Claudius

Sure - wasn't the point of contention though was it? The point was will the oil companies stay or go. If you're looking for some kind of victory in what is actually a pretty simple point - manufacturing can manufacture anywhere - then you're welcome to it I guess. I never thought the point about manufacturing needed to be proven. It's not rocket science. NDP hate oil? It's hard to take that kind of rhetoric seriously. It fits in with "Albertastan" and fears of Lenin statues being erected. I prefer realistic commentary. Let's be real: no one "loves" oil. They just love the money. Subsequently "hating" a bad oil deal, or poorly managed oil resources, isn't the same as hating oil.

I agree it was classless but what was interesting is the PC's filled a confernece center of people for $500/plate a few weeks eariler. When he resigned there weren't more than a dozen supporters in the room that weren't his family. So long as he had the promise of some poiwer they could suck off of him they stayed with him. The moment he didn't, the bailed on him. Shows what kind of people the PC supporters can be.

Manufacturing is nothing like resource extraction. Manufacturing jobs can move anywhere. The oil is where it is. It doesn't pack up and move to Mexico. Many countries have driven hard bargans with oil companies and almost exclusively the oil companies say, "Well you drive a hard bargan" and then sign on the dotted line. You can probably think of a dozen examples off the top of your head of manufacturing jobs moving. Instances where oil companies said, "Meh. Leave it in the ground" are rarer. Oil companies that are extracting oil paying their workers $1/day in Nigeria are still more than happy to also extract in Alberta and pay tons more. It has been this way for years. With the WTI jumping from $45/barrel to $63 in just 3 weeks, the price of oil is going nowhere but up and the oil companies aren't going anywhere, with or without a (minor) tax increase. http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx

Read this thread from the beginning. It was interesting to see the predictions. Personally I knew without a shadow of a doubt that the PC's wouldn't win 4 weeks ago. It just became unfashionable to vote PC. Interesting read. Lots of good posts. --On the point of "experience": The previous PC's had PLENTY of 24-28 year old MPs and candidates. You just don't see them because they, you know, lost. Had the PC's won, you can bet no one would be asking about their "life experience". Secondly the PC's just finished losing $13 billion because they didn't do their own royalty calculations properly. I worked in the Alberta Department of Energy and I've done mock royalty clculations and they're not that hard. Calculating linear taxes for pipelines is much harder. So "experience" doesn't actually translate to competence. --On the mood of Alberta: Someone said: "This election was a vote against the PCs, not a vote for the NDP.". Well certainly the electoriate was angry at the PC's. But they were angry at them last election too, and up until a few weeks ago it was always the Wildrose that got the benefits of this. Why not this time? No, I'm sorry I disagree. Yes the electoriate was angry at the PC's but to characterize this as a protest vote and nothing more is to delude oneself on the mood in Alberta. If it were merely a protest vote you wouldn't have had the best turnout in 25 years. Truth is albertans are sincerely ready, (for the most part) to actually give them a chance. Also even though many Albertans may not like what they define as NDP politics, many of them still *love* Rachel Notley. If I had a dollar for every Albertan who told me that they voted PC all their life but "never again".... --On taxes and "socialism". First taxes: When you add in PST Alberta will still be one of the cheapest provinces in the country to do business in. Alberta corporate tax rate: 10% + proposed 2% = 12% + 5% GST = 17% Sask corporate tax rate: 12% + 10% sales tax (total GST+PST) = 22% BC corporate tax rate: 11% + 12% sales tax (total GST+PST) = 23% Ontario:11.5% + 13% HST (total GST+HST) = 23.5% Secondly Ralph Klein faced a similar situation wiht low oil prices and a inherited deficit. The taxes during his time: 2003 under Klein Corporate tax rate: 13% Small Business tax:4.5 Small Business threshold: 250k NDP proposed increases: Corporate tax rate: 12% Small Business tax: 3% Small Business threshold: 500k So if Notley is a socialist because she's introducing a higher corporate tax, then by the same logic Ralph Klien was even more so a socialist, and we all know that's laughable. -- On reviewing the royalty rate: Does she even have to? Given that she need merely calculate the royalties properly to gain another $2.5 billion per year she may not even bother. -- On the "economic engine of Canada": Assuming for a moment that this is even true, I don't care. What does being the "economic engine of Canada" do for Alberta beside provide jobs to the millions of people who move to Alberta as unemployment refugees who don't care about Alberta they just want some money? Most of them are currently sucking their thumbs threatening to move back to Peterborough, or Regina, or Prince George or some other place that only has fewer jobs today than when they left. I say, go ahead, leave. Maybe by this time next year a $300K home will be priced at $400K instead of $500K. It would be hard to accurately describe how sick I am of wading through BC, Sask, Ontario license plates during rush hour. I'm sorry to say this too but generally speaking the people oil jobs attract are generally single young men in the trades. These guys run around in their $100,000 monster trucks driving drunk half the time and spend the rest of their time getting into bar fights and stabbings. You can all leave. I'd rather be poor and stuck with 100,000 communist lesbian single mothers on welfare than give just one(1) more job to one of these social miscreants. Go get drunk and drive your monster truck in Prince George. I'm sick of you. At the end of the day it comes down to guts. Some of us in Alberta have the guts to demand more from the oil companies than just "a job", especially if it's just for Canadians from elsewhere who couldn't care less if Alberta succeeds or it sinks or what kind of place it becomes. And we have the commitment to return to the 1980's if they don't like it. Others live their lives too scared to demand what we deserve for allowing companies to pull the oil out of the ground. They're the guys that do whatever their bosses ever told them, and take whatever scraps are offered. They are lickspittle and they're welcome to leave.

