Claudius

I've already provided plenty of reading material to prove this. That you refuse to read or understand it is meaningless to me.

proved? In your head... still waiting on the following: Nope. I've proved it for anyone who can read, which I suppose discounts you. Here it is again for you from the link you supposedly already read, that is if you can be trusted to debate honestly: http://www.british-immigrants-in-montreal.com/clifford_sifton_policy.html ....which is exactly what I said. How many more times do I need to post that for you before you read it and actually understand what it says?

More childish babble. Since you refuse to read I'll just copy and paste it until you get it: For the 4rd time: The argument I said was a strawman was the accusation that I'm blaming someone else. You know this but this is the 3rd time you've attempted to claim I was calling something else a strawman argument. There's that childish dishonesty of yours again. And as to the royalties: That's the reason the royalty rates are low. That you don't accept it and keep on yammering is predictable. Your reply here is really nothing. That you can't understand something simple such as the price of doing business in Alberta is made harder by environmental programs and higher wages than other countries doesn't surprise me one bit. I mean it's a pretty simple thing to understand but hey that doesn't mean you can.

Yep. Just a dishonest immature troll who resorts to meaningless blather when it's been proven not only that he's wrong but that he can't act like an adult or argue honestly if his life depended on it. How come every time you quote an answer to your braindead questions you ignore it and just try to spout something "witty"? Are you hoping that your inability to counter will go un-noticed? Tell us some more Waldo about how 4% population growth is more than 10% or maybe show me where I assert Albertas infrastructure is someone elses fault. I'm sure you can do that since you accuse me of it non-stop.

that sounds like an ignorant excuse so as not to "ruffle" the feathers of BigOil, hey? Whatever. That's the reason the royalty rates are low. That you don't accept it and keep on yammering is predictable. Your reply here is really nothing. That you can't understand something simple such as the price of doing business in Alberta is made harder by environmental programs and higher wages than other countries doesn't surprise me one bit. I mean it's a pretty simple thing to understand but hey that doesn't mean you can.

Never denied this. That' not the argument we were having rememebr? You wee busy telling us all that 4% is somehow more than 10% remember? Not once have I blamed Albertas infrastructure on anyone else, not once. But repeatedly now you have pretended that's what I'm doing just so you can continue to argue. Nope. Now you're just plain lying. For the 3rd time: The argument I said was a strawman was the accusation that I'm blaming someone else. Again you prove you can't be honest and you can't read.

Still waiting for an answer here... I'll tell you what: You collect 5% taxes from Ontarios 12 million people and I'll collect 5% taxes from Alberta's 2.5 million. Which one of us will have more to spend on infrastructure Einstein? Hmmm?

Same old ignorant points. Alberta doesn't collect the same royalties as a places like Lybia or Nigeria because they also charge escrow accounts from the companies for reclamation and environmental insurance as well as pay their workers more than $1/day. To make it competitive Royalty rates suffer.

Oh the games here are hilarious. You point out a simple thing like a 10% population growth is more than a 4% population growth and the dishonest children all gather around to point out that the 4% is more people (while trying to hide the fact they also have more people to collect taxes from, making the fact tht it's more people irrelevant -- which is why we use ratios. Any idiot can see the logic of that)

Hilarious. You say this: and I point out that it's a strawman argument accusing me of trying to lay the blame on someone else when I never did that once, that's just you making false accusations again or not being able to read.Now because you don't quote the conversation you get to dishonestly assert I claimed something else was the strawman argument. Doesn't even make sense. And I continue to point out that a 10% population growth makes keeping up with infrastructure difficult. That's all I've ever said about it and yet again you must mischaracterize what I'm saying and why I'm saying it. It's not a whine, I'm simply pointing out the facts. That Ralph Klien "admits" something during an election is meaningless to my point. Or are you going to suggest that everything Ralph ever said was right on the money? Or is he just right when it's convenient for you?

My weak arguments. Hmmm.1. Canada's early immigration policy was designed to direct European farmers, mostly from the Ukraine and other slavic states as well as Germany to the Western provinces. Proved that. 2. That the Western provinces quickly gained a large amount on non-English immigrants and that this irked English speaking Ontario right from the beginning. Check. Also proved this.

Are you really this dumb? I kinda doubt it. I think you're jsut faking this to keep on arguing a point you know you've lost. Your analogy has nothing to do with the reality here. I'll tell you what: You collect 5% taxes from Ontarios 12 million people and I'll collect 5% taxes from Alberta's 2.5 million. Which one of us will have more to spend on infrastructure Einstein? Seriously. They don't teach math in Ontario? They don't teach you about relative ratios, how to use them and why they're important? Hilarious. 10% population growth is more than 4% population growth no matter how many times you try to rearrange the numbers to make this look different. I can't believe you guys have spent 3 pages arguing the inarguable. Go back to school.

5... count em... 5 LOL emoticions - heelarious (I'd add another but there's a posting limit rule I expect also limited your hee-haw and kept you to 5). You were in error; repeatedly claiming a 25% population ratio increase. Like I said, did lowering that to 10% adjust your fake outrage by a corresponding ratio? Hilarious to watch you squirm and dance to avoid the point illustrated in what you quote. There's that dishonesty again. Which is more Waldo? A 10% increase in population or 4%? That Ontario has more people and that the growth is more is irrelevant, what is it about that you fail to understand? That Ontario's growth amounts to 2.5 times the amount of people Alberta has grown by doesn't mean anything when you decide to also factor in the fact that Ontario is 5.4 times Albertas population. 10% increase is more than 4% increase waldo no matter how many games you want to play.

