Alberta Politics Thread

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Is calling a female politician a b*tch worse than calling a male politician a nazi? Because I'm guessing Harper was called a nazi online many thousands of times.

IMO yes it is. Calling someone a Nazi is pretty explicitly a political statement/insult while calling someone a b*tch explicitly a personal one. I consider a personal insult hurled at at a politician to be worse then a political insult hurled at same.

Leaving that aside "Nazi" (or "commie" or "fascist" or whatever politically motivated slur you prefer) is a more equal opportunity insult (I've seen female political figures referred to such).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Easiest?

Well, not for the welders.

Note that I said "low-skilled."

I worked with indigenous "observers." Man, they knew they had a good gig.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Parallex

IMO yes it is. Calling someone a Nazi is pretty explicitly a political statement/insult while calling someone a b*tch explicitly a personal one. I consider a personal insult hurled at at a politician to be worse then a political insult hurled at same.

Leaving that aside "Nazi" (or "commie" or "fascist" or whatever politically motivated slur you prefer) is a more equal opportunity insult (I've seen female political figures referred to such).

Did you see how many people on Twitter called for his assassination after his retirement announcement?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Parallex

The immediate and IMO appropriate response to said tweet was to point out that it was built with the shameful use of near slave labour.

I guess my big issue with that assertion is that you're taking modern morals and beliefs and judging that past period with them.

But at the same time we are preventing Canadian companies with modern morals and beliefs from building something important and doing it to our standards, but because of all the NIMBY's they'd rather not do that and prefer instead to purchase Foreign oil from totalitarian and non-Democratic regimes.

You see, in Canada we dont really go in big for slavery all that much anymore. Saudi Arabia? China? Middle East? Can you say the say the same of them?

Its actually kind of hilariously naive and misguided.

"We're better than that now so we're going to undercut ourselves and our beliefs and instead support people who arent!"

If people want to condemn the use of 'borderline slavery' to build the railroads 100 years ago thats fine, then why are they making the same mistake in regards to Oil right now?

These self-righteous people clearly have not been paying attention because it seems evident they havent learned anything.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think that's a very good response.

I think it is. Requiring "social license" (aside: I hate that term) is part of what can help prevent moral atrocities such as that from occurring (of course what constitutes moral atrocities changes from era to era). That Kenney chose to ignore the moral hazards that occurred in making that project come to fruition says something about him as a political figure that's well worth pointing out.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by peter12

Did you see how many people on Twitter called for his assassination after his retirement announcement?

No, I did not. That's highly inappropriate and should be denounced by all sound minded people of good conscience.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I think it is. Requiring "social license" (aside: I hate that term) is part of what can help prevent moral atrocities such as that from occurring (of course what constitutes moral atrocities changes from era to era). That Kenney chose to ignore the moral hazards that occurred in making that project come to fruition says something about him as a political figure that's well worth pointing out.

Yeah this is an issue I have as well. He can make his argument about social license, but he chose to do so by highlighting something like this? http://www.library.ubc.ca/chineseinbc/railways.html

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The rhetoric and vitriol thrown towards Notley and other female cabinet ministers around the province is frightening. The allegations are serious enough that many are being investigated by the RCMP.


That you don't seem concerned or think this sort of thing is all 'just the way things are' speaks unkindly to your character in my opinion.

Also, the hollowest of hollow remarks, "They did it too."

Haha well I guess I'm not a man of character. Give me a break.

The fact that you can't distinguish between what I posted and actual threats of violence (which are 100% unacceptable, obviously) speaks unkindly to your intelligence.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Parallex

IMO yes it is. Calling someone a Nazi is pretty explicitly a political statement/insult while calling someone a b*tch explicitly a personal one. I consider a personal insult hurled at at a politician to be worse then a political insult hurled at same.

Leaving that aside "Nazi" (or "commie" or "fascist" or whatever politically motivated slur you prefer) is a more equal opportunity insult (I've seen female political figures referred to such).

Men can be called a b*tch too. The same derogatory connotation applies.

Still doesn't change the fact that who determines what defines an attack or a threat is subjective, you say it in your own post that calling a female a b*tch is worse than calling someone a Nazi in your opinion.

This is all fine an dandy and I'm sure there that there will be plenty of support on either side of that opinion, but when it comes to making statements such as 'female politicians are subject to more violent threats than their male counter parts' we all have to be aware of the context behind the statement as whoever defines a problem with a subjective definition as part of it is introducing bias into the conclusion of the question.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Men can be called a b*tch too. The same derogatory connotation applies.

What? That's ludicrous. That's like saying calling a heterosexual man a fag is the same as calling a homosexual man the same. The only thing that's the same about it is how poor the moral character of the person saying it is.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Parallex

What? That's ludicrous. That's like saying calling a heterosexual man a fag is the same as calling a homosexual man the same. The only thing that's the same about it is how poor the moral character of the person saying it is.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I think it is. Requiring "social license" (aside: I hate that term) is part of what can help prevent moral atrocities such as that from occurring (of course what constitutes moral atrocities changes from era to era). That Kenney chose to ignore the moral hazards that occurred in making that project come to fruition says something about him as a political figure that's well worth pointing out.

Nonsense. Things have progressed. We have something called a Charter. Never mind the rule of law.

Social license is so amorphous and vague that it does nothing to address real environmental or labour related problems.

