Rob Anders falling asleep on the job...again

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Hardly.

If you bother to read the above I say the guy disgusts me. I go one step further and say that the best way to get rid of him is at the nomination level.

I did bother to read the above. You are saying that the guy disgusts you, but you vote for him anyway, because you don't want the Liberals to shut down the tar sands.

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I reject any premise that conservative supporters are mindless lemmings that lefties try and claim. With anders people must be pinching their nose when they mark his name

No, not Conservatives in general. And I don't think everyone who votes for Anders is a mindless lemming. They are just acting that way when they do pinch their nose.

We're talking about a guy who snored through a presentation given by Canadian veterans. At work. The most basic goddamn thing you can do is stay awake at work, and he can't even pull that off. He knows the camera is there. That's how smart he is. That's how serious he takes his job.

Maybe you can't blame the guy. If you literally cannot get fired, if you have people who are willing to vote for you no matter what foolish thing you do, say, or snore, then what's the difference? Maybe next time he'll bring a pillow.

And then we'll hear about the Liberals shutting down the oil sands.

[Rerun]

I too, just don't understand why his riding keeps nominating him as the CP candidate... every election...

Surely, there must be someone out there that can beat this clown, when it comes to getting the riding nomination.

He's an embarrassment not only to the CP party, but to politicians in general... at thats saying alot.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I too, just don't understand why his riding keeps nominating him as the CP candidate... every election...

Surely, there must be someone out there that can beat this clown, when it comes to getting the riding nomination.

He's an embarrassment not only to the CP party, but to politicians in general... at thats saying alot.

Thats the main problem. Harper won't let anyone else run against him for the CP nomination. Its bordering on criminal.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Thats the main problem. Harper won't let anyone else run against him for the CP nomination. Its bordering on criminal.

I don't believe you are correct. As far as I know, anyone can challenge the current encumbant in the nomination process. Harper has nothing to do with this.
I suspect that Harper would love to see Anders replaced by another candidate. Unfortunately, Anders has beaten every CP candidate that has challenged him in every nomination meeting.

[Rerun]

Oops... I stand somewhat corrected...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ing-board.html

Long-serving Alberta member of Parliament Rob Anders is once again facing a challenge from within his own riding.
This time, Conservative Party members in Calgary West are pushing for an open nomination meeting, even though Anders has already been declared the Tory candidate in the next federal election.
The riding hasn't had an open contest for the role since 2004, said Dan Morrison, president of riding's board of directors.

Last year, Anders successfully fought off a high-profile campaign to oust him. That came after the federal Conservative party decided that the only way incumbent MPs can be pushed out of their ridings is if two-thirds of constituency members vote to hold a nomination race.
No riding hit that mark so all sitting Conservative MPs, including Anders, were declared candidates for the next election. But Anders' supporters lost control of the riding's board of directors, which oversees nominations.

[CaptainCrunch]

The fact that Ander's have been winning elections for 15 years, and been part of a standing government, and been one of the Prime Ministers biggest supporter and has never been rewarded with a cabinet position, but has been given out of the way committee chair positions tells you exactly what the Conservatives think of him.

Normally by this time, he should be well into being groomed for a senior position in government or even been mentioned as a possible candidate for leadership.

Deep down even Conservatives think the guy is a tool, but they have to tolerate him because he delivers a seat.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The green shift was to move to a carbon based economy which would have resulted in n enormous wealth transfer out of Alberta to central Canada. It also would have guaranteed no further foreign investment would have happened. It was not explicit that it would shut down the oilsands but the effect was patently obvious.

The whole "Liberals would shutdown the oilsands" is tantamount to "hidden agenda" cries going the other way.

I do think that the fact that you're defending a guy who is literally asleep on the job though shows just how partisan things are in Canadian politics. When you won't vote for an opponent based on fear-mongering today and issues of thirty years ago despite the current MP being a disgrace its really telling. I don't think that any party supporters are lemmings or sheep, but the follow the herd mentality has reached new heights when you can't vote for another party based on a perceived threat based solely on rhetoric and conjecture.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

The whole "Liberals would shutdown the oilsands" is tantamount to "hidden agenda" cries going the other way.

I do think that the fact that you're defending a guy who is literally asleep on the job though shows just how partisan things are in Canadian politics. When you won't vote for an opponent based on fear-mongering today and issues of thirty years ago despite the current MP being a disgrace its really telling. I don't think that any party supporters are lemmings or sheep, but the follow the herd mentality has reached new heights when you can't vote for another party based on a perceived threat based solely on rhetoric and conjecture.

LOL... pot... meet kettle.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

LOL... pot... meet kettle.

What does that even mean here?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

The whole "Liberals would shutdown the oilsands" is tantamount to "hidden agenda" cries going the other way.

I do think that the fact that you're defending a guy who is literally asleep on the job though shows just how partisan things are in Canadian politics. When you won't vote for an opponent based on fear-mongering today and issues of thirty years ago despite the current MP being a disgrace its really telling. I don't think that any party supporters are lemmings or sheep, but the follow the herd mentality has reached new heights when you can't vote for another party based on a perceived threat based solely on rhetoric and conjecture.

The Liberal party has been spouting this schtick for years against Harper and the Conservative party. They invented the game.... you know... "Harper and company have a hidden agenda, Harper and company are going to criminalize abortion, Harper and company are against gay rights, etc, etc, etc.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The Liberal party has been spouting this schtick for years against Harper and the Conservative party. They invented the game.... you know... "Harper and company have a hidden agenda, Harper and company are going to criminalize abortion, Harper and company are against gay rights, etc, etc, etc.

