Accountability Now

He also doesn't lie like his father. At least JT apologized for his.

Lol...they all have the power to VETO. So who is really getting the biggest bang for their buck? Excuse....no. Its called reality (a reality that is also in the charter). Each country is supposed to contribute according to its capabilities. And the cold hard facts show that the US should be leading the way and be more than 10x Canada in what they contribute.

Like Father, like Son? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ2FmGOU4tE

How about just post it correctly? That would be a start.

When you are speaking...yes....it certainly does.

According to you they should have barely more influence than Canada...based on their contributions. But again, the contributions don't dicate influence they are calculated based on: So even with Russia being required to pay a larger scale, they don't. China should certainly be in the top five but they aren't. Yet both have permanent seats and both obviously have enough influence to keep them without actually paying. Now...with respect to the US vs Canada situation, the US is 10x the population and does 10x the GDP. Add to it they are a permanent member, so they should kick in more. So with all that, why is the Canadian contribution more than 10% that of the US?

So are you saying that Russia has no influence?

Keep cycling buddy. You're almost back to the start.

Ouch....you're right...LOL

I'm not sure I agree with you on the money equaling influence idea. If that were the case, then Japan and Germany would be permanent members. Heck, Russia is barely above Canada!

I love your cycles. But let's keep one thing straight, you self admitted that your post was sloppy and that you should have said 'will be getting a seat'. Before your correction you went on to say 'some is better' than none, which of course is why I replied that we don't have some at the moment. Your welcome for clearing this up for you. Stop being so sloppy next time.

Lol. Even by your own admission your writing is sloppy....and that is generous. Even saying we're getting seats is an unsubstantiated opinion that can't be proved right or wrong until later this year. However, please don't let me stop you from your 'sloppy' predictions.

A bit sloppy would certainly sum it up. You may be right and you may not....again the article discussing how the UN likes to shift seats around. According to Wikipedia, there are three other countries running for the seats: Italy, Netherlands and Sweden. My understanding is two get in, so two won't. I would believe Sweden will get in based on their refugee numbers and the last time they were in was in 97/98. Netherlands and Canada both had their last seats in 99/2000 so it could go either way. Italy seems like a long shot as they were last in 2007/2008. With that said, having Trudeau swoon Ban won't add up to much if other deserving candidates are present regardless of their last time in the seat. It certainly would seem like Canada is overdue for the seat as history shows we have been given a seat almost every 10 years and the last one was 2000. However a lot more countries have started to express interest in the seat and therefore the competition has gone up.

Not saying we do. Just simply pointing out the fact that we don't have one, contrary to what he was saying.

I said it. My opinion. Again, people may have liked pieces of the platform but very few people vote for the entire platform. For most people the entire platform doesn't matter to them.

Ever heard of the Petro Dollar and Dutch Disease? Its as if Harper was the one to increase the price of oil?

No...not partially. It was fairly obvious that people wanted a different PM. Mulclair would have had it if he didn't flip flop so much. After that, Trudeau was the choice. I hardly believe that the vast majority of voters agreed with his entire platform or even knew what it was.

Its funny...I also hear that Harper raised the price of oil and raised the dollar.

No...the article is discussing 'regaining' a seat. Canada has never had a permanent seat. Canada is putting a bid in for 2016 however its not expected to get a seat until 2020 'based on how the UN rotates the openings'. At this point we don't have some influence, we have no influence....contrary to what your initial post claimed about us 'having a seat'

He won the election based on not being Stephen Harper. Its how most elections are won after someone has been in power that long. It would be interesting to see which point or points people voted on because even though someone gets a majority, it doesn't mean that the majority of the country agrees with every point in your agenda.

I guess you didn't fact check this one.

