Canadian Politics

[blue_gold_84]

It's real, alright. Real stupid and poorly thought out. Nothing more than sore loser syndrome from a province that chose to bankrupt its future and is now feeling the effects. And instead of pointing the blame at its previous and current provincial leadership, the actual ones responsible, it's all "let's play victim and act like Ottawa let us down" or "it's all because Quebec keeps stealing from us."

What a piss-poor attitude. Peter Lougheed must be spinning in his grave.

[Wideleft]

22 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Well, you can think it's dumb & it makes you angry but it's real. 

It's not more real than the effects of humanity on climate change.

[SpeedFlex27]

14 minutes ago, JCon said:

Yes, but it's all bluster without any basis in reality. 

 

I don't know if its based in reality but if it ever catches on in BC or Manitoba then who knows? It's already picking up steam in Saskatchewan. With potentially another 2-4 years of Trudeau, Blanchet & Singh who knows where this movement goes? It could fizzle out or grow. It's up to the politicians in Ottawa. And before someone accuses me of being a separatist, I'm not. I live in Calgary & just commenting on what is going on out here. People are pissed, big time. I understand why. 

[Wideleft]

32 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

A journalist said it at the very end of the Global election broadcast as they were signing off. The bubbleheaded bleach blonde said,  "We have 12 years". Just as they were signing off. Greta Thunberg was preaching same here in Alberta. Kids in school are being told the end is 12 years away. So, please stop. It doesn't help. 

You are hearing what you want to hear in a very strange way.  No one is saying we're all dead in 12 years as been previously stated and yet that's the part you hear because it's the easiest to discount.  That's some second-level cognitive dissonance.

[SpeedFlex27]

Just now, Wideleft said:

You are hearing what you want to hear in a very strange way.  No one is saying we're all dead in 12 years as been previously stated and yet that's the part you hear because it's the easiest to discount.  That's some second-level cognitive dissonance.

No one is saying? Lol. That's some cognitive dissonance on your part. Elizabeth May was spreading that fear during the election. We have a Climate Catastrophe.. We need a Climate War Room. We have to get off fossil fuels NOW!!! We're all going to die. No one is saying? Sure. 

[Wideleft]

12 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

No one is saying? Lol. That's some cognitive dissonance on your part. Elizabeth May was spreading that fear during the election. We have a Climate Catastrophe.. We need a Climate War Room. We have to get off fossil fuels NOW!!! We're all going to die. No one is saying? Sure. 

Again, that is what you're hearing, but not what they're actually saying.  You're going to need to provide some proof with context to convince me.

[Fatty Liver]

22 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

If I were to name names, the first one I'd submit is Danielle Smith, former leader of the Wild Rose Party.  She's been very active in promoting it.  Also keep in mind that Kenny's "war room" has no transparency, so he may have used some of that 30 million to fund a social media campaign. 

The good news is that #rednexit has now overtaken #wexit and is now trending in response.

Jason is right in there fanning the flames.  As long as he can point fingers at Trudeau he doesn't have to take responsibility for being  unable to do anything to change the economic downturn Alberta is experiencing.

 

"I asked the premier if he’s concerned his panel could end up moderating separatist rallies. Here’s what he said.

"There will be public town halls “for exactly that reason.”

“There are two approaches that leaders can take in an environment like this in Alberta today.

“One would be to dismiss and ridicule the sentiment of frustration that is palpable. That is the worst mistake possible. That would just, I think, create even more frustration.

“The other alternative is to actually listen to people and discuss what they have to say. I think that is the much wiser approach. That’s exactly why we’ll be appointing this panel.”

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/braid-kenney-wants-to-hear-separatist-anger

[17to85]

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Nothing more than sore loser syndrome from a province that chose to bankrupt its future and is now feeling the effects. And instead of pointing the blame at its previous and current provincial leadership, the actual ones responsible, it's all "let's play victim and act like Ottawa let us down" or "it's all because Quebec keeps stealing from us."

What a piss-poor attitude. Peter Lougheed must be spinning in his grave.

gee wonder why alberta feels like they do...

[Bigblue204]

5 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

No one is saying? Lol. That's some cognitive dissonance on your part. Elizabeth May was spreading that fear during the election. We have a Climate Catastrophe.. We need a Climate War Room. We have to get off fossil fuels NOW!!! We're all going to die. No one is saying? Sure. 

There's a difference between "people" saying it. And actual hard facts though. Just because people are saying that, doesn't mean anything. You've cited "a journalist" a teenager and the leader of a politcal party who have never once come close to being in control of anything. Those are 100% not reliable sources, regardless of who tells you they are. People who are knowledgeable about the science and the hard facts aren't saying any of this. What people who actually know are saying, is that we are in for hard times, maybe the hardest we've ever seen in recorded history. And if we don't change our behavior (IE mindless consumption/pollution etc) those hard times are going to be even harder, especially to recover from. Most scientists believe that humans/life will survive this.