No I did answer the question. Pledging allegence to "The State of Australia" is no different or less ambiguous than pledging to the "head of state" which represnts what? That's right: the state. The two are actually equal in meaning (or levels of ambiguity) the Austrailian one is just more direct. It's actuallyless ambiguous. They plainly say "Australia" instead of making you swear to the Queen and leave it insinuated that this actually means, "Canada", by virtue of her being head of state. Nope. THe Queen for all intents and purposes has been circumvented by the GG and even the GG doesn't wade into decisions very often. Her office is meaninless, making the oath meaningless.

(shrugs) I dunno. Probably the same thing that happens when Ontario runs out of nickle to mine, or BC runs out of trees to cut down or Newfoundland runs out of fish. Your question is irrelevant. The piont of contention was albertas debt - today - currently - in relation to other provinces. Not "golly gee but what happens when a meteor drops onto Calgary? Huh? What kind of debt will you be under then?" Stick to the subject. Something people on this forum can never seem to do (that or udnerstand the purpose of ratios and many other simple things).

lol. I'm not going to sit here and play your childish "why daddy" game. There is no abiguity for anyone who can read and understand basic English. Your question is answered within the oath: "From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey." ZERO ambiguity. Period. No argument to it. Drop the "it's ambiguous" baloney because it's not. Plain and simple. Are you going to pretend the existance any country without a monarch is "ambiguous"? No ambiguity. None. The subject of ambiguity is closed. I'm not going to argue this for the next 40 posts. If you want to pretend it's ambiguous by all means continue. Next...... "There's no mistaking who Elizabeth II is and what she is; she is the source of all authority of the state;" Um yeah except she isn't save in print. She realistically has zero authority in Canada because no way will Canadians ever be accepting edicts or laws or policies directed by her. The GG has de facto circumvented any authority she ever had. Therefore her "authority' is nonexistant. Making the pledge a sham.

Um, what? No. There is no ambiguity, or at least swearing to a Queen that has no more connection to the country than the maple leaf is frankly even more ambiguous. Australias "Pledge of Commentment" required by new immigrants: "From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey." All new citizens have the choice of making the pledge with or without the words 'under God'. What's wrong with this? Nothing ambiguous about it. The sky has not fallen in Australia.

