Hydraboss
-
Posts
2,200 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hydraboss
-
-
9 hours ago, blackbird said:
It would be considered a terrorist act
No. It would be considered a Constitutional act. You want the Constitution? Here - fill your boots.
-
8 hours ago, The_Squid said:
Alberta has always had selfish ideals
By paying for equalization? THAT kind of selfish? Screw the RoC...no pipelines - no money. Go put that in your hat and smoke it.
-
8 hours ago, Wilber said:
The lower mainland already gets much of its gas from Washington State
And in the quick turn of a valve, Alberta could triple to price in Vancouver.
-
4 hours ago, The_Squid said:
It's Canada's oil.
Wrong. It's our oil. It belongs to Albertan's...not you welfare types.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
for some time into the future
Even the best guess for the earliest weening off carbon fuels puts that date sometime next century.
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
important to stop supporting new oil infrastructure
Sorry, but that's a load of bs. What do you propose should happen when the existing line needs turnaround work for section replacement and needs to shut down for a couple of months? How would you like to get your fuel feedstock delivered then? A twin line on the Trans Mountain would allow them to simply switch over to the new one instead of relying on more rail car traffic.
If BC wants to try and block the expansion, I sincerely hope Alberta just spins the valves, if not shut, down to say 50% or so. If you folks want to say you control what comes into your province, I say Alberta should use it's leverage to do the exact same thing. Control what comes into your province. And perhaps what comes OUT of your province.....as in the oil and gas produced in NE BC that enters Alberta in smaller gathering lines before being placed in the larger lines that originate in my province that facilitate the product moving back into the southern part of your province. The content and flow of pipelines like that fall under shared federal/provincial jurisdiction.
If the soon-to-be eco warrior government in BC wants to play...we can play.
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
Environmental stewardship be damned
You're completely right. I think Alberta should "up their game" and get on board with BC's green agenda. We could start by starting to close the valves on the existing Kinder Morgan lines that run to Burnaby. I mean....sure it would choke off the supply of gasoline for everyone from Kamloops to Vancouver, but hey, environmental stewardship comes with costs right?
I'm sure all those folks in the Okanagan and the whole of the Fraser Valley wouldn't mind walking to work.
-
1
-
-
The difference this time is Jean is holding all the cards instead of the PCs. I think we'll see the United party formally accept a vast majority of the WR platform since the PCs won't have a choice. Kenny's gone too far down the garden path to reverse course and think he can retain the leadership. I liked Danielle, but the truth is she "backstabbed" constituents by crossing the floor and for that she paid the price. This isn't crossing - it's merging and there IS a difference in perception (I really think most people look at this as a kind of political potluck).
You and I disagreed last election about the whole "social conservative" thing and I think we both got blown away by Notley's win. The fact is, the "godbotherers" have nowhere left to go once the merger happens so the party can pretty much quit even paying attention to them. I think the new party will turn hard right fiscally and mildly left socially. The real social conservatives are actually guys like Kenny and his ilk and I don't think there's any line in the sand between which party, the PC or WR, that they belong to. They just won't have a choice next election.
-
On 4/2/2017 at 1:24 PM, taxme said:
I believe that the Western provinces should go it alone. Western Canada has nothing in common with the east
Canada is far, far more aligned north-south with the States than it is east-west. Seattle and Vancouver are basically twins, the southern part of Ontario is barely distinguishable from the area all around the great lakes. Alberta and Sask are not that different in mindset from Montana, the Dakotas, Texas, etc. The Maritime provinces are pretty much....Maine.
And Kwebek is aligned with absolutely no one. They are "special" you know.
I could see BC standing alone, Alberta and Sask together, the eastern part of Manitoba joining Ontario minus the GTA, the GTA joining Kwebek, and the eastern provinces becoming one state. The northern territories could either stand alone, join together or join with the "states" on their southern borders. Nobody would care either way.
-
6 minutes ago, Omni said:
Then I salute your service.
That respect is mutual.
-
11 minutes ago, Omni said:
I have stood on guard for Canada actually. Have you?
3 PPCLI
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Omni said:
I suspect most of us have figured out who you are.
And I believe those of us who have been on the board a while have figured out who you are. A guy that's ready to stand On Guard For.......me.
Well, me and Canada obviously.
-
On 5/23/2017 at 11:44 PM, August1991 said:
snap election
Won't happen. If Notley tries to beat the box office by calling an election in order to hold it ahead of the merger, she knows she'll lose to the Wildrose at the moment. If she waits, she'll lose to the United Conservatives of Alberta. Either way, she's one and done and she and her party know it. I'm pretty sure she'll hold out until the very, very last second to drop the writ - if the NDP have any hope in hell of being reelected, it will be because they collect all the dirt they can on the new merged party and its members. That and she wants to introduce into law every possible "left winged" idea she can so she'll have a legacy of sorts. Notley is likely to be the last NDP premiere for decades and very possibly the last female premiere for a very long time after our string of failed female leaders in this province. First there was Redford who tainted everything she touched and left office in disgrace, then there was Smith (who I actually liked) who toasted her political career in the "deal with the devil", and now there's Notley who is a complete train wreck. Albertans have memories like elephants politically, so future NDP will pay the price for every perceived "mistake" she makes.
