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

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Slava

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?

Link also points out that provincial governments have no say over who gets married by whom.

I can see why we're painted that way... the question is; what difference does it make? The large majority of social policy cannot be directed at the provincial level. Regardless, party policy does not reflect people's personal beliefs. As a grassroots organization, party policy is directed by the members, not the executive or leader. In fact, the party policy, as voted on by it's members, is indeed socially moderate and perhaps more democratic than the social policies of other parties.

Regardless of why we're painted that way, it's a false assumption.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FireFly

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!

So what you're saying is that the WRA is socially moderate, where socially moderate is defined such as not to protect minority rights from tyranny of the majority. Saying "let the people decide" is only socially moderate if the people are socially moderate. I'd say in Alberta, that's probably not the case. This kind of thinking leads to crap like Proposition H8, and that was California, home of Hollywood and San Francisco. Garbage in, garbage out.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

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/

I'm not sure what you're saying here? Party policy is very clear regardless of the stance of our leaders.

I think I'm unclear here... Are we being bashed because we have a socially liberal leadership candidate?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by SebC

So what you're saying is that the WRA is socially moderate, where socially moderate is defined such as not to protect minority rights from tyranny of the majority. Saying "let the people decide" is only socially moderate if the people are socially moderate. I'd say in Alberta, that's probably not the case. This kind of thinking leads to crap like Proposition H8, and that was California, home of Hollywood and San Francisco. Garbage in, garbage out.

What specific issues are you concerned about that are dealt with provincially that our particular 'policy' would be an issue for you?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FireFly

What specific issues are you concerned about that are dealt with provincially that our particular 'policy' would be an issue for you?

Well if your 'policy' is to not have a policy, then there aren't an specific issues in your policy. However, there are lots of issues that are provincial jurisdiction that are social issues. E.g. Bill 202, 44 etc. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of WRA policy, I'm just taking what you're saying and pointing out the holes.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm not sure what you're saying here? Party policy is very clear regardless of the stance of our leaders.

I think I'm unclear here... Are we being bashed because we have a socially liberal leadership candidate?

For me, I am waiting to see what the actions are. It matters very little to me what is written as policy on paper. I have no doubt the leader may believe those things, but when push comes to shove, are you going to nominate those like minded folks in the different electoral districts in rural Alberta where that view isnt the most popular in the face of a centralist Supreme Court which continually is seen as infringing beyond its boundries; where you will have to win votes first to gain facetime before you have a shot in Edmonton/Calgary.

Where I grew up the PC candidate got 86% of the vote last election. That is who you are fighting, those are the districts that are most vulnerable that the PC have a hard time defending when they also have to win in the cities especially if a real alternative exists. You also dont have to worry about vote splitting there because the NDP candidate is the classic never win David Suzuki type, and the Liberal candidate is a lawyer hoping next time to win the nomination to run federally.

What worry's us, isnt your official paper stance, its what is this "stelmach farmer type" mla going to say on camera when he has to answer questions from reporters that dont work for the Medicine Hat gazette or whatever two bit paper exists in that district. That is where the Reform had problems, they elected candidates to win locally, not those that would tow the line federally.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by SebC

Well if your 'policy' is to not have a policy, then there aren't an specific issues in your policy. However, there are lots of issues that are provincial jurisdiction that are social issues. E.g. Bill 202, 44 etc. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of WRA policy, I'm just taking what you're saying and pointing out the holes.

Our policy it to not dictate to people what they can or cannot do in their own homes. If the people themselves decide that things need to be dictated, they can do it to themselves.

As for Bill 44 which is Human Rights if I'm not mistaken, each of the leaders has spoken about it. I would check out what they have to say, or go to the forums, (there are 5 scheduled around the province in September) and listen to them speak.


My point in all of this is to say that if you don't like the direction the Conservatives have taken us, and you like the Wildrose Alliance Party's fiscal policy, why not get a membership to HELP us in deciding our future? Instead of waiting to see who we elect, have your voice heard too. If you don't like the leader we pick, you can't complain when you end up with another 5 years of Conservative dictatorship. Help us pick someone that can unseat Ed.