This is why I tend to snicker when people go on and on about how democracy is what makes us great. It isn't. Rule of law based on a 'white paper' of beliefs, ethics and rights, ruled on by a supreme court is wart makes a Western nation great. time and time again when a Western society evolves or advances socially it is the Supreme court ruling on a constitution or a charter of rights that drags our society forward not democracy. If it were still up to democracy women would still not be allowed to vote.

Australia doesn't require immigrants to swear allegencee to the Queen but rather the country, its' people and its' laws -- much more rational, relevant and mature. The Queen as Head of State or figurehead is absolutely irrational and irrelevant. Are Canadians going to accept laws or edicts the Queen of England imposes on us? Absolutely not, thus the office is a sham and the oath is a sham. She has been de facto replaced by the GG. Who here is going to suit up and go to war because the Queen says so? Those of you raising your hand are prime candidates for the Darwin award. I don't dislike the Queen i think she's great but this head of state part is nonsense. It never applies which makes it a useless appendex, except for nostagia.

Why it it funny? Because you're an a-hole? What is funny is how Alberta can pay such high federal tax amounts and transfer payments that go towards things like money for Manatobas' floods or Montreals ice storms but when it comes time to treat Alberta with the same support all we get is classless juvenile schadenfreude and bigotry from hipster larvae like yourself.

It doesn't matter if all the MPs are against abortion. Most were against it or neutral when it went to supreme court - and they ruled a woman has the right. Nothing's going to change that. We live by rule of law, not rule of democracy believe it or not - and frankly that's the way it should be. Rule of law is why women have the vote and why blacks can vote, why there's no segrigation etc., etc., because the majority (albiet minor) were against these things when they were passed.

I'm sorry but many in Quebec will be the first to inturrupt you and point out that Quebec isn't Canada.

Oh Toronto just STFU. You babble like you have something to show for it and you don't. You've had 100 years....ONE HUNDRED YEARS to create a manufacturing sector and you can't. Are you even the worlds No.1 hockey stick producer? No, you're not. Because you can't. You can't get it off the ground and it's been like that for a century which is why it's even funnier now to hear you all cry and moan and blame your lackluster manufacturing on the "Petro Dollar". You're an utter failure Toronto. You're in no position to be advising anyone. You see the deficit other provinces are in compared with Alberta. Where's their "they-don't-know-what-they're-doing" thead? Hmm? Where's Ontario's "they're-so-stupid" thread? Alberta's deficit is $5.95 per person, Ontario's is $955.00, so where do you get off thinking you have the foggiest notion how to run anything besides your mouth? For crissakes you don't even have a freakin hockey team. You're nowhere. Just a dirty city with a skinny phallic symbol as their only distinguishing feature. What a joke Canadians are. Regional bigotry. Jealously. Shallow schadenfreude. So pathetic.

Deficit per person by province: Alberta: $5.94 New Brunswick: $261.00 Nova Scotia: $345.00 British Columbia: $398.00 Quebec: $409.00 Manitoba: $792.00 Ontario: $955.00 P.E.I.: $541.00 Federal deficit: $751.00 Ho-hum. Another typical day in the minds of typical Canadians: Rip on Alberta because they like to attack someone and exercise their bigotry instead of actually critically thinking or being honest.

Talk about paranoia, strawmen and mischaracterizing what people say and playing victim. Nowhere anywhere did I even insinuate anything against maritimers you lying childish hypocrite. BTW any time you wanna show us the 24 anti-Maritime blogs, and 3 "Hate-The-Maritimes" websites like I did with Alberta then maybe you'll have a point. Until then you're just throwing your hands over your ears, pressing your eyes shut like a child and screeching, "I can't hear you...I can't hear you". Go ahead. I challenge you to come up with just 1 "Hate-the-Maritimes" website. Just one. But you won't be able to and you know it. lol. It's almost like you're jealous Alberta gets more abuse.