That's exactly what I just said. I really have no idea what your point is here....I'm equating the "shutdown the oilsands" with the "hidden agenda" and your reply is to say we've heard the hidden agenda argument for years. OK. So people should keep voting for a bad MP then?

[CaptainCrunch]

The biggest difference is that if you even look at the Liberal platform in the last election and the election before it was extremely anti oil sands and those platforms if enacted would have devastated the energy sector, and they made no disguise of it as they knew that they had to cater to the Eastern Vote.

I don't recall Harper every making anti-gay anti lesbian anti abortion campaign promises during his election, it was more the Liberal's stating that he would do it if he ever got into a majority government position.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The biggest difference is that if you even look at the Liberal platform in the last election and the election before it was extremely anti oil sands and those platforms if enacted would have devastated the energy sector, and they made no disguise of it as they knew that they had to cater to the Eastern Vote.

I don't recall Harper every making anti-gay anti lesbian anti abortion campaign promises during his election, it was more the Liberal's stating that he would do it if he ever got into a majority government position.

The last election didn't appear anti-oil sands to me? How so?

The Green Shift was back in 2008 when pricing carbon was a bigger idea than just Canada. Harper came out in favor of cap and trade at that point as well. We all know by now that a carbon tax is the better way to go; cap and trade is just creating a false economy (and one that would damage the oil sands and energy sectors just as badly as any of these schemes).

Anyway, there is no more proof that the Liberals would shutdown the oil sands than there is that the CPC will halt all gay marriage. It's pure fear-mongering and nothing more.

I do have concerns about the transfer of wealth that our oil wealth will spur though. I have no doubt that other provinces as well as the federal government are going to have their hands out for a share. I think that some of this manifests itself as regulatory requirements and things like that (including environmental regulations). It's a tough issue to deal with because some of these regulations are good and necessary and others are a pure attempt to maintain control and assert control (as a broad generality).

All of that being said; its not a partisan matter at all. There will be pandering to the vote rich provinces regardless of the party in power or seeking power. The Conservatives are no more or no less guilty of this than the Liberals.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

That's exactly what I just said. I really have no idea what your point is here....I'm equating the "shutdown the oilsands" with the "hidden agenda" and your reply is to say we've heard the hidden agenda argument for years. OK. So people should keep voting for a bad MP then?

Sorry. Misunderstood what you were saying.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Slava

The last election didn't appear anti-oil sands to me? How so?

In the last election, the Liberal plan was to implement a very tough cap and trade regime regardless of what our major trading partner did, with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions to levels low enough to pretend to approach our Kyoto commitment (which was made before the Oil Sands really took off). Their platform commitment was 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Revenues from the cap and trade program only partially was going to go to green initiatives, with no guarantee that it would go back into the industry or province it came from, and the rest going into general revenues to pay for new entitlement programs.

In addition, they advocated formalizing the moratorium on West Coast oil tanker traffic, which would have ended the Pacific Gateway initiative before it really got going and wanted an immediate withdrawal of the Capital Cost deduction for Oil Sands Operators, a Tax increase of $0.5 Billion over two years, with another Billion in extra taxes over that time from rolling back the Corporate tax rate reductions.

Their platform was very much anti-oil sands. The relevant environmental sections are on pages 46, 47 and 50 of their platform:

http://www.liberal.ca/files/2011/04/...l_platform.pdf

[CaptainCrunch]

^what he said

[Slava]

So where do I find the line about shutting down the oil sands? Every party, including the CPC wants to increase the environmental regulations, oil sands included. Even the provincial government is moving in that direction. The CPC policy is to go the route of cap and trade as well, something that I completely disagree with regardless of the party implementing it.

The Northern Gateway, whether you're for it or against it, will never be built. There is so much opposition to it from the communities that it would basically be jamming it down people's throats there. Every week it seems there are new cities and councils that have voted against it.

It's a serious stretch to think that the Liberals want to shutdown the oil sands when they took no steps to do so during their tenure. In fact we all know that feds in general love the cash from these things. It helps them to fund all kinds of little pet projects.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Slava

So where do I find the line about shutting down the oil sands? Every party, including the CPC wants to increase the environmental regulations, oil sands included. Even the provincial government is moving in that direction. The CPC policy is to go the route of cap and trade as well, something that I completely disagree with regardless of the party implementing it.

The Northern Gateway, whether you're for it or against it, will never be built. There is so much opposition to it from the communities that it would basically be jamming it down people's throats there. Every week it seems there are new cities and councils that have voted against it.

It's a serious stretch to think that the Liberals want to shutdown the oil sands when they took no steps to do so during their tenure. In fact we all know that feds in general love the cash from these things. It helps them to fund all kinds of little pet projects.

Nothern Gateway will get built, I'd put money on it. The opposition from the bands is nothing but posturing for more money. They pull the same nonsense up north when any new projects are proposed.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Nothern Gateway will get built, I'd put money on it. The opposition from the bands is nothing but posturing for more money. They pull the same nonsense up north when any new projects are proposed.

It's not only the bands though, 2-3 city councils have voted against it as well. I don't know if they'll have the fortitude to ram it through.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's not only the bands though, 2-3 city councils have voted against it as well. I don't know if they'll have the fortitude to ram it through.

I don't think civic authorities have much if any stroke in these kinds of debates. Ultimately I think it will boil down to Enbridge giving the bands the kind of money and job guarantees they are looking for.