Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 169 of 169

Thread: Premier Notley's Fourth Year

  1. #101

    Default

    Notley deserves way more credit than she is getting. She is 100times more Albertian then lying Kenny
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  2. #102
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,505

    Default

    Hey EDP! Nice to see you around these parts!

  3. #103
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,838

    Default

    ^^ Tell that to the people in Parkland county.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  4. #104
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^
    probably true enough.
    and itís probably as true for urban as it is for rural voters.
    Absolutely. Though for some reason, the joke about how partisans would vote for some ridiculously inappropriate candidiate if he ran under the right label always seems to come off best with rural conservatives. As far as I know, even right-wing southerners never came up with an exact parallel to "Yellow Dog Democrat" to hurl at liberals, even as they came up with lots of other abusive epithets.

    Maybe this is because there's more of a stereotype of rural people always supporting the same thing, over and over again, for all eternity? Whereas the stereotype of left-wingers tends to be that they're culturally alienated from the very people they claim to care about, hence "champagn socialist" and "latte liberal".

    Also, there's a stereotype that left-wingers are always bickering among themselves, so the image of them marching off to the polls like lobotomized zombies to support the same party year after year doesn't quite fit.

  5. #105
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,838

    Default

    Bill C-6 had given Notley a lot of heat before her Government caved in under the pressure. Rural Alberta still remembers it and still will during election time. Parkland county residents still feels burned over the loss of half of their coal plants, which was a major employer. This will be expressed during the next election campaign. Notley might have 1 term left but it'll be a minority Government. The above 2, probably more will be the closing spikes in her coffin.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4326445/p...ta-ndp-budget/
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  6. #106
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    alta cuts deficit, adds 33,000 jobs in 12 months, while Sask falls behind

    Alberta has seen an increase of thirty-three thousand jobs in twelve months ending June 2018, and a two-and-a-half billion dollar decrease in its provincial deficit from March projections, as Saskatchewan falls behind with the worst job numbers since the early 1990s, and the highest provincial debt in the Province’s history.
    Economists have noted that the Alberta Government’s refusal to engage in an austerity approach has improved the position of the province, by maintaining employment, and keeping income tax revenue stable through the crash. In contrast, Saskatchewan’s austerity approach has seen a near-doubling of the unemployment rate, and the highest number of unemployed in Saskatchewan history.
    NDP Alberta’s debt-to-GDP number will sit at 8.7 percent in fiscal 2018/2019 – the best level in Canada. NDP B.C.’s debt-to-GDP ratio is the second-best in the nation at 15 percent.

    The conservative-governed provinces in Western Canada do not fare as well. Sask Party Saskatchewan’s debt-to-GDP ratio is 16 percent, while Progressive Conservative Manitoba’s sits at a whopping 34 percent.

  7. #107
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Bill C-6 had given Notley a lot of heat before her Government caved in under the pressure. Rural Alberta still remembers it and still will during election time. Parkland county residents still feels burned over the loss of half of their coal plants, which was a major employer. This will be expressed during the next election campaign. Notley might have 1 term left but it'll be a minority Government. The above 2, probably more will be the closing spikes in her coffin.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4326445/p...ta-ndp-budget/
    I don't believe she has another term left, for the reasons you citied, and because of more things to come from the NDP.
    I was listening to David Egan, and I honestly wonder what planet he's from..I've never liked him,I like him less now..