The fact is, moral hazards or not, the railway was built, and allowed for the Chinese Canadian community to thrive and prosper in ways that it would never had otherwise.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No, I did not. That's highly inappropriate and should be denounced by all sound minded people of good conscience.

Just like name-calling of Notley. Can we move on?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by peter12

Just like name-calling of Notley. Can we move on?

Sure... once the denouncement has run it's course (which it eventually will, I'm betting by this time tommorow).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Locke

"We're better than that now so we're going to undercut ourselves and our beliefs and instead support people who arent!"

If people want to condemn the use of 'borderline slavery' to build the railroads 100 years ago thats fine, then why are they making the same mistake in regards to Oil right now?

These self-righteous people clearly have not been paying attention because it seems evident they havent learned anything.

A pretty hefty proportion of Canadians are detached from real economic considerations. They neither understand, nor are particularly interested in, how wealth is generated. Their only interest in public policy is to pass moral judgements, and to denounce any activity that runs contrary to their beliefs. It goes without saying they also enjoy broadcasting their own virtue.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not there, no. But the question you were asked was why the Saudis have 'social license' to sell their oil in Canada.

They shouldn't and that's the bottom line, its incredibly hypocritical for Ontario and Quebec to bleat about stopping pipelines when they're bringing in oil from nations with far worse environmental and human rights and democratic records then this country.

Its why I don't take them seriously, what they're waiting for, that whole social license issuance is based around how much money we're going to pay them to let it through.

to me any environmental group that wants into these NEB hearings should have to show where they are getting their funding from and how much. If you receive any dollars from Tides or Rockerfeller, then you're banned from the proceedings.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

to me any environmental group that wants into these NEB hearings should have to show where they are getting their funding from and how much. If you receive any dollars from Tides or Rockerfeller, then you're banned from the proceedings.

Better yet, lead them to the special VIP side door with the trap door that plunges them into the moat.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Perhaps it might be wise to learn from mistakes of the recent Keystone pipeline fiasco. Seems like the proven Alberta negotiation technique of "make them an offer then expropriate if they blink.." didn't go over very well in regions.

the lesson I glean from this?

Just because you can expropriate Alberta surface rights to build oil facilities... doesn't mean the same technique will go over well in places like Nebraska or eastern Canada where freehold rights are very common and property rights are very dear to the heart of the residents.


http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-...-pipeline-war/

Land in Alberta is supposed to be negotiated amongst landowner and company based on area average prices. If a company doesn't provide adequate compensation or a landowner demands ludicrous sums of money that don't appear to be market, then the Surface Rights Board can and will enforce what fair compensation should look like. Similarly, they also can provide a Right of Entry order, which for some reason you're citing as expropriation- but it isn't. What the ROE is, however, is allowing access so that a company can win take and remove the resource that is beneath the landowners land in order for the public's benefit (or so the theory goes).

So, really, the view is that one landowner can't stomp their feet and prevent the production and sale of a product that is needed for the benefit of all of society. It is not expropriation, rather the forcing of a lease of land (ie. landowner still retains ownership). There are also rules of engagement applied for the company to abide by.

Pipelines that cross provinces are the jurisdiction of the federal government. The NEB is the regulatory body tasked with accommodating an open and fair process for all opinions and viewpoints, and then they're job is to make a recommendation to the ministers. The problem and what has sparked some of these protests is the fact that the NEB had key members meeting with Transcanada and creating a massive conflict of interest, which has totally crippled the NEB's good standing in Quebec and areas where this pipeline is a huge political hot potato. The NEB tried to reset the process the PC's had started under Trudeau angling as some kind of 'more open' forum for opinions, dialogue, etc. to generate social licence but at the end of the day, they've shot themselves in the foot by having a very clear conflict of interest.

So now the NEB, and this pipeline, are in big trouble.

However- all of the above said, the fact of the matter is that in times of national importance like this pipeline, a federal government must act like a federal government, even if it's inconvenient or unpopular- because it is in the best interest of the nation. Jason Kenney points out that the railroad was built under similar circumstances and he's right, but what he leaves out is the fact that that railway didn't come free and had arguably much more massive implications. The race west was about capturing land and moving people, raw materials and 'setting up shop' across a gigantic land mass and in a very hurried race against the United States to capture territory and establish borders. The Canadian government ended up doing deals with western provinces in the form of land and other payments to get all the provinces on board.

So in saying the above, why doesn't the federal government offer the provinces that are so anti-pipeline something for their grievances? Getting deals done is quid pro quo, not just forcing #### through. Why not market the holy hell out of this pipeline if you know it's the right thing to do? Maybe the Liberals and Trudeau don't think it's the right thing to do. I look at how Australia handled their gun buy-back legislation and commitments. That move was highly unpopular with Australia's right wing. Australia's prime minister was getting harassed at near-violent protests and gave speeches to explain the purpose. He wore a bullet proof vest to some of these!

If it's the best thing for Canada, Trudeau needs to establish his legacy now, unless he truly doesn't believe it.

[Slava]

^ Sounds good, but what do you give a province that already has everything?

[Shazam]

The Liberals don't want it.

They just don't want to say so. Dunno why, they don't need our votes.

Ah, but they do love our money. And even with Alberta in a recession we're still going to dole out way more transfer money than we get back.

Albertans should simply refuse to file taxes next year.