Alberta’s energy minister says laid off workers could go to B.C.

[Nobama]

Originally Posted by polak

Notice how all of your examples don't operate on the backs of a commodity that trades as wildly as you pointed out in your third paragraph?

There's also a bit of a difference between the top brass being paid well and having a stampede party and an xmas party and what I saw in O&G in 2012 where every month there was a company wide, open bar party, routine lunches and the nicest offices I have ever been in. We had a party simply because we moved to a new floor!

A stampede AND Christmas party!! Unbelievable!

Remember, if your company doesn't have this "party" then the caterer doesn't get the job, and the cater employee loses their job and little jimmy doesn't get to play hockey this year. Companies spending money makes the economy work.

Devalue the commodity, change the energy policy from independence to dependence on the Middle East and watch North American producers, services and every connecting business big and small (catering) suffer tremendously.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's funny though isn't it? We usually rip on politicians for lying or for going with politician speak. But then they do something here like be a little honest...and then we rip on that too. I agree its not a wise thing for a government official to say, but had she came out and told people to just hunker down for a couple months and it's gonna turn around, that would get ripped as well. It's why saying nothing can often be the best approach.

Yes well that's nice and all, but she retracted the statement - said it was not her nor her government's position.
Seems strange you support and defend her statement when her and the government don't.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes well that's nice and all, but she retracted the statement - said it was not her nor her government's position.

Seems strange you support and defend her statement when her and the government don't.

It's no more strange for someone to defend a retracted statement than it is for someone to spend multiple posts attacking it.

[woob]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

MOD EDIT: Removed

How about instead of doing a drive by on another poster, you contribute to the discussion?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's no more strange for someone to defend a retracted statement than it is for someone to spend multiple posts attacking it.

That may be, though I don't think I recall anyone 'attacking' her statement.
'Attacking' people defending it? Absolutely

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think it's true at all. Attacking a retracted statement should be more expected than defending it - if the speaker doesn't even stand by it, seems like something that would be likely susceptible to criticism.

[PepsiFree]

It's a concerning logical reach to think one is more justifiable than the other. You're attacking something that, essentially, doesn't exist.

If your criticism of defending it is that "the speaker doesn't stand behind it" then how is attacking a statement that nobody stands behind any more reasonable? Might as well speak to a ghost.

There's no method of justification that isn't hypocritical. Either both are fine, or neither are. Seems very odd to support a desire for attack without counter point as someone who has questioned group-think ideologies recently, Corsi.

[Nobama]

Bottom line... if Marg worked for me and she said that comment I would ask her to immediately resign. There is no excuse for a public official to make that comment. People need to demand that she steps down.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's a concerning logical reach to think one is more justifiable than the other. You're attacking something that, essentially, doesn't exist.

If your criticism of defending it is that "the speaker doesn't stand behind it" then how is attacking a statement that nobody stands behind any more reasonable? Might as well speak to a ghost.

There's no method of justification that isn't hypocritical. Either both are fine, or neither are. Seems very odd to support a desire for attack without counter point as someone who has questioned group-think ideologies recently, Corsi.

Uh...it most certainly exists. She said it, clearly. Just because the party PR machine quickly had her retract it doesn't mean she didn't say it nor mean it.

It was a ridiculous utterance by an atrociously under qualified politician who has been put in a position to do nothing but fail. and for that I feel sorry for her. She isn't the only one among that caucus nor cabinet that's in way over their heads.

Originally Posted by Nobama

Bottom line... if Marg worked for me and she said that comment I would ask her to immediately resign. There is no excuse for a public official to make that comment. People need to demand that she steps down.

No. It was a stupid thing to say but it is no where near bad enough to either resign or be turfed over.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Uh...it most certainly exists. She said it, clearly.

Exactly.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It's an idiotic comment because your NDP government relies on these people's tax dollars. Telling them to leave the province means losing tax dollars, which means increasing taxes on the remaining tax payers to cover expenses.

