Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Blown wealth? No...the wealth is in the hands of Albertans. No sales tax, low corporate tax, low personal income tax, etc. Up until recently we had no debt and a 12B trust fund but Redford decided she wanted to maintain her seat as Premier so she bought the unions and put us on an unsustainable budget.

You mean that wealth is in the hands of multinational oil companies - since Canadian right wingers kicked up such a stink that Mulroney sold Petro Canada. We allow state owned oil companies from other countries to invest in Alberta but not Canada.

And even the amounts that did trickle into the hands of ordinary Albertans - how much is left after it's spent on dual-wheeled pickup trucks, holiday trailers, ATV's and snowmobiles?

No...the discussion about Energy East or should I say 'pipelines' is not TODAY's problem at all. The idea of Pipelines (Keystone, NG, etc) has been in discussion for a while now however it seem to be a bit more emotional now that the oil industry is hurting and we now have a Mayor from a province that is a continual taker from a national program but doesn't seem to want to contribute to this national item.

Let me reword that for you to make it a bit more.... truthful.

Albertans are suffering a downturn (although, by your own admission, it still isn't that bad) and are lashing out at other provinces, saying, in effect, "hey - you OWE us!". Meanwhile, we have Quebec, which has had its industries hurt by the irresponsible over-development of the tar sands, being asked to accept a major pipeline running along the river valley of its major waterway, through its economic heartland, and through or adjacent to its major metropolitan areas.

I lived in Alberta. I get how Albertans have rationalized the enormous environmental destruction they are wreaking in exchange for a few extra bucks. I even get how, shamefully, Albertans have allowed their regulatory agencies to be captured by the oil and gas industry. But Alberta needs to get that Quebec might see things differently.

That's weird. Suncor just spent BILLIONS on the takeover of Canadian Oil Sands. Man....they must be stupid hey? They even paid 12% more than the original offer.

Yup. Suncor is betting the price of oil is going to go back up, at least for a while. And probably, they're right.

But here's the thing. If Suncor bets wrong, the worst that can happen is it goes under. And the Suncor executives that are making these decisions probably all have enough money that they aren't going to lose their houses and be lining up at food banks. They'll go somewhere else and land on their feet. They're not going to have to deal with the employees that lose their jobs and do wind up homeless. They're not going to have to worry about the local populations that wind up with rare forms of cancer from the toxic pollution. You won't find them in Fort McMurray after the bust cleaning up the mess.

So, the exposure of Suncor (at least the people who are making the decisions) is very different from the exposure of Alberta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you approach 1:1, you reach a point at which production will become uneconomical at any price.

And yet you have private companies still pouring billions into investing into the oil sands....yet I should take your word on this?

Slashing wages to protect your economy is a lot like staying warm by ripping boards off you house and burning them. You're just cannibalizing one part of your economy to save another.

Its not slashing...its readjusting. Before 2008 (the big spike), people were happy to make 50-60k and someone who made $100k in Alberta was rich. Now $100k is starting salary for most low end managers. The simple fact is that people here have been compensated based on high oil and now need to be readjusted to low oil.

I didn't speak to the rest of Canada because I don't know enough to speak to it. I would say that Alberta has (over the last 20 years) attracted younger economic migrants, which would also drive the participation rate up.

Riiiight.....or maybe there is a lot of other activity that keeps people employed.

Again, I ask. What will these exports be? I lived in Edmonton and I know that a LOT of 'non-energy' economic activity is just spin-offs from the oil industry. Atco trailers for rig pigs. Nisku. Refinery Row. What would REALLY be left without oil? Agriculture. Some softwood. Edmonton has a small biotech industry.

The exports were listed in your sourced link. Is it possible there is more to Alberta than what your narrow view would have seen? The numbers don't lie so I don't know what to tell you. Again...the Petrochemicals industry is almost 10B in export all on its own but maybe you haven't been out to Fort Sask or Joffre?

I think you have that backwards. Cod are renewable - unless they become extinct. Oil is not.

The cod certainly weren't renewing in the 90s...hence the issue.

BC has a diverse economy. And in addition to exporting stuff, it imports money. In the form of retirees, immigrants, the film industry, tourism.