I get a lot of phone calls saying that people want an alternative but would NEVER vote Liberal or NDP. In fact that's a fairly predominant viewpoint in this province. We're trying to create an alternative people will vote for. Why not help?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

For me, I am waiting to see what the actions are. It matters very little to me what is written as policy on paper. I have no doubt the leader may believe those things, but when push comes to shove, are you going to nominate those like minded folks in the different electoral districts in rural Alberta where that view isnt the most popular in the face of a centralist Supreme Court which continually is seen as infringing beyond its boundries; where you will have to win votes first to gain facetime before you have a shot in Edmonton/Calgary.

Where I grew up the PC candidate got 86% of the vote last election. That is who you are fighting, those are the districts that are most vulnerable that the PC have a hard time defending when they also have to win in the cities especially if a real alternative exists. You also dont have to worry about vote splitting there because the NDP candidate is the classic never win David Suzuki type, and the Liberal candidate is a lawyer hoping next time to win the nomination to run federally.

What worry's us, isnt your official paper stance, its what is this "stelmach farmer type" mla going to say on camera when he has to answer questions from reporters that dont work for the Medicine Hat gazette or whatever two bit paper exists in that district. That is where the Reform had problems, they elected candidates to win locally, not those that would tow the line federally.

That's why it's so important for everyone to become involved.

We aren't going to change our fiscal policy. We can help put forth moderate candidates though, provided moderate candidates join and are nominated by their constituency.... We can't do that if moderates don't join.

Maybe moderate isn't the best word? Electable? Likable? You know what I mean though.

In order to get elected, we need a leader who is viable. And then we need viable candidates.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FireFly

My point in all of this is to say that if you don't like the direction the Conservatives have taken us, and you like the Wildrose Alliance Party's fiscal policy, why not get a membership to HELP us in deciding our future? Instead of waiting to see who we elect, have your voice heard too. If you don't like the leader we pick, you can't complain when you end up with another 5 years of Conservative dictatorship. Help us pick someone that can unseat Ed.

I get a lot of phone calls saying that people want an alternative but would NEVER vote Liberal or NDP. In fact that's a fairly predominant viewpoint in this province. We're trying to create an alternative people will vote for. Why not help?

Honestly? Apathy. I don't think it's a good investment of my time. With all the hype about Ed losing votes and potential for change in the last election, the PCs went up! I'm not nearly idealistic enough to deal with that.

If there's ever a strong STV (Single Transferrable Vote) movement in Alberta, I'd probably get involved with that, but I'm not the type to start it. I think that would make a much bigger difference in the Alberta political scene than more small parties. In fact, with first past the post, there really should only be one opposition party.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by SebC

Well if your 'policy' is to not have a policy, then there aren't an specific issues in your policy. However, there are lots of issues that are provincial jurisdiction that are social issues. E.g. Bill 202, 44 etc. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of WRA policy, I'm just taking what you're saying and pointing out the holes.

The joys of arguing on the interwebs. Not having a reasonable understanding about what's being discussed makes an easy time in pointing out the flaws.

Anyway, when a party is called something like "Wild Rose Alliance Party" or "Saskatchewan Party", I think it is reasonable to have a motion creating a statement of where the party officially stands on the political spectrum. Otherwise, others will define it for you. And yet, even though the WRA has defined that position, detractors now state that the definition must've been in place to hold horrible socially-conservative party members in line or to obfuscate the real socially-conservative, religious agenda.

Say nothing = "social-conservative, religious" label
Define as social-moderate = "social-conservative, religious" label

What do you guys want? (Oh, and since when did people subscribing to a religion of any stripe suddenly become evil incarnate and unfit for any public office.)

[SebC]

Originally Posted by zuluking

The joys of arguing on the interwebs. Not having a reasonable understanding about what's being discussed makes an easy time in pointing out the flaws.

I'm pointing out logical flaws, not factuals inaccuracies.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Say nothing = "social-conservative, religious" label
Define as social-moderate = "social-conservative, religious" label

What do you guys want?

Real social moderate policies, rather than just proclaiming your populist policies to be socially moderate. Actually, I'd rather have socially liberal policies, but that's beside the point.

[Bill Bumface]

Odd that everyone I know that has joined the WRA has also suddenly started going to church. Coincidence? The fact there is even a slight tie to organized religion scares my vote away quite quickly.

I have rather strong views on organized religion which should probably stay in my own head unless asked, but I don't want anyone leading my city, province, or nation involved in such organizations as ultimately their decisions will be influenced by that involvement.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Odd that everyone I know that has joined the WRA has also suddenly started going to church. Coincidence? The fact there is even a slight tie to organized religion scares my vote away quite quickly.