That must be because you can't read properly. The point was to counter someone elses contention that Alberta's infrastructure sucks and therefore it's a terrible place to live. This is also obvious to anyone who can read along and carry a conversation. My point was that in a population growth surge infrastructure which takes years will be behind.That's so obvious any child can understand it, but it doesn't surprise me that you can't (or simply refuse to which is probably closer to the truth)

And this is the reply we get from Mr.Honesty when he knows he's wrong. As soon as he gets cornered he tries to hide behind a nonsensical jab.

That's because you are.This is dishonest: Yes Ontario has grown by 2.5 times the number of people Alberta has grown by, but they also have 5.2 times the population from which to draw tax money from. Any reason you chose to dismiss that? lol!You don't like the fact that Alberta has grown by 10% and Ontario by less than 5% so you try to mask this and rearrange the numbers like a child trying to pound a round peg into a square hole. That's dishonest.

Yes and I admitted that error because I am an adult whereas your inability to admit that a population increase of 10% makes it difficult to keep infrastructure up to date proves you aren't and aren't honest. It doesn't change my point at all. My point stands whether it's 10% or 25%.Then there's also watching you pretend that the amount of people each province actually raised means something and the ratios are suddenly meaningless. Once again: Yes Ontario has grown by 2.5 times the number of people Alberta has grown by, but they also have 5.2 times the population from which to draw tax money from. Any reason you chose to dismiss that? lol! More trolling and mischaracterization. I was never "outraged" about the ratio. You need to claim I was before it sounds like you even have the tiniest reason to keep on yammering. For the 100th time: Alberta is dealing with a population surge. This affects infrastructure. That you can't accept this simple point is predictable since you're only arguing to be a troll and don't have the slightest amount of sincerity to anything you post.

Again with the childish strawman arguments. Please point out where I attempt to lay blame on the infrastructure on anyone? Nowhere. Keep trolling kid. Can you make even one post that doesn't rely on completely re-wording what someone says or applying your assumption of emotion to it? Apparently not.I said it makes it difficult to keep infrastructure up to date when your population is surging. This is inarguable which is why you dance around baloney arguments like this.

Double post.

Well the Ontario-beats-everyone-else cheerleading squad has finally run out of relevant things to say and they've been relegated to trying to exchange ratios for numbers and attaks for what is supposedly a compliment. What remains is this: 1. Bigoted attitudes towards the West find their origins in the reaction by English Ontario towards the early immigration of Europeans to the Western provinces. This is obvious for anyone who reads. 2. That you deny any of this exists is hilarious considering we're in this thread designed to take shots at Alberta (even starting just with the title). This is also obvious no matter how many times yuo stamp your feet and insist it was only created for level-headed discourse. 3. That Stifton was born in Western Ontario and moved to Manitoba doesn't change a thing. I can't wait to hear more of the, "What? English monarchist Ontarionians might've had some prejudices during the turn of the century towards Eastern Europeans moving into the country? OMG! How dare he make that accusation. And you further suggest that's where some anti-Western attitudes might've developed? OMG the humanity? How preposterous!" lol!! >....sure to be followed by some wishful thinking claims like "Opps! It looks like Claudius is flipping his lid" which ironically only describes the attitudes I've received from MiddleClassCentrist and Waldo and the like. They just can't stand the idea that people from Ontario might've had some prejudiced opinions at the turn of the century. ...and all of this pretentious attempts at indignation in a thread whose only purpose is to take pot-shots at Alberta. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.

Gosh buttercup...blah blah blah blah-diddly-blah? Blah blah blah Alberta sucks and Ontario's the shizzle Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah-diddly-blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah! Wake me when you say something worthwhile princess.

Well first there's the dishonest factor of you trying to switch an amount of people for a percentage of growth which is what we're talking about and what counts when talking about an increase in needed infrastructure. Alberta's is 10% of its population, and Ontarios' is less than 5%. Yes Ontario has grown by 2.5 times the number of people Alberta has grown by, but they also have 5.2 times the population from which to draw tax money from. Any reason you chose to dismiss that? lol!We can assume Ontario had the infrastructure for X amount of people as did Alberta. If X number of people grows by 10% that's harder to make changes than if it only grows by 5%. The ratio is all that counts since there was already exisiting supporting infrastructure for X number of people. You use a classic slight of hand by addressing the specific number of people when ratio is all that matters in this case. My god. I mean do I really have to explain that to you Waldo? Or did you already know this and you're just dishonestly continuing to yak for the heck of it? I actually suspect you already understand this and don't really have anything intelligent to say but feel compelled to yak anyways. No error, or at least the not the one in your imagination. It is telling though that once I admit a minor error that you leap at the opportunity to dishonestly cast the error as something else entirely. Like I say: no debating with those who can't be honest.Ontarios growth is less than 5%, while Alberta's was 10% in the same time period. It's obvious to anyone honest or intelligent that Ontario would only require less than 5% infrastructure increase while Alberta would require 10%. Which is higher Waldo? >5% or 10%? :lol: :lol:

Sure that totally explains this thread designed only to take cheap shots at Alberta started by a person from all-grown-up-now Ontario. Sure.

Oh I see, so this: Was supposed to be a representation of this: Yeah right.

BTW I never actually claimed I did. That you think I did somewhere along the lines just proves your knack for false assumptions.