Alberta Politics Thread

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Oh good. More dismissal of the source rather than evaluating the content of the piece. I thought we just talked about this...

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Oh good. More dismissal of the source rather than evaluating the content of the piece. I thought we just talked about this...

I think most will agree that the source is a very right wing favouring media outlet, and the article attacks a left wing political party. I already gave my evaluation of the content, explained my evaluation, was given some insight from dion, which I did not dismiss. If one doesn't question the potential motives or bias of a source how can they make an honest evaluation of what you've read? Should we just blindly believe everything we see and hear regardless of who it's coming from?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Should we just blindly believe everything we see and hear regardless of who it's coming from?

No. These aren't the only options. Rather than re-type everything I'll just quote myself.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I get that fake news is a thing now, but the knee-jerk reaction to attack a source instead of the content is unbelievably annoying. Happens a lot in the Trump thread, too. Yes, if a source has a well-known bias, that's worth taking into account and scrutinizing the content that's on offer, but it doesn't actually say anything about the content itself in terms of truth value or importance. All it is, at best, is an alarm bell that says "look at this closely and make sure it's accurate before you accept it".

Too many people are purely strategic in their review of information presented. "Is this bad for my side of the argument? Okay, can I attack the source? Yes? Awesome, don't have to worry about whether or not they were right."

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Should we just blindly believe everything we see and hear regardless of who it's coming from?

If it's from Pravda.. I mean the Alberta NDP we should.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No. These aren't the only options. Rather than re-type everything I'll just quote myself.

So...we agree? I'm sorry I'm not understanding what point you are trying to make here. I took a shot at the Calgary sun because I find them to be a garbage news paper, I disagreed somewhat about how things were represented in their article based on my recollectiom of the events a few years ago. Dion posted another article which backed up what the sun article was saying and I acknowledged that. In your view does that mean I have to like the Calgary sun now? Or consider them unbiased?

[calgarygeologist]

Yesterday the First Ministers voted on the new Federal climate change framework of which the national carbon tax was a big deal. Out government broke ties with our western neighbors and supports the federal plan while BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are not on board. Notley is alienating us from our friends.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Yesterday the First Ministers voted on the new Federal climate change framework of which the national carbon tax was a big deal. Out government broke ties with our western neighbors and supports the federal plan while BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are not on board. Notley is alienating us from our friends.

I agree she should of voted against it in the best interest of Alberta, but she shouldn't vote either way because of what SK or BC do. This is a misguided reason to be frustrated when you could be frustrated that her vote for this could hurt AB.

Also, BC's Clark is hardly a friend of AB.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So...we agree? I'm sorry I'm not understanding what point you are trying to make here. I took a shot at the Calgary sun because I find them to be a garbage news paper, I disagreed somewhat about how things were represented in their article based on my recollectiom of the events a few years ago. Dion posted another article which backed up what the sun article was saying and I acknowledged that. In your view does that mean I have to like the Calgary sun now? Or consider them unbiased?

It means you should read things based on the content of their words not the color of their paper.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It means you should read things based on the content of their words not the color of their paper.

Which I did

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I imagine its a similar feeling if you're a pipeline supporter and you live in Vancouver. Probably don't want to bring it up in most public places.

Live in Vancouver, can confirm.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by SebC

Live in Vancouver, can confirm.

That explains your absence at the Draft!

[Dion]

What goes on during question period at the Alberta Legislature? They just insult one another with their non answers,,,

In question period, Wildrose finance critic Derek Fildebrandt said the Notley government’s spending on the climate ads — as well as on campaigns promoting its budgets, farm safety legislation and power industry legal action — means it has allocated more dollars to politically-tinged advertising than the former PC government of Alison Redford, who was forced to resign as premier in 2014.

He said that Notley and NDP house leader Brian Mason, while in opposition, had castigated Redford for campaigning on the public’s dime.

“The new boss? Just like the old boss — actually, nearly three times worse than the old boss,” said Fildebrandt, who pegged the NDP’s spending as $10.5 million since spring of 2015 compared to $4 million between 2011 and 2014 for Redford’s government.

“Albertans were disgusted by this waste of money when Redford did it and they’re disgusted now.”

In response, Notley took aim at the former federal Conservative government — where Wildrose Leader Brian Jean served as an MP between 2006 and 2014 — for spending $750 million on advertising over a decade in office.

“It’s jaw-dropping how much money the member opposite’s government spent on political advertising,” she said.

“I assume that their real concern is we’re not spending enough.”

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/12/12...ed-by-wildrose

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

What goes on during question period at the Alberta Legislature? They just insult one another with their non answers,,,

That seems to be the only thing every party can agree to do together.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by Dion

What goes on during question period at the Alberta Legislature? They just insult one another with their non answers,,,



http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/12/12...ed-by-wildrose

Funny thing about this is, I watch TV, listen to the radio (a lot), skim through both Calgary newspapers regularly, surf the net and I have not seen any of these ads.

Let's face it. The Alberta NDP is done in 2019 even if we don't unite the right. Whoever the opposition is will be the next government. Lets put the heat on these opposition parties who currently oppose the NDP ads to also oppose publicly funded ads when they form the next government.

[Dion]

PC MLA accused of trying to score political points with Serenity law....

Progressive Conservative MLA for Calgary-West Mike Ellis called his bill Serenity's Law.

Private member's bills make it into the assembly once a week, on a rotation according to party. Ellis' turn is more than a year away, so on Monday during question period, he called on the government to ask for unanimous consent to stay one more day in the house and pass legislation that can "start saving children’s lives immediately."

"I cannot go home for Christmas knowing that more Serenitys are out there being victimized while we wait for a panel to start its work," he said.

Notley said the rules of democracy can't be thrown out of the window to ram a bill through the house in a single day at short notice, particularly when Ellis' party had 44 years to overhaul the broken child intervention system.

Ellis said Monday afternoon that it was insulting to hear his bill, which he called a "common-sense amendment", cast as political point scoring.

It proposed a simple amendment to Alberta's Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, which already requires adults to inform "a director" if a child is in danger. The fine stands at $2,000.

Ellis' bill would have made it law to inform police and increase the maximum fine for not doing so to $10,000. This, he said, would avoid cases where adults know a child in care needs help, but do nothing.

"As an adult, I think we're not only morally obligated to help — I think there's a legal obligation," he said. "This would have been a minor change (with) a strong impact."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/12/12...-ice---for-now

[Resolute 14]

Notley said the rules of democracy can't be thrown out of the window to ram a bill through the house in a single day at short notice,

Makes sense...

particularly when Ellis' party had 44 years to overhaul the broken child intervention system.

lol. Her usual deflection blame game. I'm not sure what message Notley is trying to send here. Perhaps "You didn't protect children so I'm not going to either"?

[Ozy_Flame]

Why does it take the Serenity incident to foment change on this law?

[Resolute 14]

Because most politicians are both reactionary and self-serving.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Why does it take the Serenity incident to foment change on this law?

Why is trying to change a law that helps kids something that needs to be politicized?

I'm getting sick and tired of the predictable and non-stop deflection to the previous regime.

The NDP have been in power for two years doing nothing but throwing up pick sixes. It is well past time for them to govern on their own merits and stop blaming the previous regime.

[CaptainCrunch]

If you look up arrogant in the dictionary you'll see a picture of Auntie Rachel, which is confusing because if you look up incompetent there's her picture again.

How can that be . . . however its funny because if you look up Peter Principle you'll see a picture of Ceci and if you look up bullet shield you'll see Sarah Hoffman.