Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bigger fish to fry! Don't worry, we'll come back around.

Looking forward to it! Most of the other posters who used to partake won’t come out to play anymore because apparently they don’t like pointing out when someone is wrong(according to them) anymore.

[Fuzz]

Happy to be told I'm wrong, but I'm not sure it's ever happened before. It usually just takes people awhile to work out I was right.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Happy to be told I'm wrong, but I'm not sure it's ever happened before. It usually just takes people awhile to work out I was right.

Dear god. It's like PepsiFree and PepsiFree had a baby together.

[Cappy]

A legal blog called "Hearsay" just touched on the Alberta Bill of Rights amendments, which has some interesting analysis.

https://hearsaydaily.ca/p/post-title-ced6ed2677c0d821

Already talked about here is the vaccine rights; but the government is included a clause similar to Section 1 of the Charter that allows exemptions for reasonableness. Meaning, that a pandemic event will likely meet the test for reasonableness (as courts have found regarding COVID).

Checkmate Freedumbers?

Also, interesting reading on the "reaffirmation" of expropriation rights. I assume this is going in to counter land-use bylaws, but it seems to have the opposite effect?

Some landowners could potentially make the argument that the land-use bylaws regarding wind farms are a breach of property owners' rights.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Looking forward to it! Most of the other posters who used to partake won’t come out to play anymore because apparently they don’t like pointing out when someone is wrong(according to them) anymore.

Being willing to write more text then another person is different then being right.

Though I do appreciate that you stick to the original claim you make without softening it.

[calgarygeologist]

I'm glad to see NDP MLAs addressing serious concerns like wanting to add "the right of an individual not to be restricted or prohibited from installing or using a solar energy system that is attached to the individual’s property and designed to convert sunlight into electrical energy or solar thermal energy" to the Bill of Rights.

[Ozy_Flame]

Totally in response to the "celebrate CO2" crap the UCP is trying to push as future policy themselves. Eye for an eye.

[Fuzz]

Is there a link/story for that one? I'm not sure it's a stretch to be concerned about the UCP taking the rights of Albertans away, particularly when it comes to icky stuff like green energy. If their is one thing Smith enjoys, it's telling people how to live their lives while calling it freedom.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm glad to see NDP MLAs addressing serious concerns like wanting to add "the right of an individual not to be restricted or prohibited from installing or using a solar energy system that is attached to the individual’s property and designed to convert sunlight into electrical energy or solar thermal energy" to the Bill of Rights.

They also tried to have a woman's right to reproductive healthcare added to the bill of rights. The NDP put those in just specifically knowing the UCP would vote it down, and now UCP will be on record as doing so. This is just a political theatre response to a bill of rights that is political theatre.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm glad to see NDP MLAs addressing serious concerns like wanting to add "the right of an individual not to be restricted or prohibited from installing or using a solar energy system that is attached to the individual’s property and designed to convert sunlight into electrical energy or solar thermal energy" to the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, the NDP are such F ups here. Why do people vote for this crap

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a link/story for that one? I'm not sure it's a stretch to be concerned about the UCP taking the rights of Albertans away, particularly when it comes to icky stuff like green energy. If their is one thing Smith enjoys, it's telling people how to live their lives while calling it freedom.

Access to green energy is not something that should be considered and enshrined as a right. If we're going down this path it should also be a right that I have sole access to an on-street parking spot directly in front of my house.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Access to green energy is not something that should be considered and enshrined as a right. If we're going down this path it should also be a right that I have sole access to an on-street parking spot directly in front of my house.

Isn't this just property rights? Seems something the UCP would support. And no, taking private ownership of public property isn't nearly the same thing.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Isn't this just property rights? Seems something the UCP would support. And no, taking private ownership of public property isn't nearly the same thing.

The truth is it isn't about rights or freedom. It's a about red meat for suburbanites.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Access to green energy is not something that should be considered and enshrined as a right. If we're going down this path it should also be a right that I have sole access to an on-street parking spot directly in front of my house.

Those aren't very similar... I would say its closer to the right to own firearms.

Both would be rights that pertain to allowing people freedom to use personal property.

Sole access to free parking is taking away public access and making it private. Not quite the same thing.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Being willing to write more text then another person is different then being right.

Very true. With that being said, in the case of a number of the posters I was referring to their willingness to write endless wall of text posts debating other topics that are generally opinion based and often centred around fictional shows or pop culture suggests to me that they’re not avoiding debating politics because they don’t want to write a lot.

Though I do appreciate that you stick to the original claim you make without softening it.

I appreciate that you’re still willing to come out to play, even the times I think you’re completely out to lunch on an issue haha. I hope the feeling is mutual.

I also think that while it may not have seemed to be the case when we first started having our debates on here, we clearly agree on way more than we disagree on. Personally that’s why I prefer to discuss topics with people who I won’t always agree with. I believe it’s conducive to finding common ground as there’s very little chance of doing so in an echo chamber, but I guess that’s why most politicians tend to avoid doing it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Access to green energy is not something that should be considered and enshrined as a right. If we're going down this path it should also be a right that I have sole access to an on-street parking spot directly in front of my house.

Why not? One could say that its actually a bit of a libertarian thing. Why does UCP overreaching BIG gov't want to force us to be reliant on systemic utilities?

[Fuzz]

And because we are just wasting time and money on a bunch of pointless virtue signalling, it does seem to be a good time to do it. Isn't she the premier for ALL Albertans? Or do the snowflakes get upset when it's not bathed in oil?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Why not? One could say that its actually a bit of a libertarian thing. Why does UCP overreaching BIG gov't want to force us to be reliant on systemic utilities?

A bill of rights or charter protected rights should be broad. It would make some sense if they wanted to define the right to electricity but it makes little sense to protect access to solar power. Maybe they should also consider adding heat pumps so that we can protect our access to that technology. What about in ten or 20 years when technology has evolved and there is a new, better form of generation should it be appropriate to make amendments whenever something better comes along?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

A bill of rights or charter protected rights should be broad. It would make some sense if they wanted to define the right to electricity but it makes little sense to protect access to solar power. Maybe they should also consider adding heat pumps so that we can protect our access to that technology. What about in ten or 20 years when technology has evolved and there is a new, better form of generation should it be appropriate to make amendments whenever something better comes along?

Why get mad at one political stunt and not the other?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Why get mad at one political stunt and not the other?

UCP are clowns, NDP are grownups. The expectations are high for the NDP and they shouldn't be wasting time on silly things. The UCP has a low bar and should basically be applauded if they can put on pants properly in the morning.