Thats great for BC. BC also has warmer weather, a coast line to export, large lumber sources....all things which no matter how hard Alberta tried, it could not have. Every province must deal with what it has. What do you suggest that Alberta do in lieu of oil? What should Saskatchewan do? Should we all be like BC?

And no, you can't deduct coal. Most of the coal mined in BC is metallurgical coal.

So it has no carbon footprint? Not according to this:

https://dogwoodinitiative.org/publications/reports/coalreport

I mean...the reason we're getting rid of oil is global warming...right?

lol. You want to use the Gretzky example? lmao. I used to be an Oilers fan - the Gretzky sale was one of the things that soured me on the game. It became all too apparent that the game was less about sport than about money. So, now I only watch when the Oilers make the playoffs.

Its a good example especially since you don't want to look at the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which bailout are you referring to?

Whatever it is Alberta seems to think it's entitled to from the ROC - the salve to the pain Trudeau is feeling for Alberta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even the amounts that did trickle into the hands of ordinary Albertans - how much is left after it's spent on dual-wheeled pickup trucks, holiday trailers, ATV's and snowmobiles?

You mean the money that goes back into the economy when actually spent?

Albertans are suffering a downturn (although, by your own admission, it still isn't that bad) and are lashing out at other provinces, saying, in effect, "hey - you OWE us!". Meanwhile, we have Quebec, which has had its industries hurt by the irresponsible over-development of the tar sands, being asked to accept a major pipeline running along the river valley of its major waterway, through its economic heartland, and through or adjacent to its major metropolitan areas.

Quebec gets more from the Canada then it contributes. I have shown that with factual numbers. Therefore when a project like Energy East that benefits many provinces and not just Alberta comes along, then I think its more than fair to ask them to contribute back.

And please....show me how their industries have been hurt by Alberta oil? I'm always fascinated when this one comes up

I lived in Alberta. I get how Albertans have rationalized the enormous environmental destruction they are wreaking in exchange for a few extra bucks. I even get how, shamefully, Albertans have allowed their regulatory agencies to be captured by the oil and gas industry. But Alberta needs to get that Quebec might see things differently.

Ya...ya....and in the mean time they import oil from Saudi Arabia, the US and other international locations all of which threaten the same environment with one pipeline going under the St. Lawrence. Those ones are ok though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever it is Alberta seems to think it's entitled to from the ROC - the salve to the pain Trudeau is feeling for Alberta.

No...you said Alberta was asking for a bailout. Please show me the details of this 'bailout' or retract your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...you said Alberta was asking for a bailout. Please show me the details of this 'bailout' or retract your claim.

I didn't make any claim I simply asked a couple of questions, which I'm not retracting btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't make any claim I simply asked a couple of questions, which I'm not retracting btw.

Ya ya...I've seen this style before. Put a question mark on the end and now your baseless claim is a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen some pretty deliberate miscomprehension before too but nothing quite as desperate as your's.

Misconception? You entered the conversation will a very telling and biased question that in no way had any bearing on what was being discussed. I asked you very politely to provide a citation of said bail out but the only response you gave was more ramblings about the ROC and entitlements but yet still not providing any proof any of this. And then you say you were only asking a question????

Please spare me from your delusional posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alberta could be in line for up to $250 million from the feds to help with the province’s tanking economy.

Source

Given Alberta's advantage, why?

I sure wish Alberta's oil was more like BC's fish then maybe Alberta would actually have something to whine about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about an extra 700 mil. for infrastructure, over and above what will come out in the budget.

Over and above? Again...you are mistaken. This money was already allocated to Alberta and was NEVER given. Here...some reading:

The money from the Building Canada Fund was announced in late 2014 by the previous federal government but never made it to the province.

"Some provinces got their share of the money, some provinces didn't get their share of the money," Sohi said. "In the case of Alberta, that money was withheld."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-to-get-700-million-in-infrastructure-cash-within-weeks-to-months-1.3431203

So I guess your idea of a bail out is actually paying money that was supposed to be given to Alberta in the first place....especially when other provinces already got theirs. Wow....you're really on to something here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given Alberta's advantage, why?

I sure wish Alberta's oil was more like BC's fish then maybe Alberta would actually have something to whine about.