[Wideleft]

8 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

There's a difference between "people" saying it. And actual hard facts though. Just because people are saying that, doesn't mean anything. You've cited "a journalist" a teenager and the leader of a politcal party who have never once come close to being in control of anything. Those are 100% not reliable sources, regardless of who tells you they are. People who are knowledgeable about the science and the hard facts aren't saying any of this. What people who actually know are saying, is that we are in for hard times, maybe the hardest we've ever seen in recorded history. And if we don't change our behavior (IE mindless consumption/pollution etc) those hard times are going to be even harder, especially to recover from. Most scientists believe that humans/life will survive this.

But not all life and not even all human life.  Extinction of species is already accelerating.  Without unprecedented spending in mitigation (sea walls, raised roads, reintroduction of wetlands, replanting of forests and grasslands) things will get worse.  There will be massive migrations of people which almost always leads to some kind of war or genocide.  And I do think Greta Thunberg is a reliable source when she says "listen to scientists". 

Anyways, Speedflex doesn't seem to understand why 2030 is important (unfortunately he will assume that means January 1, 2030 because that's easier to argue against).

“Global emissions could peak within the next five years ― and it is extremely important that, indeed, they peak earlier than that,” he told HuffPost.

This is important not just for investment decisions but for bending the curve of humanity’s emissions downward. Climate scientists say that we can only emit another 800 gigatonnes of carbon ― or 20 years of business-as-usual pollution ― if we are to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

Anything more could trigger domino effects set off by rising temperatures that reinforce further warming as escalating feedback loops push the Earth into a “hothouse” state, according to a terrifying report by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) published last month.

This could involve melting Arctic sea ice creating areas of dark water that absorb more heat, or thawing permafrost releasing methane hydrates that in turn speed up the global warming process.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/runaway-climate-change-2030-report_n_5b8ecba3e4b0162f4727a09f?ri18n=true

[Wideleft]

36 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

gee wonder why alberta feels like they do...

Actually, I don't think most Albertans do feel that way, but the loudmouths are tarnishing the province's reputation.

The one's that do feel the way they do seem to think they're entitled to a $100,000 truck and a $700,000 house at the age of 25.

Alberta STILL has the highest average household income in the country and the lowest taxation to allow the employed to hoard that wealth.  Maybe just maybe, Albertans could look at helping each other before they demand Canada save their asses.

I feel bad for you if you are personally struggling, but there's a lot of misplaced and unwarranted victimhood coming out of that province.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Wideleft

[iHeart]

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

If I were to name names, the first one I'd submit is Danielle Smith, former leader of the Wild Rose Party.  She's been very active in promoting it.  Also keep in mind that Kenny's "war room" has no transparency, so he may have used some of that 30 million to fund a social media campaign. 

The good news is that #rednexit has now overtaken #wexit and is now trending in response.

well I think #rednexit would be a better term for #wexit considering the reasonings

[Mark H.]

There is one issue on which Alberta definitely has a point.  They have a population of over 4 million and have 34 seats in Parliament

Look at Manitoba with 14 seats and  population of over 1 million

Looking at it apples to apples - Alberta should have over 50 seats, maybe even 60

[Mark H.]

3 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I don't know if its based in reality but if it ever catches on in BC or Manitoba then who knows? It's already picking up steam in Saskatchewan. 

Hey - do we get to keep the 1.8 billion in equalization payments?  

In all seriousness, Pallister likes to pretend he's pissed at Trudeau, but JT has been very good to Manitoba

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

Actually, I don't think most Albertans do feel that way, but the loudmouths are tarnishing the province's reputation.

The one's that do feel the way they do seem to think they're entitled to a $100,000 truck and a $700,000 house at the age of 25.

Alberta STILL has the highest average household income in the country and the lowest taxation to allow the employed to hoard that wealth.  Maybe just maybe, Albertans could look at helping each other before they demand Canada save their asses.

I feel bad for you if you are personally struggling, but there's a lot of misplaced and unwarranted victimhood coming out of that province.

again this is why Albertans are pissed off. 

"oh you have it good, quit bitching"

That's exactly how the states wound up with Donald Trump. When people are angry being dismissive of them only leads to more anger. Try listening to why these people are upset. Husky just laid off 500 more people yesterday, all those preconceived notions you spouted and all the facts about income and taxes in Alberta, it's not helpful to people who lose not only jobs but careers. 

Than you have the political parties offering no help for the oil and gas sector while making noises in the anti oil and gas vein and anti Alberta... Alberta was made out to be a pariah for political gain and you are damned rights that will lead to resentment. 

Now I personally don't believe this separatist talk is anything serious, it's just people voicing their anger. The anger is a valid feeling considering what has been happening the few years, it's time to take it seriously and not simply dismiss it.  

[pigseye]

18 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'm a Conservative. I prefer to not trust the science of climate change because most of it is backed by the UN. Probably the most corrupt & lying organization in the world. I don't trust anything that comes from them. 

