April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Jacks]

One interesting thing before letting this die a much needed death. The news shows a video camera on the front of the house. I assume it's like most cameras and isn't actually recording anything. If there is a recording that would answer all the questions.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can't even believe you're trying to defend this or look for scenarios that somehow justify it. I get that he's a PC and you've left the fold, but its reprehensible no matter what party. I would feel the same way if it was a WRA candidate or an Evergreen. The part about him going to houses with opposition signs doesn't mean he's looking for a fight either; lots of husbands and wives vote differently.

I see. So considering any scenario other than "Lukaszuk was a purely innocent victim" automatically constitutes "defending" or "justifying" ... what, exactly? C'mon Slava, you are far to smart to fall back on false dichotomies. I get that he's not Wildrose, and your entire purpose here is to disparage that party, but considering Lukaszuk's possible role in escalating things is fair game. The guy just seems to have a knack for pissing people off.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I see. So considering any scenario other than "Lukaszuk was a purely innocent victim" automatically constitutes "defending" or "justifying" ... what, exactly? C'mon Slava, you are far to smart to fall back on false dichotomies. I get that he's not Wildrose, and your entire purpose here is to disparage that party, but considering Lukaszuk possible role in escalating things is fair game. The guy just seems to have a knack for pissing people off.

So its disparaging Wildrose by saying Lukaszuk was likely innocent how exactly? Frankly, a politician might "piss people off" but thats really irrelevant. I would say the door-to-door Calgary Herald sellers qualify for me personally as pissing me off, but I can't imagine a scenario where I would end up in a physical altercation.

I always knew you were bitterly partisan, but I figured in a case like this you could at least not bring the "has a knack for pissing people off" kind of thing up, as though its relevant. I suppose he wouldn't have dressed that way if he didn't want to fight?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I suppose he wouldn't have dressed that way if he didn't want to fight?

Now you're comparing him to a rape victim, good grief.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Saying that Lukaschuk is probably not at fault here (or at least, that his story is on its face more plausible) does not amount to a political statement.

"Al" does not represent the WRA; he's just a guy who took a lawn sign. He is also, possibly, a wacko. This doesn't mean anything, and anyone who bases their voting preference on that in any manner isn't thinking critically.

The same reasoning applies to the E.A. in the Premier's constituency office, incidentally.

However, I would note in that case that WRA members who were on Twitter took care to re-tweet her comments incessantly, just to make sure that somebody noticed--so that the party could exploit the dumb comments of a dumb individual in order to make political hay. If they hadn't done that, we likely would never even have heard about it, and it would have remained a non-isse.

As Slava pointed out, there's an election on. Parties are going to invite voters to make dumb inferences if they think they can benefit from it. And they're free to try; it's up to us not to make those inferences. If the Tories are trying to make political hay out of "Al" being a wacko, then my response is the same: You (the PCs) are asking me to make a dumb inference. I'm not dumb, so I'm not doing it. Let's get back to the issues, please.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I always knew you were bitterly partisan, but I figured in a case like this you could at least not bring the "has a knack for pissing people off" kind of thing up, as though its relevant. I suppose he wouldn't have dressed that way if he didn't want to fight?

In addition to the rape analogy Jacks notes, you are now throwing epithets at me that fit you just as well, Slava. The difference between you and I is that while we are both partisan, only I am willing to admit it.

And it is interesting that you don't think the victim's behavior (or patterns of) are relevant to the causes of an alleged assault. Like I said, I suspect the truth of the matter lies closer to Lukaszuk's version of events than the home owners. But you'll have to excuse me if I don't find his own story completely believable either. I can't think of the last time I ever heard of an unprovoked assault on a political candidate door knocking, and that is knowing full well just how many complete lunatics exist in this world.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Slava

So its disparaging Wildrose by saying Lukaszuk was likely innocent how exactly? Frankly, a politician might "piss people off" but thats really irrelevant. I would say the door-to-door Calgary Herald sellers qualify for me personally as pissing me off, but I can't imagine a scenario where I would end up in a physical altercation.

I always knew you were bitterly partisan, but I figured in a case like this you could at least not bring the "has a knack for pissing people off" kind of thing up, as though its relevant. I suppose he wouldn't have dressed that way if he didn't want to fight?

Geez, your posts about this incident are baffling.

a) There's two accounts of the events; Lukaszuk's, and the Homeowner's. You've deemed Lukaszuk's account to be reality because you can't imagine a scenario where you end up in a physical altercation, doing the same door knocking exercise, and therefore everyone else who tries to think of how this may have gone down is usuing basless speculation, while you are using............correct speculation?

Also, you brush off Lukaszuk's "knack for pissing people off" as irrelevant. Really? So were talking about a case where he alledgedly pissed someone off, and the fact that Resolute is bringing up past instances of pissing people off is irrelevant? C'mon.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flameswin

...and the fact that Resolute is bringing up past instances of pissing people off is irrelevant? C'mon.

In fairness, that is speculation on my part based on the articles noting he's had three police-involved incidents in the past year, his behaviour on a conference call to Airdrie parents related to schools and that he was allegedly told by this same home owner not to come back to his property in 2008. Treat that as an opinion argument only at this point.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In fairness, that is speculation on my part based on the articles noting he's had three police-involved incidents in the past year, his behaviour on a conference call to Airdrie parents related to schools and that he was allegedly told by this same home owner not to come back to his property in 2008. Treat that as an opinion argument only at this point.