From your source:

The Alberta government could be eligible for payments under the 50-year-old fiscal stabilization program, designed to compensate provinces that suffer steep drops in revenues from one year to the next, federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau said Friday.

“I spoke yesterday with the Alberta minister of finance to see how we could work together and I’m pleased to say that he understands that there’s a stabilization fund that Alberta can apply for,” Morneau said.

“The potential is up to $250 million. Should they apply, we would work expeditiously to move forward on that request.”

A few key points here:

a) The Feds suggested it to Alberta...not the other way around

B) The Fiscal Stabilization Program has been around since 1967 and is available for ALL provinces not just Alberta. Am I too understand that you also call other Federal government programs bailouts? Equalization? Canada Health transfer

There is nothing special about this $250M that other provinces couldn't have under similar circumstances. Perhaps that is why your so precious fisheries may not have got a bail out.....it didn't qualify for the federal program designed for serious provincial issues.

Of course, I can also re-post the graph showing the federal revenue collected in Alberta versus the expenditures spent in Alberta. Perhaps we would see where a lot of Alberta's wealth has gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) The Feds suggested it to Alberta...not the other way around

Well, we want it, so let's have it.

B) The Fiscal Stabilization Program has been around since 1967 and is available for ALL provinces not just Alberta. Am I too understand that you also call other Federal government programs bailouts? Equalization? Canada Health transfer

I've see a lot of Albertans look down their noses at these when someone else was getting them.

There is nothing special about this $250M that other provinces couldn't have under similar circumstances. Perhaps that is why your so precious fisheries may not have got a bail out.....it didn't qualify for the federal program designed for serious provincial issues.

It didn't qualify because BC's salmon belongs to Canada. It's a serious national issue. Why should Alberta have such an advantage and what makes it you special? BTW did you notice how you looked down your nose when you mentioned our so precious fisheries like they didn't matter?

I know, it's because of the way Canada was confederated and it's all constitutional. That's why I wish you people would finally find something serious enough to whine about that western alienation turns to western separation.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should Alberta have such an advantage and what makes it you special? BTW did you notice how you looked down your nose when you mentioned our so precious fisheries like they didn't matter?

.

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!

Edited by Accountability Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess your idea of a bail out is actually paying money that was supposed to be given to Alberta in the first place....especially when other provinces already got theirs. Wow....you're really on to something here.

I believe we have all heard how good Harper was at allocating funds here or there, but then never actually getting it out the door. I doubt JT would have been so open about pledging money to Alta. if he was planning the same kind of trickery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

You don't get it either, I'm talking about an attitude not any specific program.

When I do mention fisheries notice it's almost exclusively about how they're mismanaged and how that relates to who's governance they're under, and who does and doesn't benefit from that arrangement and how and why. Things that go to the very heart of the wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from Alberta - from people who seem to think their alienation is special and just about them. If Ottawa tried to treat your oil like it does our fish you would have separated decades ago.

That said...you seem to think you're the only ones who are entitled to whine and that Ottawa needs to get everyone else out of the way of ramming your oil through to market. You turned your noses up at a national energy program but love the idea of national exporting program that lets you keep your advantage to yourselves. The promise of a few crumbs along the way covers the lie that putting so many eggs in Alberta's basket has also hurt Canada's nest.

From where I'm sitting Alberta is the fussiest little high-maintenance cry-baby of an eastern province in Canada and it should either crap or get off the pot. Don't forget to take the diaper off first.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---SNIP---

It's ironic that you tried to use that cartoon to poke fun at the lack of knowledge of the author and instead you ended up articulating your broad lack of knowledge on every aspect of the issue and chiding him for omitting extraneous information.

FYI:

- this issue is largely between AB & Sask and Que & Ont. We all know there are other provinces and territories but they aren't central to the debate and the cartoonist actually didn't need to draw them to make his point.

-the oil crosses Canada one way or another, rail hasn't proven to be all that safe

-do you use any of that "toxic sludge"? Drive a car, or use almost any product that's in every other household in Canada?