  8. #108
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,838

    Default

    Despite the post above yours, there's much resentment to Notley's way she is handling her Government, especially in rural Alberta, and that's where my position is coming from. Its no secret that the majority of the voter base here in Alberta at least comes from Calgary pc blue and Edmonton Liberal red/orange. At least that's my interpretation. I might also add that Notley not only needs to contend with a growing in popularity with parties like the UCP and the Alberta party, the emergence of bill C-12. That being said moving forward, all the signs are there; Notley will have a minority Government in the next election. The only wild card here is the way she's handling the KM pipeline.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Despite the post above yours, there's much resentment to Notley's way she is handling her Government, especially in rural Alberta, and that's where my position is coming from. Its no secret that the majority of the voter base here in Alberta at least comes from Calgary pc blue and Edmonton Liberal red/orange. At least that's my interpretation. I might also add that Notley not only needs to contend with a growing in popularity with parties like the UCP and the Alberta party, the emergence of bill C-12. That being said moving forward, all the signs are there; Notley will have a minority Government in the next election. The only wild card here is the way she's handling the KM pipeline.
    There is no more pc party, except for one remaining rural MLA so I think I can fearlessly predict the PC's will not win any seats in Calgary in the next election. It is possible the Alberta party will pick up some of the former PC support, but I am not sure that will really hurt the NDP. I think rural support for the UCP will be strong and the NDP will hold on in Edmonton, leaving Calgary to be the battleground once again.

  10. #110
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Despite the post above yours, there's much resentment to Notley's way she is handling her Government, especially in rural Alberta, and that's where my position is coming from. Its no secret that the majority of the voter base here in Alberta at least comes from Calgary pc blue and Edmonton Liberal red/orange. At least that's my interpretation. I might also add that Notley not only needs to contend with a growing in popularity with parties like the UCP and the Alberta party, the emergence of bill C-12. That being said moving forward, all the signs are there; Notley will have a minority Government in the next election. The only wild card here is the way she's handling the KM pipeline.
    There is no more pc party, except for one remaining rural MLA so I think I can fearlessly predict the PC's will not win any seats in Calgary in the next election. It is possible the Alberta party will pick up some of the former PC support, but I am not sure that will really hurt the NDP. I think rural support for the UCP will be strong and the NDP will hold on in Edmonton, leaving Calgary to be the battleground once again.

    Edmonton votes NDP, = civil servants..that's an easy call.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Despite the post above yours, there's much resentment to Notley's way she is handling her Government, especially in rural Alberta, and that's where my position is coming from. Its no secret that the majority of the voter base here in Alberta at least comes from Calgary pc blue and Edmonton Liberal red/orange. At least that's my interpretation. I might also add that Notley not only needs to contend with a growing in popularity with parties like the UCP and the Alberta party, the emergence of bill C-12. That being said moving forward, all the signs are there; Notley will have a minority Government in the next election. The only wild card here is the way she's handling the KM pipeline.
    There is no more pc party, except for one remaining rural MLA so I think I can fearlessly predict the PC's will not win any seats in Calgary in the next election. It is possible the Alberta party will pick up some of the former PC support, but I am not sure that will really hurt the NDP. I think rural support for the UCP will be strong and the NDP will hold on in Edmonton, leaving Calgary to be the battleground once again.
    Edmonton votes NDP, = civil servants..that's an easy call.
    Far more people in Edmonton work in the private sector than for the provincial government. I think provincial government employees make up less that 2.5% of the city's population.

  12. #112
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Despite the post above yours, there's much resentment to Notley's way she is handling her Government, especially in rural Alberta, and that's where my position is coming from. Its no secret that the majority of the voter base here in Alberta at least comes from Calgary pc blue and Edmonton Liberal red/orange. At least that's my interpretation. I might also add that Notley not only needs to contend with a growing in popularity with parties like the UCP and the Alberta party, the emergence of bill C-12. That being said moving forward, all the signs are there; Notley will have a minority Government in the next election. The only wild card here is the way she's handling the KM pipeline.
    There is no more pc party, except for one remaining rural MLA so I think I can fearlessly predict the PC's will not win any seats in Calgary in the next election. It is possible the Alberta party will pick up some of the former PC support, but I am not sure that will really hurt the NDP. I think rural support for the UCP will be strong and the NDP will hold on in Edmonton, leaving Calgary to be the battleground once again.
    Edmonton votes NDP, = civil servants..that's an easy call.
    Far more people in Edmonton work in the private sector than for the provincial government. I think provincial government employees make up less that 2.5% of the city's population.
    I read it was more than that, but they'll vote NDP...

  13. #113
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Edmonton will be orange again. As orange as Trump is. haha. The Welcome to Edmonton sign should read 'The City of Orange."
    When did punk rock become so safe? When did the scene become a joke?
    The kids who used to live for beer and speed, now want their fries and coke.