One more time because I just love to watch you children squirm and try to ignore what's right in front of your face: "Albertans Arrogant" http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tag/albertans-arrogant Urban dictionary entry for "Albertan": "1. Albertan A Texan who can read." "Many Albertans are rednecks, but you'll find that they are proud. " http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=albertan Nice little hate-fest from the Montreal mirror: "Five reasons to hate Alberta" http://www.montrealmirror.com/2006/020206/news2.html Here's an entire Canadian website dedicated to hating Alberta, try and count how many Canadians on that site have "disparaging words" about the province and its' people: http://amplicate.com/hate/alberta Go ahead and avoid it. Don't read any of it. Close your eyes like the "critical thinkers" you all like to call yourselves (hardy--har-har). Takes a real child to ignore reality.

Hilarious. I say: Then you say, Um, yes. That's what I just said. Do you even listen to yourself? No you haven't. It's exactly as I laid it out. This all started when, 1. I mentioned people say bigoted things about Alberta all the time. 2. You said that you've never ever ever heard any disparaging words about Alberta in your entire 45 year life, as though that even enters into it (your personal anecdotes are meaningless even though you insist they are "facts". Obviously you don't know what a "fact" is) 3. I provide a huge list of examples....including an entire forum dedicated only to attacking Alberta, full of people doing exactly what you claimed doesn't exist. Plus about a dozen others that you simply ignore. Hilarious. You demand proof then close your eyes when you get it. 4. You essentially then admit that the very disparaging words you claim don't exist, (simply because you claim you've never heard them before) , actually do exist, but shouldn't mean anything because you're from the maritimes and people have said disparaging words about them too. Essentially you admit therefore that people DO in fact say plenty against Alberta. Not a single one of those points above can you deny happened. It's all right there on page 16 and the first half of 17. It all unfolded EXACTLY like that. Period. Watching you deny it is like watching a moron deny 2 + 2 = 4. Then you go off on a 100 strawmen: 1. Claiming I'm just playing "victim" when I'm simply proving what I said, after you denied it ever existed. You claim it doesn't exist. I prove it does. Simple as that. Victim doesn't enter into it. It's just something you blurt out defensively when you can't deny what I've just proven. You say I'm playing victim. That's a strawman and a childish diversion from admitting the point. It exists. You claimed it didn't. I've proved it does. End of debate. Ignoring that proof and just trying to divert by claiming I'm just being a "victim" is nothing more than a childish attempt to ignore the fact you lost the point. 2. Claiming I'm only "posting examples that fall in line with my preconceived notions" when in fact I'm simply showing you the very things you claimed didn't exist. You claim it doesn't exist, I post proof it does, you then like a child just babble nonsense about how I'm, "only posting things that, fall in line with my preconceived notions". No I'm posting proof of something you claimed didn't exist. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you really need someone to take you by the hand and draw a picture of it for you? Unbelievable. How is someone supposed to post things that prove what they said if all you're going to do is pretend, like a brat, that it doesn't mean anything because it simply "falls within the bounds of what I claimed"?! There are no words to accurately describe that level of pure stupidity and dishonesty. Essentially you are discounting any proof any person might provide to prove anything they claim simply because that's exactly what it does. It's beyond pathetic. Beyond brain dead. Off course it "falls within the bounds of what I claimed", it proves what I claimed. Time and time again you simply cannot work up the maturity to admit what is plain and inarguable, and what I've proven over and over again: Plently of people in this country have an unfounded and bigoted view of Alberta and say plenty of "disparaging words" against them. It's all there in black and white, only a complete child could deny it, which is why you continue to do so. I've won. You've lost. You know it. I know it. Any poor SOB who's read this knows it.

"So what," exactly so. My point...clearly stated. LOL!!!!!!!!! I see. Um, so your "point" is that all along you knew EXACTLY what I was talking about. I see. What a f*cking fool you are.

