaxxed. I think Manitoba's restrictions were as harsh as anywhere in Canada, and I strongly believe that Public Health would not allow this if it were a high risk move. Should another wave of pandemic hit hard then I believe the Bombers would do what is right.

The deal breaker may lie in the Indian Act. I assume this in TLE land? If so, the Flames organization may be very uncomfortable with provisions contained in the act. Just speaking from experience here, as someone who was on a board trying to get a mining giant to sign a deal with my reserve to open a mine on our territory. At the end of the day they bolted because they were unhappy with a lot of archaic provisions that would not allow them to secure their investment.

Entirely up to you. It is a personal choice and one that only you can make for yourself. However, currently restrictions are lifted so it is important that we all continue to respect everyone else's choices they make based on the advice of public health. Not at all. I think it would be immensely hypocritical to support past restrictions and vaccine advice given by public health and then to not support public health when they feel restrictions should be lifted. My opinion. You are entitled to yours, but make no mistake naivety is not at play. What is wrong with you? A person can have a different opinion than you can they not or are you special? It's this kind of idiocy that only serves to polarize people and entrench the anti vaxxers.

I trust, as I have all along, Dr. Roussin and his team and the proof of vax policies they put in place.