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Notley deserves way more credit than she is getting. She is 100times more Albertian then lying Kenny
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Hey EDP! Nice to see you around these parts!
    /wave!

  15. #115
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You mean like the UCP candidate who just won in Innisfail that had worked on the Trump campaign? Appears he has no problems supporting the "grab them by the pussy" candidate and neither do the people that voted for him.


    In the final day before voting day, an investigation by Vice.com revealed that Innisfail-Sylvan Lake UCP candidate Devin Dreeshen, son of local Conservative Member of Parliament Earl Dreeshen, was a campaign volunteer for Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.


    As part of the investigation, Vice discovered a November 2016 photo of Dreeshen at an invite-only election night event in New York City sporting a red ĎMake America Great Againí baseball cap and raising a drink to Trumpís victory.

    http://daveberta.ca/2018/07/devin-dr...n-by-election/
    This is not someone who was appalled at Trump's comments or behaviour as he was there at the victory party wearing his MAGA hat.

    So yeah, there's people in Alberta who would vote for someone regardless of their behaviour and strictly because of their party affiliation.
    As opposed to supporting Liberal Prime Minister who as well groped a lady.

  16. #116
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You mean like the UCP candidate who just won in Innisfail that had worked on the Trump campaign? Appears he has no problems supporting the "grab them by the pussy" candidate and neither do the people that voted for him.


    In the final day before voting day, an investigation by Vice.com revealed that Innisfail-Sylvan Lake UCP candidate Devin Dreeshen, son of local Conservative Member of Parliament Earl Dreeshen, was a campaign volunteer for Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.


    As part of the investigation, Vice discovered a November 2016 photo of Dreeshen at an invite-only election night event in New York City sporting a red ĎMake America Great Againí baseball cap and raising a drink to Trumpís victory.

    http://daveberta.ca/2018/07/devin-dr...n-by-election/
    This is not someone who was appalled at Trump's comments or behaviour as he was there at the victory party wearing his MAGA hat.

    So yeah, there's people in Alberta who would vote for someone regardless of their behaviour and strictly because of their party affiliation.
    As opposed to supporting Liberal Prime Minister who as well groped a lady.
    Not one female liberal MP spoke about JT, they just shut up like a bunch of clowns..and felt uncomfortable. Had this been a PC, the media would have hung that leader out to dry

  17. #117
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,838

    Default

    Playing devil's advocate here but how apologetic would you be if it was Jason Kenny facing a similar allegation? It can happen to any political or well known figure. Too bad we cant find any dirt on Mike Hudema
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  18. #118
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,852

    Default

    I think we'll see a downward revision on the projected deficit for the 2018/19 budget. My guess, the August revision will be around $7.0 Billion.
    Last edited by The_Cat; 22-07-2018 at 10:43 AM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  19. #119
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,838

    Default

    This was on CTV news last night, $7.0 B sounds more in line with that reality. Oil prices will drop when OPEC etc ramps up production.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  20. #120
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,852

    Default

    Over the past month, WCS oil has been around $40-$50, with a recent drop to $38 US.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  21. #121
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,018

    Default



    Uh-oh spaghetti-os.

    Prepare for Jason Kenney juggernaut.

    https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/new-poll...rgin-1.4033461


  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post


    Uh-oh spaghetti-os.

    Prepare for Jason Kenney juggernaut.

    https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/new-poll...rgin-1.4033461

    Was that a phone poll? And did if so did it have access to people's mobile phones to call? If not, its only a partial picture. Myself included, many people no longer even have land lines. And even if they have access to cell phone numbers, many people won't event bother picking up a call from an unknown number now-a-days. I'm not saying the NDP doesn't have a real battle on its hands, but I wouldn't be trusting the poll entirely if I were the UCP. And enough bozo, lake of fire eruptions occur, that could turn the tables. It should be an interesting election.

  23. #123
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post


    Uh-oh spaghetti-os.

    Prepare for Jason Kenney juggernaut.

    https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/new-poll...rgin-1.4033461


    Wahooo!!!