Yep, I was definitly treating as specualtion on your part, my beef is that he brushed it off as irrelvant to the conversation, which is ridicilous.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Yep, I was definitly treating as specualtion on your part, my beef is that he brushed it off as irrelvant to the conversation, which is ridicilous.

I suppose it's relevant in a "public opinion" sense, but it is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether Lukaschuk was assaulted.

Both parties clearly agree that he was. All of the stuff about him being a jerk (and for all I know he is; I literally heard of him for the first time in the context of these events) is, in a legal sense, not relevant.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Oh look, another non-issue is being run in to the ground.

[4X4]

I've made a judgement purely by looking at the picture of TL holding his own face. Here's how it happened:

TL knocks on a door with WR signs on it.
Al (a cranky old hothead) answers the door to find a grinning politician on his step, from a party he gave up on long ago.
Al tells TL to "GET THE FUDGE OFF MY PROPERTY BEFORE I PHYSICALLY REMOVE YOU, YOU DIRTY OLD PC SUMBITCH"
TL seizes the opportunity to be a dbag and smugly asks "What's ur problem, bro?"
Al double trips and starts verbally threatening TL
TL continues to be a dbag and stand on the doorstep of a guy that wants the PCs to die a fiery death, and prod him with dumb questions like "Why you so angry, homes?"
Al, who was already in a bad mood because he's just a cantankerous old f***, finally flips out and starts shoving TL, while TL giggles because he knows that the only person that's going to get in trouble over this is Al, and TL also has his entourage with him, so he knows he's not going to get beat up or anything.



That's what happened, alright? They're both failed at being nice that day.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Oh look, another non-issue is being run in to the ground.

Well, when you have an election where voters' only legitimate options are "conservatives with blue lawn signs" or "conservatives with green lawn signs" we have to find SOMETHING to talk about.

MLA gets beaten up by senior citizen seems as good a topic as any.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Now you're comparing him to a rape victim, good grief.

No, I'm comparing the way he's defending the homeowner to that line of thinking. Its a huge difference.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In addition to the rape analogy Jacks notes, you are now throwing epithets at me that fit you just as well, Slava. The difference between you and I is that while we are both partisan, only I am willing to admit it.

And it is interesting that you don't think the victim's behavior (or patterns of) are relevant to the causes of an alleged assault. Like I said, I suspect the truth of the matter lies closer to Lukaszuk's version of events than the home owners. But you'll have to excuse me if I don't find his own story completely believable either. I can't think of the last time I ever heard of an unprovoked assault on a political candidate door knocking, and that is knowing full well just how many complete lunatics exist in this world.

Who am I partisan for? I still don't even know who I am voting for, so I think that defeats that question. If you want to suggest that I'm anti-Wildrose thats fine; this issue doesn't even concern them though.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, I'm comparing the way he's defending the homeowner to that line of thinking. Its a huge difference.

Horrible comparison.

[Codes]

I think we all knew this already, but a report from the Parkland Institute has concluded that Albertans are being "short changed", if you will, on royalties from the tar sands. We have received less than 20% of the wealth generated from the oil sands, and since 1997, closer to 9%. If the target of 35% mandated in 1970 was met, Alberta would have made an additional $195 billion between 1971 and 2010.

I understand why the government cut royalties, to attract and spur production, but now that the tar sands are a major source of oil, do you think it is time to modify the royalty regime to generate more revenue for the province?

I am not an expert on this subject, but I know many of you work in O&G, and would like your take on this subject. Neither the WRA nor the PC have made royalty reform an issue, but it appears the Liberals and NDP would be in favour of increasing royalties to generate additional revenue.



http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/05/Lo...ampaign=050412

[kn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, when you have an election where voters' only legitimate options are "conservatives with blue lawn signs" or "conservatives with green lawn signs" we have to find SOMETHING to talk about.

There is a legitimate choice since the "conservatives with blue lawn signs" aren't really conservatives.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by kn

There is a legitimate choice since the "conservatives with blue lawn signs" aren't really conservatives.

If you say so.

Looks to me like both parties are made up of the same motley crew that we've had for the past few decades. Only on one side, they're slightly less experienced, and on average a little bit dumber--so there's slightly more potential for fun screwups when they take office!

Voting for "change" is fun!

[Resolute 14]

Fun on the news today... cranky old man actually has a security camera of his own. Things we already knew that were confirmed: Lukaszuk wasn't there more than two minutes, and that cranky old man wasn't all that polite from the start. Unfortunately, the alleged assault was off-camera. Things that were interesting: Other people in his riding weren't impressed with his attitude when they met him either.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Codes

I think we all knew this already, but a report from the Parkland Institute has concluded that Albertans are being "short changed", if you will, on royalties from the tar sands. We have received less than 20% of the wealth generated from the oil sands, and since 1997, closer to 9%. If the target of 35% mandated in 1970 was met, Alberta would have made an additional $195 billion between 1971 and 2010.

I understand why the government cut royalties, to attract and spur production, but now that the tar sands are a major source of oil, do you think it is time to modify the royalty regime to generate more revenue for the province?

I am not an expert on this subject, but I know many of you work in O&G, and would like your take on this subject. Neither the WRA nor the PC have made royalty reform an issue, but it appears the Liberals and NDP would be in favour of increasing royalties to generate additional revenue.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/05/Lo...ampaign=050412

I don't think you'll see anything from the PCs about Royalties and I can guarantee you won't hear a peep from the WildRose. It's the reason the WildRose pretty much came to existence.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/techn...113/story.html

Also it's the black mark the really tanked Stelmach's tenure as Premier, so I don't think it's anything either of the parties wants to open again.