I have rather strong views on organized religion which should probably stay in my own head unless asked, but I don't want anyone leading my city, province, or nation involved in such organizations as ultimately their decisions will be influenced by that involvement.

It is odd. Perhaps you need a larger circle of friends. Eg: the gentleman with the flying spagetti monster tattoo.

A lot of my Christian friends are Conservative. Also, a lot are NDP as they feel that the rich should share more and people should be more giving.

Perhaps the issue is that those who are part of organized religion are also politically active. The horrors.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Perhaps the issue is that those who are part of organized religion are also politically active. The horrors.

Perhaps to be part of an organized religion means you are often in complete denial of science and you also don't realize that churches were created in order to maintain a happy dirt poor working class so that they could build the self appointed religious leader's fortunes and extravagant lifestyles and not get pissed off about it and revolt because they had the promise of an afterlife.

Or the fact these 'holy' institutions could use the working class for their wars and missions in an attempt to spread their power to other nations, costing countless lives.

Organized religion is still based largely off of these principles in a more humane way, and political influence is huge on the agenda of many churches.

So no surprise that religious people are politically active. It's the purpose of their institution.

I'll pass.

Clinging to the drunken tattoo some guy got of a flying spaghetti monster isn't going to win this one for you.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by fotze

You know people who go to church? I don't.

Know of

And I know you used to go to church. Until the whole altar boy thing came out...

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Perhaps to be part of an organized religion means you are often in complete denial of science and you also don't realize that churches were created in order to maintain a happy dirt poor working class so that they could build the self appointed religious leader's fortunes and extravagant lifestyles and not get pissed off about it and revolt because they had the promise of an afterlife.

Or the fact these 'holy' institutions could use the working class for their wars and missions in an attempt to spread their power to other nations, costing countless lives.

Organized religion is still based largely off of these principles in a more humane way, and political influence is huge on the agenda of many churches.

So no surprise that religious people are politically active. It's the purpose of their institution.

I'll pass.

Clinging to the drunken tattoo some guy got of a flying spaghetti monster isn't going to win this one for you.

So then you don't vote at all? Hate politics? Wish for anarchy?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So then you don't vote at all? Hate politics? Wish for anarchy?

Some parties don't have ties to religion. Amazing!

[Bill Bumface]

^ Great timing for all of these massive shale gas advancements in BC and the US. Ugh. Oddly enough though, 30% of our production is hedged at $6. Someone thinks it's going to go up...

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Some parties don't have ties to religion. Amazing!

So because some of our members are religious, that means we have 'ties' to religion?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by fotze

I had some borg guys whining about their $6 gas a few weeks ago. We get market price and pay the borg a 20% royalty, if Encana can't make money at $6 gas, no one can.

That is my hope that there are smart people hedging a bunch of gas at $6 assuming it will beat that.

Alberta's economy is obviously heavily linked to natural gas prices. Prices have dropped tremendously and therefore the government has much less revenues, not to mention the enormous decline in land sale revenues as a result of companies refusing to purchase mineral rights because of poor economics. Not to mention Crown parcels purchased this year are subject to shallow rights reversion, meaning you lose most of what you buy within 5 years anyway. Why not put your investment dollar in BC or Sask where there is a more stable (and lower) royalty regime? The initial production rates of wells in BC vs. Alberta is very large.

On the other hand, oil sands require huge amounts of heat for processing and refining the oil. This heat is generated from natural gas and oilsands producers use an enormous amount of natural gas, so I'd be interested to know how busy oilsands groups are getting the more decoupled the prices of oil and gas are becoming (the costs are reducing but product prices remain around $70/bbl). Too bad for those environmentalists, eh?

Alberta's deficit I'm sure has been the product of several issues but Im convinced natural gas prices is the largest reason, not royalties or even poor governing. The unlocking of shale gas technology as of recent by industry has been its own worst enemy- releasing TCF's of reserves and gas storages at record highs.

So having said all this... my question is why is more not being done to utilize natural gas? Let's see: 1) we have a crapload of it, 2) relatively cheap right now 3) its a relatively CLEAN energy source and 4) we know it can be used!

Honda and Toyota already make vehicles that use compressed natural gas anyway...