There will be no election until May 31, 2019.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, dialamah said:
In terms of Muslims, most believe
I'm curious how you back up "most".
2 minutes ago, dialamah said:In terms of rape, men belong to a group in which most believe they should treat women with respect
Actually, same comment as I wrote above. Sure, I believe women should be treated this way, but how do you back up "most"? Just because "most" men don't rape, does this automatically mean they don't believe in it? This is the kind of generalization that you accuse others of making albeit in favor of a positive trait.
-
29 minutes ago, dialamah said:
I should hate all men and hold them guilty because one of them violently raped a relative, many more of them rape other women, men and children. 90% of all rapists are men, and they rape 100s of thousands of others every year around the world; about 500 per year in Canada.
If you are a man, then clearly you have the same beliefs as the men who rape and cannot be trusted to not rape at any given moment. If men truly believed rape to be wrong, they'd be condemning it a lot more, especially the guys who don't rape.
If you deny anything I've said here than you sympathize with rapists and probably are one
I see where you're trying to go with this, and I would agree with the statements if you were to add:
1) All men are part of a formal "group" or "religion" that says it's expected that they rape women, and
2) there were 500 rapes per year in Canada where the men stated they did it for said group/religion.
Anyone agreeing with those actions actually would be sympathizing with rapists, and there would probably be a significant chance that they are also rapists. If this were the case, you probably should hate all men and hold them guilty.
-
1
-
-
So, let's take a look at a much more common situation:
Scenario 1:
Man and woman arguing in a lounge. It's getting pretty heated. She stands up and slaps him and then walks out. Everyone around starts talking about it quietly and continues about their business.
Scenario 2:
Man and woman arguing in a lounge. It's getting pretty heated. He stands up and slaps her and then walks out. Everyone around grabs their phones and calls the police because the woman was just assaulted. At least one guy follows the first guy outside to confront him and possibly start a fight to "defend women". First guy ends up charged with assault and, once convicted, loses his job and visitation rights to his kids.
Now consider your own reactions to both situations honestly. Still think there's equality?
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Argus said:
We want immigrants who are likely to succeed to the point they are actually paying taxes
The equivalent to paying taxes would be hiring someone into a job to produce "something" - to do the tasks required by the job. I would never hire anyone to one of my teams that wasn't capable and willing to carry their own weight. If I inadvertently did, they'd find themselves skidded in the first month if not faster. Someone who can't help the "team" is just a boat anchor for everyone else.
Non-productive immigrants are just that....boat anchors. Too many and the boat sinks.
-
On 5/12/2017 at 3:54 PM, Omni said:
What makes you think they don't already provide those stats?
Oh, my mistake then.
Would you please point to the link from the government that shows the percentage of violent crime in Canada committed by, say, Somalis? I looked and must have missed the report.
How about the crimes committed by white Canadians? Number of murders by immigrants from the Middle East? How many Asians have stolen cars? Thanks for the help.
-
I think these types of countries are far behind what we would normally call Third World. They can't even begin to reach that lofty level. Sure hope we bring in more people from these places....
-
2 hours ago, dialamah said:
It also helps in the tracking of violence against certain groups; analysts do like to know why someone was attacked whether its a woman by her husband, a gangster by a rival gang or a Jew by a White Supremacist.
Then Canada should be tracking all crimes by the same terms as it applies to the perpetrator. Let's see the race/gender/religion/country of origin stats of those who commit crimes.
You aren't opposed to that are you??
-
10 hours ago, eyeball said:
Ever been in an interview where one or more of the interviewers was hostile and clearly didn't want your application to see the light of day?
That's what would likely happen to refugees and immigrants under a government run by your harder-boiled right-winger.
Ever been in an interview where the candidate refuses to speak to the female that is part of the group conducting the interview? I have - many times. Care to guess what part of the world these candidates come from?
-
41 minutes ago, carepov said:
new people invited to dinner bring more food but eat less
Actually, this is the sticking point for those of us against mass immigration. Your statement above is the exact opposite of what "my side" believes. People show up and bring their entire extended family while only one or two of them work. The entire extended family therefore ends up consuming tax dollar funded supports which takes away from Canadians.
They "eat more than they bring to dinner".
-
Quote
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
Actually, "hate crimes" are based on one thing and one thing only - the definition above. So let me ask you this....I'm a mid forties Canadian Caucasian straight male of German descent with no religious affiliation.
Can you describe any situation where I could be an "identifiable group"? Or are "hate crimes" only for people not-like-me?
-
16 hours ago, Omni said:
Doesn't matter what you or I think, it's codified in Canadian law.
Exactly!
The definition of hate crimes in Canada is every bit as clear as the definition of "Islamophobia".
In B.C. the coalition between NDP and Green Party is bad news.
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
PLEASE....try it and find out. I double dare you.
Let's see if west coasters are as committed to the "green agenda" as they like to beak off about. Have fun riding your bicycle to get groceries.