  24. #124
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,852

    Default

    Another Bozo Eruption in Wetaskiwin-Maskwacis:
    https://globalnews.ca/news/4359905/u...-sex-marriage/
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  25. #125
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,531

    Default

    HaHa! That didn't take long. Same old same old.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  26. #126
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    And yet the numbers stay the same. Could it be the taxpayer paying some twit from the ndp who said she drove 80,000 kms in a year? Bawhaha.. Notley says nothing!..smh..what a sewer rat!

  27. #127

    Default

    Did anyone condemning the post actually read it? It shouldn't be objectionable to anyone but the thought police. and maybe the grammar police.

    "But realize that name-calling and stereotyping those who stand for what we believe in is exactly what you don't want done to you. We have a right to speak what we believe same as you have a right to speak what you believe."

    I'm glad to see that at least from this article the NDP aren't saying anything. It wouldn't look good on them if they did.
    There can only be one.

  28. #128
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Did anyone condemning the post actually read it? It shouldn't be objectionable to anyone but the thought police. and maybe the grammar police.

    "But realize that name-calling and stereotyping those who stand for what we believe in is exactly what you don't want done to you. We have a right to speak what we believe same as you have a right to speak what you believe."

    I'm glad to see that at least from this article the NDP aren't saying anything. It wouldn't look good on them if they did.
    it would seem that you are the one who didnít read the original post or you donít understand the original post. the original lost may have said ďi love you know matter whatĒ but what it meant was ďyou believe you have the right to marry but i should have the right to believe you donítĒ. whatís next? ďi love you but i donít believe your children have the right to go to school with mineĒ? cloaking prejudice and intolerance in ďloveĒ is just wrong. are people entitled to be wrong and to speak what they believe even when wrong? absolutely - the only thing more common in the universe that nitrogen is stupidity. but people who hold ideas that are fundamentally wrong should not be in a position to control or limit the rights of others or to implement laws or practices that limit the beliefs and freedom of others based on their own.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  29. #129

    Default

    "I do not support Homosexuality or "Homosexual marriage"."

    That's the extent of it. That's really all. It might be your intolerance and prejudice that assumes there must be intolerance and prejudice behind that statement.

    Like I said, thought police. We've moved beyond tolerance to mandating support, apparently.
    There can only be one.

  30. #130
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    "I do not support Homosexuality or "Homosexual marriage"."

    That's the extent of it. That's really all. It might be your intolerance and prejudice that assumes there must be intolerance and prejudice behind that statement.

    Like I said, thought police. We've moved beyond tolerance to mandating support, apparently.
    you are correct - that is the extent of it. and until it goes on to add ďbut i will support your right to marry even though i do not believe in itĒ then it is intolerant and prejudicial.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  31. #131
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    And yet the numbers stay the same. Could it be the taxpayer paying some twit from the ndp who said she drove 80,000 kms in a year? Bawhaha.. Notley says nothing!..smh..what a sewer rat!
    Why should Notley have to say anything? Any more than Kenney would have to say something about some of his rural UCP MLAs who drove almost as many kilometers attending events in their constituencies? Representing a rural constituency means tons of driving because there simply is no other way to get around.

    All MLA expenses are posted online. Littlewood's expenses for the year in question are available at this link:

    http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDA...8Q4_01_edr.pdf

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Did anyone condemning the post actually read it? It shouldn't be objectionable to anyone but the thought police. and maybe the grammar police.

    "But realize that name-calling and stereotyping those who stand for what we believe in is exactly what you don't want done to you. We have a right to speak what we believe same as you have a right to speak what you believe."

    I'm glad to see that at least from this article the NDP aren't saying anything. It wouldn't look good on them if they did.


    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    "I do not support Homosexuality or "Homosexual marriage"."

    That's the extent of it. That's really all. It might be your intolerance and prejudice that assumes there must be intolerance and prejudice behind that statement.

    Like I said, thought police. We've moved beyond tolerance to mandating support, apparently.

    I agree.

    I’d say that a good indicator to spot an intolerant person, is that person’s attacks of another by taking just a few select words and comments without regard to the context or additional clarifying information.