-Ont & Quebec already have existing pipelines pumping Oil, but it comes from the middle east

-Alberta and Saskatchewan are selling raw exports as fast as they can, what a farce. Who doesn't sell what Oil they have, produce agriculture, or mine if they have the resources available? They don't want to export refining jobs, or livestock processing jobs, etc. Factors outside of the provinces demand those jobs and the federal gov't complies with whatever leverage they have at hand. Putting higher taxes and tariffs on the transportation of packaged meat than meat on the hoof is an example of that.

-the bc gov't ridiculing AB for their lack of economic diversity is a lark. BC's main export by far is the ownership of real estate. Second place isn't even close. Talk about unsustainability lol. Manufacturing was about 7th here last time I checked. I'm not that familiar with the economies of Ont and Que, but I know that the feds subsidize them more per capita than anyone out west.

-you are typical of the crowd that wants to take take take when the money is in Alberta, now that they are suffering you think it's a good time to ridicule? That's a personality flaw, not something to post on social media.

-fyi diversifying in alberta requires more population, but the gov't directs the money for diversification elsewhere within the country. People go where the gov't wants to place the jobs.

Edited by Charles Anthony
excessive quoting; [---SNIP---]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From where I'm sitting Alberta is the fussiest little high-maintenance cry-baby of an eastern province in Canada and it should either crap or get off the pot. Don't forget to take the diaper off first.

Im betting a lot of things look strange from your perspective, considering how ridiculous your opinions are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't get it either, I'm talking about an attitude not any specific program.

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!!

Things that go to the very heart of the wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from Alberta - from people who seem to think their alienation is special and just about them. If Ottawa tried to treat your oil like it does our fish you would have separated decades ago.

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. :D

For the record....I have never been and never will be for any separation from Canada.

When I do mention fisheries

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.

You turned your noses up at a national energy program but love the idea of national exporting program that lets you keep your advantage to yourselves

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

From where I'm sitting Alberta is the fussiest little high-maintenance cry-baby of an eastern province in Canada and it should either crap or get off the pot. Don't forget to take the diaper off first.

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????? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so ridiculous about regarding Alberta as an eastern province from my perspective?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

Geez you're sure full of yourself these days.

You guys want carte blanche not only in your own environment and ecosystems but in other people's too. You expected Ottawa to use it's power to supercede provincial environmental protection to ram your tar through a thousand fish bearing watersheds in the case of BC. That is born of straight out of an attitude of entitled expectation and it's no different than a bailout, it's just one that's delivered by means of brute federal power.

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. :D For the record....I have never been and never will be for any separation from Canada.

I know, you just want a special place and most of the attention within it.

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.

You just refuse to acknowledge that the point of doing so is to illustrate Ottawa's mismanagement due to Canada's misgovernance. I fully admit my alienation is a done deal.

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.

I thought it was designed to do what you expect co-operation for the betterment of all. I wouldn't be surprised if the NEP under Ottawa's control would have been as dysfunctional as anything else Ottawa does but that again relates to our misgovernance not that nationalization was a bad idea.

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?

Like I said the issue is our misgovernance - always has been and always will so long as we remain confederated the way we are.

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

It's your province you should be free to choose your own path.

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????? :D

Resorting to disingenuity the way you do is insulting.

Yes we are all Earthlings and it's 2016 too, both Alberta and Ottawa should start getting with the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That cartoon in the OP says it best.

Is that the Pacific Ocean swamping Alberta and Saskatchewan's end of the boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys want carte blanche not only in your own environment and ecosystems but in other people's too. You expected Ottawa to use it's power to supercede provincial environmental protection to ram your tar through a thousand fish bearing watersheds in the case of BC.

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.

I know, you just want a special place and most of the attention within it.

Nope...I just want what's fair. Not based on your unsubstantiated opinions but based on a formal, objective process.

You just refuse to acknowledge that the point of doing so is to illustrate Ottawa's mismanagement due to Canada's misgovernance

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.

I thought it was designed to do what you expect co-operation for the betterment of all.

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.

It's your province you should be free to choose your own path.

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.

Resorting to disingenuity the way you do is insulting.

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.

Yes we are all Earthlings and it's 2016 too, both Alberta and Ottawa should start getting with the times.

What about BC? Why did you leave them out?

Is that the Pacific Ocean swamping Alberta and Saskatchewan's end of the boat?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...