Spot on,

Quote

 

The IPCC was created in 1988 largely due to the efforts of Maurice Strong, a billionaire and self-confessed socialist, as part of a larger campaign to justify giving the United Nations the authority to tax businesses in developed countries and redistribute trillions of dollars a year to developing nations. Strong had previously succeeded in bringing about the creation of the UN Environment Programme in 1972 and served as its first executive director. The IPCC is a joint project of that entity and the World Meteorological Organization.

(Strong was subsequently implicated in corruption surrounding the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program and has resigned from his UN positions. According to John Izzard writing for the Australian publication Quadrant Online, <1> “Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honours he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman.”<1>)

Strong and his allies at the UN gave the IPCC a very narrow brief by defining climate change in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 1.2, as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” IPCC’s mandate is not to study climate change “in the round,” or to look at natural as well as man-made influences on climate. It is to specifically find and report a human impact on climate, and thereby make a scientific case for the adoption of national and international policies that would supposedly reduce that impact.

The IPCC is also designed to put political leaders and bureaucrats rather than scientists in control of the research project. It is a membership organization composed of governments, not scientists. The governments that created the IPCC fund it, staff it, select the scientists who get to participate, and revise and rewrite the reports after the scientists have concluded their work. Obviously, this is not how a real scientific organization operates.

 

 

[pigseye]

18 hours ago, 17to85 said:

The science on the greenhouse effect is not something you can really argue with. 

The debate is really surrounding predictive models and what should be done about it because it has a very real cost. Make no mistake, global warming is a real phenomenon. 

Depends on how you define science,

Quote

 

The IPCC’s first report, released in 1990, admitted that observed climate change was probably due to natural rather than human causes. However, every report since then has claimed with rising certainty that there is a “discernable human impact” on the climate and that steps must be taken to avoid a global climate crisis. There is ample evidence that this level of alarmism and asserted confidence is fueled by political considerations rather than actual science.

For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: <2>“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

Numerous authors (see here, here, and here)<3> have observed a growing disconnect between the “Summaries for Policymakers,” which are designed to be read and used by political leaders and the media, and the reports themselves. The former systematically remove the expressions of scientific uncertainty and alternative explanations of climate phenomena that were abundantly present in the first three reports, with the obvious intention of misrepresenting the science and fueling unnecessary alarm. By the fourth and fifth assessment reports, even the underlying reports were being purged of ideas and evidence that contradicted the IPCC’s political agenda.

 

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

19 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'm a Conservative. I prefer to not trust the science of climate change because most of it is backed by the UN. Probably the most corrupt & lying organization in the world. I don't trust anything that comes from them. 

Like when they told the US, Iraq had no WMD's. Damn liers

 

 

[SpeedFlex27]

38 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Like when they told the US, Iraq had no WMD's. Damn liers

 

 

I have no idea what your point is there considering Saddam Hussein was a war criminal who did gas thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. He got what he deserved at the very end.  The man was an evil butcher. 

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by SpeedFlex27

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

5 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I have no idea what your point is there considering Saddam Hussein was a war criminal who did gas thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. He got what he deserved at the very end.  The man was an evil butcher. 

 

 

 

They tried to stop a war? An illegal act of USA aggression based on lies for geopolitical gain and essentially murdering millions? Yeah, That UN. 

[SpeedFlex27]

11 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

They tried to stop a war? An illegal act of USA aggression based on lies for geopolitical gain and essentially murdering millions? Yeah, That UN. 

The US didn't fire the missiles that killed the Kurds. Hussein did. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

13 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The US didn't fire the missiles that killed the Kurds. Hussein did. 

I refuse to defend what that evil ****** did- get got what was coming to him, sure. 

I am also not going to justify the illegal war based on lies. The US never should have gone into Iraq. 

You have such outrage over what Saddam did to the Kurds, yet you are cool with the hundreds of thousand civilian deaths cause by the USA invasion and occupation of Iraq? Where's your outrage for that?

 

Anyways- back to the original point... the UN is not " the most corrupt & lying organization in the world." not by a long shot. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I refuse to defend what that evil ****** did- get got what was coming to him, sure. 

I am also not going to justify the illegal war based on lies. The US never should have gone into Iraq. 

You have such outrage over what Saddam did to the Kurds, yet you are cool with the hundreds of thousand civilian deaths cause by the USA invasion and occupation of Iraq? Where's your outrage for that?

 

Anyways- back to the original point... the UN is not " the most corrupt & lying organization in the world." not by a long shot. 

I'll never believe that statement you made. The UN is corrupt. 

https://www.newsweek.com/un-good-bad-trade-votes-secret-deals-little-action-harm-667209

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by SpeedFlex27

[JCon]

 

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, JCon said:

 

This notion that Canada voted against Alberta is ludicrous.  I voted against a party that rejects science, wanted to cut services, mused at defunding the CBC, consorted with racists and campaigned on anger and with no real platform.  Apparently, 2/3's of Canada did the same.  It had nothing to do with sticking it to Alberta.