    Here’s more than just a couple words:

    https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpre...&crop=1&zoom=2
    Last edited by KC; 31-07-2018 at 09:58 AM.

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Did anyone condemning the post actually read it? It shouldn't be objectionable to anyone but the thought police. and maybe the grammar police.

    "But realize that name-calling and stereotyping those who stand for what we believe in is exactly what you don't want done to you. We have a right to speak what we believe same as you have a right to speak what you believe."

    I'm glad to see that at least from this article the NDP aren't saying anything. It wouldn't look good on them if they did.
    it would seem that you are the one who didn’t read the original post or you don’t understand the original post. the original lost may have said “i love you know matter what” but what it meant was “you believe you have the right to marry but i should have the right to believe you don’t”. what’s next? “i love you but i don’t believe your children have the right to go to school with mine”? cloaking prejudice and intolerance in “love” is just wrong. are people entitled to be wrong and to speak what they believe even when wrong? absolutely - the only thing more common in the universe that nitrogen is stupidity. but people who hold ideas that are fundamentally wrong should not be in a position to control or limit the rights of others or to implement laws or practices that limit the beliefs and freedom of others based on their own.
    The nature of our laws and constitutional rights and the powers granted to elected officials pretty much means that at some point their beliefs will interfere with and limit others freedoms and beliefs.

  34. #134
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    And yet the numbers stay the same. Could it be the taxpayer paying some twit from the ndp who said she drove 80,000 kms in a year? Bawhaha.. Notley says nothing!..smh..what a sewer rat!
    Why should Notley have to say anything? Any more than Kenney would have to say something about some of his rural UCP MLAs who drove almost as many kilometers attending events in their constituencies? Representing a rural constituency means tons of driving because there simply is no other way to get around.

    All MLA expenses are posted online. Littlewood's expenses for the year in question are available at this link:

    http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDA...8Q4_01_edr.pdf


    Littlewood is a lying sewer rat

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    "I do not support Homosexuality or "Homosexual marriage"."

    That's the extent of it. That's really all. It might be your intolerance and prejudice that assumes there must be intolerance and prejudice behind that statement.

    Like I said, thought police. We've moved beyond tolerance to mandating support, apparently.
    Yup, nothing to see there. Completely harmless! She merely doesn't like black ... er, homosexual people, so what's the problem? It's just a difference of opionon!

    Not sure where you're going with the "thought police" thing. She's allowed to think and express those sentiments (disgusting as they may be), BUT there just might be consequences if she tries to run for an elected office! Oh the humanity...!

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post


    Uh-oh spaghetti-os.

    Prepare for Jason Kenney juggernaut.

    https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/new-poll...rgin-1.4033461

    If these numbers hold then it's devastating for the NDP: they've even lost support in Edmonton. The UCP could end up with 70 seats.

  37. #137
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    the only thing more common in the universe that nitrogen is stupidity


    Along with hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron and carbon...


  38. #138
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    "I do not support Homosexuality or "Homosexual marriage"."

    That's the extent of it. That's really all. It might be your intolerance and prejudice that assumes there must be intolerance and prejudice behind that statement.

    Like I said, thought police. We've moved beyond tolerance to mandating support, apparently.
    What if we swap out gay marriage for interracial marriage? Is there a distinction between the two? And I'm not asking this as a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious if you have some reasoning as to why in this day and age it would be okay to "not support" gay marriage, when it's pretty much universally recognized that if you "don't support" interracial marriage, you're a flat out bigot. Why is it any different for gay marriage? Just because they can jump behind their "religious beliefs" about it? That exact same argument was made about interracial marriage too, and no one buys that anymore either. Other than the bigots, anyway.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 31-07-2018 at 02:13 PM.

  39. #139
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post


    Uh-oh spaghetti-os.

    Prepare for Jason Kenney juggernaut.

    https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/new-poll...rgin-1.4033461

    If these numbers hold then it's devastating for the NDP: they've even lost support in Edmonton. The UCP could end up with 70 seats.
    Oh my, what great news...

