Alberta's $8,000,000,000.00 Deficit

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireFly

http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/pdf/W...cy_Summary.pdf

I think that the part they're all concerned with is where it says under social policies: "Recognize that all Albertans have equal rights, privledges and responsibilities."

It can't possibly be where it says... well wait. That's about it.

Actually, at our AGM a motion was passed to say this:

“That it be the practice of the Wildrose Alliance executive, when asked, to refer to the party as “fiscally conservative and socially moderate.” If asked, “socially moderate” means we are “socially responsible.” If asked, “socially responsible” means we believe that “in matters of widespread concern, the public should be able to determine the public interest, through initiative or referendum.”

Which means that we have nothing to say on the matter. It's up to the people. How horrendous of us!

The very fact that they have to instruct the executive to refer to the part as socially moderate is answer enough for me.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Then why did Harper himself vote in favour of the motion?

In order to appease those that would remove him from the PM's office, and only because he knew it would fail anyway so no harm, no foul?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Slava

The very fact that they have to instruct the executive to refer to the part as socially moderate is answer enough for me.

Lol. So because we've been labelled and are forced to defend ourselves, that means we must be what the labels call us, right?

[Pastiche]

At least these fringe radical right-wing groups have had the common sense to drop 'Heritage' from their name. That was a dead giveaway right there.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

It is certinaly possible except when you say things like:

"Besides, the whole distinction between “libertarian” and “social conservative” is ultimately bogus."

"Second, Danielle understands every bit as well as her competitors that “libertarians” and “social conservatives” have more in common than they have in difference..."

"Once we get past the labels, conservatives of all shades and persuasions confront a single political enemy: “progressivism"..."

Admittedly this last quote is simply mind boggling, which is why I threw it in here. Is he trying to say that progress is a bad thing? Clearly the last kind of government I want is one that is afraid of progress. I'm amazed his version of that article is electronic!

LOL. Man I wish the Conservatives did not sell that word to the Left for a dollar back in the early 2000s when the parties merged. It's not like the word "Progressivism" really stands for anything resembling 'progress'. It's just a junk term lopped on to policies and beliefs of the left to make their idea's seem more enlightened.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I work here actually. And I'm a socialist at heart, but understanding human nature, I know socialism would never work...

So in answer to your question, sort of.

Welcome to the dark side my friend!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Lol. So because we've been labelled and are forced to defend ourselves, that means we must be what the labels call us, right?

It just comes across as being hilarious to me. I actually had no idea that any political party would have to tell their executive as how to refer to themselves. Why does this have to be mandated though...wouldn't the party members just naturally know that they were socially moderate?

I'm also still wondering where Byfield was taken out of context? Maybe its comments like that combined with obvious social conservatives running for leadership that lead to the labelling of the party?

[Pastiche]

Nice writing there Link. I love this line:

As the state gets stronger, everything and everyone else get weaker – individuals, families, churches, local communities, businesses and markets.

It really is that simple!?! My god, I didn't need to do my Master's degree after all! Where do I sign up to vote for Danielle???

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

LOL. Man I wish the Conservatives did not sell that word to the Left for a dollar back in the early 2000s when the parties merged. It's not like the word "Progressivism" really stands for anything resembling 'progress'. It's just a junk term lopped on to policies and beliefs of the left to make their idea's seem more enlightened.

It's not a junk term, it has precise philosophical foundation and meaning.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Nice writing there Link. I love this line:



It really is that simple!?! My god, I didn't need to do my Master's degree after all! Where do I sign up to vote for Danielle???

The Church gets weaker?

YES!!!!!!!!!!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's not a junk term, it has precise philosophical foundation and meaning.

Without a doubt at one time it certainly did. But when Joe Ceci and politicians of his ilk start throwing it around to describe hairbrained ideas like Backyard Chickens, it downgraded it's meaning from meaningful to empty left wing buzzword.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Slava

It just comes across as being hilarious to me. I actually had no idea that any political party would have to tell their executive as how to refer to themselves. Why does this have to be mandated though...wouldn't the party members just naturally know that they were socially moderate?

I'm also still wondering where Byfield was taken out of context? Maybe its comments like that combined with obvious social conservatives running for leadership that lead to the labelling of the party?

Here's the deal with grass roots politics... Any member can put anything forward as a motion, and then it can get seconded and passed. Yeah, we knew we were socially moderate, however we get asked a lot. So, a motion was brought forward to make it VERY CLEAR how we're supposed to tell people what our version of socially moderate really means.