No...we expect Ottawa to do its job and make a decision that not just helps one of its provinces but helps many. Furthermore, we just wish to have a logical discussion and have these pipelines go through a proper process that will objectively allow or not allow them. At this point all we have are illogical ramblings about how we shouldn't use oil in the first place. Oil is going to be used. Plain and simple....so do you want it by train/older pipelines or by a new pipeline. That's the argument. At the end of the day, the final decision is about money....always is. Having said that, I do love how you call this process 'carte blanche'. The NEB process allowed the Northern Gateway to proceed with over 200 conditions after YEARS of discussion. At the end of this arduous process, it gets sidelined by JT in one day. Talk about carte blanche! In the process I heard a couple honest groups state no amount of money would make it worth it...and I respect them for that. However what this really became was a pissing match between Clark and Redford with the former wanting a bigger piece of the pie. So please put your holier than thou position on the back bench as what this truly comes down to is leveraging for money. If BC wasn't going to profit then no one else should. That is quite the 'national' attitude. Nope...I just want what's fair. Not based on your unsubstantiated opinions but based on a formal, objective process. Again...your opinion. An opinion that you share all the time even when its not required thus suggesting its not just an opinion but a biased fascination with anti-government rhetoric which therefore makes any logical conversation involving the government impossible. My problem with it is that you have to play the game by the rules. If Natural Resources fall under provincial jurisdiction then that's where they remain. If you want to shift oil to federal hands then you must shift ALL resources to federal hands. For this to happen we need to rewrite the constitution, not just mandate a program that changes it for one sector which largely affected one province. And that right there exemplifies how wrong you are. The province does not belong to us...it belongs to Canada by virtue of the Constitution. Within that constitution they give the provinces the vast majority of jurisdiction over highways and roads however they still remain part of the equation when it comes to 'national' roads or roads that connect provinces. Again, there are certain projects that supersede the province and a decision must be made for the betterment of the nation. Disingenuous? Hey pal...its you that entered this conversation by issuing a bold statement but dressing it up as a question. It then took multiple requests to have you actually come out with what you wanted to say. That to me is the epitome of dis-ingenuity. I have no problem have a logical conversation based on objective facts. If something is an opinion then it should and will remain as such. At this point you have done nothing of the former and a whole lot of the latter. What about BC? Why did you leave them out? I now understand why you are so ornery with this thread. The thread is titled Western Alienation but BC wasn't even mentioned in the picture! Oh my....how you must feel left out and isolated within the alienation. Would you like me to re-draw the photo and add BC in? Now that's a good question....if we were to draw BC in to this picture....what side would they be on?

Its ridiculous because it just shows how you need to twist things in order to have the tiniest bit of an argument especially in the lapse of any objective one.

And yet your go to argument was to bring up a bailout program that wasn't a bail out. How convenient. Of course now that I have blown a hole in your 'bailout' argument, all you have is to say its 'just the way I feel' about those 'Bertans!! And this is where you are dead wrong. Any discussion of alienation that Alberta feels is as part of the Western Provinces not as Alberta alone. It is well understood that the federal vote in this country is over once it crosses the Ontario border into Manitoba. Any talk of separation has perhaps yielded Alberta at the forefront but only because of our economic situation. Lets face it....Quebec would have left years ago if they could afford it. Why hasn't Alberta? Because its not that big of a deal. Not nearly as much as your beloved Cascadia. For the record....I have never been and never will be for any separation from Canada. The point is that you bring it up ALL the time. We could be discussing the Stanley Cup finals and you'd bring up how the Feds ruined the fisheries. Its your go to line. Clearly, your 'attitude' of alienation is much worse than you care to admit. And again...you don't get it. The NEP was designed to have Alberta subsidize the rest of the country. Even equalization doesn't 'cost' Alberta anything...it allows other provinces gain a step up. The NEP was designed to drag Alberta down. Will Quebec share its hydro revenues? Or how about BC...will they share their forestry. No...just Alberta was chosen to share its constitutionally granted resources at a lower rate than they could get by selling it elsewhere. The same can be said about the new pipelines. They will cost the other provinces nothing and will in fact bring in jobs and revenue to many of them. Yet...the perceived environmental risks would magically go away if they get a bigger chunk of the pie. The Quebec City mayor said it best when he said (and I paraphrase): We need to allow industries/provinces to get their resources to market. How would Quebec feel if we weren't allowed to string our hydro lines across? Even better yet....how would BC feel if we just decided to shut down all the roads leading into Alberta? I mean look at all those trucking accidents. We can't afford to have any more blood on Alberta soil due to BC's greed. LOL I truly enjoyed reading this part. I could just see you sitting there with a single tear running down your cheek as you muttered incoherent ramblings that involved Fisheries and 'Berta. I fully understand that you can't make a coherent argument especially since the objective facts are against you, as such you resort to subjective, opinionated ones that end in personal insults as above. But c'mon.....aren't we all EARTHLINGS?????

You don't get it!! This is not a program or a bailout designed for Alberta or for this economic downturn specifically. The Fiscal Stabilization Program is available for ALL provinces should they need it. I honestly couldn't tell you if anyone else has ever used it. If no one has then it shows the severity of Alberta's (and possibly Sask) situation. Of course here's the thing...it more than likely will only happen once and entitles $60 per person (works out to $250 million). Compare that to the Billions that other provinces get in Equalization annually. PEANUTS! Albertans certainly are misinformed when it comes to equalization in that Alberta doesn't fund the have nots. However we certainly do put more into the federal coffers than we take out. So after years of paying in should it not be ok to take some out even if it's peanuts? In regards to the fisheries, I only throw my nose up to you as it's impossible for you to not post in a thread without bringing up the fisheries! You talk about whining....that sir is the epitome of the word!