  40. #140
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    the only thing more common in the universe that nitrogen is stupidity


    Along with hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron and carbon...

    true, true. i should have said atmosphere and not universe.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #141

    Default

    Distinctions are subtle, but we still don't support polygamist marriage or incestuous marriage either, and not just "bigots".

    I suppose it would be possible to "not support interracial Marriage" without racial prejudice, just with a belief that people are better off marrying within their own groups. Of course that's not what American bans on interracial marriage were, but it's not a necessary part of the package. Interracial marriages have historically been understood as marriages whether they were approved of or not.

    That's not the case with homosexual marriages. Until this generation even the most committed long term homosexual relationship wouldn't have been considered a marriage even by those in it - not even those who don't care in the least whether a relationship is condoned by the state or a church. Those who still define marriage by the universal definition of 30 years ago aren't necessarily harboring ill will, just perhaps stubborn and out-moded.

    And they're not entirely wrong. Marriage is one of those somewhat arbitrarily defined things that seems unnecessarily rigid not matter where the line of what is and what isn't a marriage is placed. Why not asexual relationships, just lifelong roommates? Sure requiring penis-vagina consummation seems arbitrary now that procreation has been thoroughly de-linked, but so does requiring sex at all. it's no less bigoted to draw the line in one place than in another.
    There can only be one.

  42. #142
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Distinctions are subtle, but we still don't support polygamist marriage or incestuous marriage either, and not just "bigots".

    I suppose it would be possible to "not support interracial Marriage" without racial prejudice, just with a belief that people are better off marrying within their own groups. Of course that's not what American bans on interracial marriage were, but it's not a necessary part of the package. Interracial marriages have historically been understood as marriages whether they were approved of or not.

    That's not the case with homosexual marriages. Until this generation even the most committed long term homosexual relationship wouldn't have been considered a marriage even by those in it - not even those who don't care in the least whether a relationship is condoned by the state or a church. Those who still define marriage by the universal definition of 30 years ago aren't necessarily harboring ill will, just perhaps stubborn and out-moded.

    And they're not entirely wrong. Marriage is one of those somewhat arbitrarily defined things that seems unnecessarily rigid not matter where the line of what is and what isn't a marriage is placed. Why not asexual relationships, just lifelong roommates? Sure requiring penis-vagina consummation seems arbitrary now that procreation has been thoroughly de-linked, but so does requiring sex at all. it's no less bigoted to draw the line in one place than in another.
    you're drawing a parallel that doesn't exist...

    we don't support polygamist or incestuous marriage irrespective of sexual orientation. if we did, then it would indeed be bigotry, just like not supporting monogamous marriage if the participants are homosexual is indeed bigotry.

    in regard to your interracial comparable, electing to or not to interracially marry is personal choice, having it forbidden by others is bigotry.

    i have friends going back more than half a century who would take great offense in your saying "until this generation even the most committed long term homosexual relationship wouldn't have been considered a marriage even by those in it". projecting bigotry on those receiving it doesn't eliminate it.

    "they're not entirely wrong"???? who is they? those who you've projected your opinions on even though your projections are just wrong as your opinion?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  43. #143

    Default

    Curtis Stock made the same false equivalence argument in The Report in 2002 and Jason Kenny agreed with him.

    Jason Kenney once argued the constitutional protection of LGBTQ2S rights “opened the door” to “polygamy” and “incest”
    The comments were printed in a now defunct socially conservative magazine.


    The changes, Stock argued, had been “sought by homosexual activists” and “appear to make it easier for the practitioners of a variety of other abnormal practices, including polygamy, to be recognized as worthy of family-class immigration status.”


    Weighing in, and apparently accepting Stock’s equivalence between homosexuality and polygamy, Kenney chastised “secular liberals” for what he called a “double standard” when it came to their support for the rights of same-sex couples and opposition to polygamy:


    “It is completely inconsistent for secular liberals to argue traditional conceptions of the family have no place in society when it comes to homosexual marriage, but then object to polygamy, using traditional arguments.”
    He then went on to criticize the Supreme Court for protecting such rights, saying:


    “When the Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to sexual orientation, a right based on sexual conduct, they opened the door for polygamists, advocates of incest, and others to claim the same status as homosexuals. It was inevitable.”
    http://pressprogress.ca/jason_kenney...my_and_incest/

  44. #144

    Default

    Calling it false does not make it so.
    There can only be one.