Again that's NOT A QUOTE fool, any more than what I put as my words was a quote. It's a symnopsis of the conversation thus far, and an accurate one too. It's not remotely a direct quote and only a COMPLETE IDIOT would think it was. And no its not a strawman either. You claimed you'd never ever ever ever ever heard a disparaging word about Alberta right up to the point that I made it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to deny at which point you change your argument from "it doesn't exist", to, "it does exuist but so what? The Maritimes get abused too" Once again, what you claim is a direct quote ISN' T REMOTELY A DIRECT QUOTE and that's obvious since the entire symnopsis of the conversation isn't a direct quote. It is however accurate all the same. Keep jerking yourself off. My point has been made and now you're just being pissy about it. One more time and every single time you return to post here...this is how the conversation went, and no these aren't quotes little boy, it's a symnopsis --- OH ANd I did provide the DIRECT quotes from you that back up this symnopsis perfectly so quit making afool of yourself by whining about it: ---------------------------- Claudius: "Many Canadians love to hate Alberta" Bleeding Heart: "I've never ever ever ever heard a disparaging word against Alberta in my entire life from any Canadian anywhere" Claudius: Points out that's either that's bull, or Bleeding heart simply refuses to acknowledge it or see it. Bleeding Heart: Offended, reinterates, "I've never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever heard a disparaging word against Alberta in my life. How dare you tell me I have when I know full well I haven't! I think you're making it all up and you're full of it" Claudius: Makes a list of maybe 100 examples of exactly what he's talking about. Takes all of about 20 seconds to do it too. Bleeding Heart: "Ohhhhh....THOOOOSE disparaging words. Well...um....lemmie see...um, okay I got one: I think you're just being sensitive. Yeah that'll work.". ------------------------

Wasn't a quote pinhead. I outlined the path of the conversation....accurately. ....Which is why you've been relegated to 7 posts of avoiding the fact my point was correct and you admitted it...and once you did that you simply tried to change the subject, i.e.: "yes what I claimed never existed only 3 posts ago does in fact exist, but now I claim it shouldn't matter because the Maritimes get abuse too" So what?

I just did exactly that. And yes that's exactly what you did. Once it was absolutely no longer possible for you to deny what I was saying you changed your argument to.... "Duuuuh the maritimes have ha d the same abuse so,like, so what?" So the abuse I was talking about that only 3 posts ago you denied ever once hearing in your life does indeed exist ...that's what. Point made. Period. No matter how much you continue to post and babble. Oh and I haven't bothered posting anywhere else because so many posters here are too completely immature to even admit the smallest point. This forum does indeed stand apart in that regard. ...well that and I've been busy living an enjoyable life. lol...sue me.

Christ on a cracker, man. I've been correcting you about what I wrote...now I have to correct you about your own posts as well? That's EXACTLY what you did. You denyed ever hearing them for 3 posts then when I bring them forward you cry like a little girl and basically admit you have heard them before by way of changing your argument and claiming it shouldn't matter because the Maritimes have had the same abuse. Gawd you are a walking joke. I'm right. You're wrong. Now or 1000 posts from now. By all means keep crying about it.

BWAAA-HAHAHAHAH-HAHAHAHAA Hilarious. More "facts" from the "Fact meister" Oh sorry. No those aren't facts at all. Just your measly imagination. You replied to this on the 7th. What's the date today Einstien? What a complete f*cking goof you are.

Hilarious. I didn't misquote you. I quoted you EXACTLY. It's right there man...what is it in your head that thinks you can deny it?! Unbelievable. Are you drunk? Seriously: are you drunk? What qa weak lying piece of cr@p you are. Where is the misquote?! It's right there on the 15th page man. Once again: Go ahead pinhead, keep claiming you never said it. It's right there for anyone smart enough to go back 1 measly page. What a lying f*cking moron. Go ahead and ban me for saying it too. Being banned from the most childish brain dead whimpy forum in North America would be a complement.