You found it 'hilarious' why? Because a lot of people label our party and we're forced to defend it? Or because it got brought up in our AGM? It's a real issue for our party... as evidenced by your lack of belief that we really are socially moderate. Of course it's going to be brought up.

I don't think I can help you with the Link Byfield thing. You're right, there are social conservatives running for the leadership of our party. The person Link is supporting is not one of them. When you put it in that context, it might make more sense. And he's as 'socially conservative' as they come.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Nice writing there Link. I love this line:



It really is that simple!?! My god, I didn't need to do my Master's degree after all! Where do I sign up to vote for Danielle???

I was going to pull off his lines about the churches being allowed to regulate marriages and Sherlock Holmes (maybe Firefly can let him know that he's a fictional character?) injecting cocaine, but I hate the labelling that might ensue.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Slava

I was going to pull off his lines about the churches being allowed to regulate marriages and Sherlock Holmes (maybe Firefly can let him know that he's a fictional character?) injecting cocaine, but I hate the labelling that might ensue.

Lol. I can just see it. He's saying it's not the government's job to regulate your private life and you're going to twist it to mean... what exactly?

[TurnedTheCorner]

So I admittedly haven't read this thread other than the subject line, but a question has occurred to me. I apologize if this has already been raised...

Where does the Heritage Fund play into this?

It seems to me that the Heritage Fund has often been sold to the public as a "rainy day" fund, something that could be used in hard times or lean times. I expect, or at least hope, that the real purpose of the fund is to keep royalty money invested for the long term so that there is a lasting benefit of the resources in the province after they are extracted and gone. They are a finite resource after all.

But if the fund is truly a "rainy day" fund - when is it going to get rainier? A global economic meltdown with credit drying up seems to be about as bad as it's going to get. Economists have been comparing this recession to the Great Depression. I don't know if this is overblown in the media of if it's accurately portraying the dire straits of the economic situation.

But if things are that bad, and the government is heading towards and $8B deficit, and the Heritage Fund was put aside for conditions like this - why isn't it being used?

School me CP.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Lol. I can just see it. He's saying it's not the government's job to regulate your private life and you're going to twist it to mean... what exactly?

See this is a simple answer to why you guys were labelled as being religious and socially conservative, but you just don't want to acknowledge it. I'm not trying to change your mind or anything, in fact I'm taking this from the article that you thought would help clear things up for me.

Byfield thinks that the church should have a say in who is allowed to get married and run that institution, and you really have no idea why your party (with him on the board and a major mouthpiece for you) would be construed as religious?

You have 2/3 people running for leadership who are noted social conservatives and one other person, who "have more in common than they have in difference" and can't see why you've been painted as socially conservative?

[LChoy]

Positive Outlook to our Economic outlook
Yay Alberta?

Gary Lamphier: Alberta's financial troubles would be the envy of other provinces

while it may come as a cold shower for taxpayers, Alberta's latest projected budget deficit for 2009-10 -- up $2.2 billion from the previous forecast -- isn't quite as horrific as it sounds. That's because Alberta--unlike most other provinces, states and countries, for that matter--will remain debt-free and cash rich, even after this year's fiscal carnage is over.

Alberta will have to raid its own piggy bank to balance its budget this year. Yep, that's bad. But it's not nearly as bad as having no piggy bank of your own to raid, as is the case almost everywhere else on planet Earth, except for Norway and a few other resource-rich kingdoms.

"You're not only debt-free, but you have significant positive financial assets," says Mary Webb, a senior economist at Scotia Capital in Toronto.
"Whereas most jurisdictions around the world have debt that's accumulated over the years, Alberta does not. So Alberta is certainly in a unique position, not only with respect to the other provinces, but to most jurisdictions around the world."

Economists are also more bullish on Alberta's ability to rebound from the current downturn than provinces like Ontario, where the manufacturing sector will likely never return to its glory days.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...363/story.html

[Slava]

^That post is so far off topic here!

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So, a motion was brought forward to make it VERY CLEAR how we're supposed to tell people what our version of socially moderate really means.

If that was the party's intent, I would have to say its a failure. That statement is far from clear. IMO, it reads like the party is ducking the issue more than anything.

A timely Maclean's article:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/27/a...99s-wild-card/

[Azure]

Still not seeing any religious doctrine that is supposedly ingrained in the WRA party platform.