  45. #145
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Calling it false does not make it so.
    i think that's backwards...

    insisting it's not false does not make it true, it only makes you wrong.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Distinctions are subtle, but we still don't support polygamist marriage or incestuous marriage either, and not just "bigots".

    I suppose it would be possible to "not support interracial Marriage" without racial prejudice, just with a belief that people are better off marrying within their own groups. Of course that's not what American bans on interracial marriage were, but it's not a necessary part of the package. Interracial marriages have historically been understood as marriages whether they were approved of or not.

    That's not the case with homosexual marriages. Until this generation even the most committed long term homosexual relationship wouldn't have been considered a marriage even by those in it - not even those who don't care in the least whether a relationship is condoned by the state or a church. Those who still define marriage by the universal definition of 30 years ago aren't necessarily harboring ill will, just perhaps stubborn and out-moded.

    And they're not entirely wrong. Marriage is one of those somewhat arbitrarily defined things that seems unnecessarily rigid not matter where the line of what is and what isn't a marriage is placed. Why not asexual relationships, just lifelong roommates? Sure requiring penis-vagina consummation seems arbitrary now that procreation has been thoroughly de-linked, but so does requiring sex at all. it's no less bigoted to draw the line in one place than in another.
    you're drawing a parallel that doesn't exist...

    we don't support polygamist or incestuous marriage irrespective of sexual orientation. if we did, then it would indeed be bigotry, just like not supporting monogamous marriage if the participants are homosexual is indeed bigotry.

    in regard to your interracial comparable, electing to or not to interracially marry is personal choice, having it forbidden by others is bigotry.

    i have friends going back more than half a century who would take great offense in your saying "until this generation even the most committed long term homosexual relationship wouldn't have been considered a marriage even by those in it". projecting bigotry on those receiving it doesn't eliminate it.

    "they're not entirely wrong"???? who is they? those who you've projected your opinions on even though your projections are just wrong as your opinion?
    The justifications for denying recognition to incestuous relationships are entirely moral, exactly the same as the justification of those who would deny homosexual relationships. If it's bigotry to deny one's preferred relationship then it's bigotry to deny another.

    I don't intend to offend your friends or any other long-term couples who did indeed consider themselves married decades before it was legal. I'll retract that line.

    "They" is, clearly, "Those who still define marriage by the (near) universal definition of 30 years ago."
    There can only be one.

  47. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Calling it false does not make it so.
    i think that's backwards...

    insisting it's not false does not make it true, it only makes you wrong.
    But if it is false it shouldn't be difficult to show logically that it is false, not merely to the fact that public opinion on the one is different than on the other.

    Two situations where one person loves someone and wishes to live openly with that someone has been denied by society. To claim that the denial is only bigotry homosexuality is involved seems like a blind prejudice, not a reasonable argument. Maybe it's just that society just accepts some bigotries and not others.
    There can only be one.

  48. #148

    Default

    There is no law that prevents someone from being in a polygamous relationship. We simply allow each person to be legally married at one time. If you want to get married and have addition people join you, that's up to you. However, regardless of sexual orientation, you can only have one legal spouse.

    As for incestuous relationships, there's reasons against that, not the least of which is the dangers of inbreeding.

    And in both the above cases, most incestouous and polygamous relationships come from a position of one person having power over another, usually an older male and a younger female (not always of course). It's not a level playing field when young women are shipped off to southern Utah to marry much older men.

  49. #149
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    But if it is false it shouldn't be difficult to show logically that it is false, not merely to the fact that public opinion on the one is different than on the other.

    Two situations where one person loves someone and wishes to live openly with that someone has been denied by society. To claim that the denial is only bigotry homosexuality is involved seems like a blind prejudice, not a reasonable argument. Maybe it's just that society just accepts some bigotries and not others.
    first paragraph - true.

    second paragraph - fails to actually meet the test set out in the first paragraph.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There is no law that prevents someone from being in a polygamous relationship. We simply allow each person to be legally married at one time. If you want to get married and have addition people join you, that's up to you. However, regardless of sexual orientation, you can only have one legal spouse.