There are jobs available in AB. They may not be as high paying as the ones lost in the O&G sector, and the job titles may not carry the same prestige, but there are jobs available. Her message should not have been for AB tax payers to leave and become BC tax payers, it should have been to try another profession in the short term until O&G recovers. The most important point being... STAY IN ALBERTA.

Unfortunately for you guys, looks like you may be headed towards a 'Great Exodus' much like what the NDP put us thru in SK for decades.

The Saskatchewan ndp under aroma ow saved the province from bankruptcy and provided the road map that Canada followed to get out of deficits.

Blakeneys NDP and Devines Conservatives was what drove investment out of the province. Wall has been quite could there after the lacklustre Calvert years but this great Exodus concept being blamed on the NDP is pretty false.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's a concerning logical reach to think one is more justifiable than the other. You're attacking something that, essentially, doesn't exist.

This doesn't make sense; a statement exists once it's been made. A proposition exists whether someone's said it or not. For this reason I think upon further reflection that you're actually right; from a perspective of pure logic - her statement was either good or bad regardless of whether she stood by it. The fact that she didn't just provides a hint about which of those two it is, and I think the criticisms thus far have made it pretty clear that this is a bad statement of policy.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, the corporate tax increase, royalty review, and the carbon tax have been immense additions to the burden the province is already carrying.

Oil & Gas, and the Wild Rose, should ensure that the at the very least, the NDP pushes forward on pipeline capacity in this province.

Well you will never get a pipeline built without some sort of credible environmental policy. Harper proved that, he was the weakest, most anemic leader Canad has had on pipeline development, couldn't get anything over the finish line (or even close to the finish line). Pretty sure industry realizes the tragic error of that approach based on the fact that some major industry players support the carbon tax.

I would have no faith in a right wing party getting a pipeline built, they have never ever done it in the past. Not sure how they could push anyway, what would they say "put in place the same failed policies that the federal conservatives put in for the last decade to get a pipeline built"?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by gladaki

Yeah, and who knows where TESLA will take us

There will be no significant market share taken by electric cars until there is a second manufacturer of them and companies produce affordable models. Right now electric cars are basically only available to the wealthy. Don't even get me started on the fact that the transportation industry will be dominated by fossil fuels for years afterwards.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Reaper

There will be no significant market share taken by electric cars until there is a second manufacturer of them and companies produce affordable models. Right now electric cars are basically only available to the wealthy. Don't even get me started on the fact that the transportation industry will be dominated by fossil fuels for years afterwards.

Of course, you still have to make the tires, the plastic body as well as ship materials around the world to make batteries.

[Nobama]

Tesla has never shown a profit. Never. It is a government subsidized company for rich people to buy tax dollar subsidized cars. In fact every electric car on the road was paid by YOUR tax dollars. How the government gets away with this nonsense is mind blowing.

[peter12]

This is totally true.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by polak

The best part about it is it's the PC's who should shoulder 99% of the blame. They are the ones who blew through the heritage fund, invested nothing into diversification and created no plan for the boom eventually turning down.

Particularly hilarious considering Prentice's comments to look in the mirror. What did he expect Albertans to do? Storm the Legislation and demand higher taxes and PST? We elected your stupid ####ing party to be our voice and make choices on our behalf you ####ing brain dead moron. If anyone should look in the mirror, it's you Prentice. Instead of making smart, tough fiscal decisions, his party kept buying votes by blowing through cash and claiming that there's an "Alberta Advantage".

But yes it's the NDP's fault.

Late to the party, but as someone who typically thinks the opposite of polak, he is on point here.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is totally true.

No it isn't.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Nobama

Tesla has never shown a profit. Never. It is a government subsidized company for rich people to buy tax dollar subsidized cars. In fact every electric car on the road was paid by YOUR tax dollars. How the government gets away with this nonsense is mind blowing.

I take it you don't agree with green intensives? Your right about company sales profits(-1% this year) but they have done very well on stocks overall.