    As for incestuous relationships, there's reasons against that, not the least of which is the dangers of inbreeding.

    And in both the above cases, most incestouous and polygamous relationships come from a position of one person having power over another, usually an older male and a younger female (not always of course). It's not a level playing field when young women are shipped off to southern Utah to marry much older men.
    Without legal gay marriage there was no law preventing someone from being in a homosexual relationship. Adultery laws were as much part of our legal past as sodomy laws.

    It's no more fair to define polygamy relationships by the power dynamics of bountiful than it is to define homosexuality by the promiscuity of a bath house.

    Inbreeding can be avoided by using birth control and using the same methods of conception that homosexual couples - and infertile traditional couples - use.
    There can only be one.

  51. #151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    But if it is false it shouldn't be difficult to show logically that it is false, not merely to the fact that public opinion on the one is different than on the other.

    Two situations where one person loves someone and wishes to live openly with that someone has been denied by society. To claim that the denial is only bigotry homosexuality is involved seems like a blind prejudice, not a reasonable argument. Maybe it's just that society just accepts some bigotries and not others.
    first paragraph - true.

    second paragraph - fails to actually meet the test set out in the first paragraph.
    You misread me.

    and in any case I am not the one trying to show the equivalency false.
    There can only be one.

  52. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There is no law that prevents someone from being in a polygamous relationship. We simply allow each person to be legally married at one time. If you want to get married and have addition people join you, that's up to you. However, regardless of sexual orientation, you can only have one legal spouse.

    As for incestuous relationships, there's reasons against that, not the least of which is the dangers of inbreeding.

    And in both the above cases, most incestouous and polygamous relationships come from a position of one person having power over another, usually an older male and a younger female (not always of course). It's not a level playing field when young women are shipped off to southern Utah to marry much older men.
    Without legal gay marriage there was no law preventing someone from being in a homosexual relationship. Adultery laws were as much part of our legal past as sodomy laws.

    It's no more fair to define polygamy relationships by the power dynamics of bountiful than it is to define homosexuality by the promiscuity of a bath house.

    Inbreeding can be avoided by using birth control and using the same methods of conception that homosexual couples - and infertile traditional couples - use.
    Nonsense. Young girls in polygamous societies are raised from birth to expect to marry an older man and to be one of many such "wives". People in a bath house have to be of legal age and are there of their own free will.

    The same power dynamics are usually in play with incestuous relationships, a parent exercising power over a child. And what happens when an incestuous couple decides they want a child together, regardless of the risks?

  53. #153

    Default

    Some people might say they don’t support smoking tobacco etc or drinking alcohol however they love many of the people that do...

    Intolerant bigots?

  54. #154
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Some people might say they don’t support smoking tobacco etc or drinking alcohol however they love many of the people that do...

    Intolerant bigots?
    unless you think people are born smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol that’s a pretty false equivalency... homosexuality is not a bad habit to quit if only you are morally strong enough. some people might say only an ignorant bigot would make that comparison.

    loving someone in spite of their bad habits is not the same as professing to love someone while considering a very core of who they are to be a bad habit.
    Last edited by kcantor; 31-07-2018 at 09:46 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  55. #155
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Some people might say they don’t support smoking tobacco etc or drinking alcohol however they love many of the people that do...

    Intolerant bigots?
    Sexual orientation isn't a choice. Horrendously poor argument/analogy, and offensive to boot given that you're comparing orientation to addictive and unhealthy substances. I would suggest you retract it.

  56. #156
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,531

    Default

    ^^ and ^

    +10.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  57. #157
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,018

    Default

    There are now conversion therapies that can cure homosexuality.

    Top_Dawg's favorite is the one where they beat the sh*t our of an effigy of their mother with a tennis racket.


  58. #158

    Default

    Come on ken... then why say anything on the matter at all. This is done and said so a candidate can look as attractive to a far right base as possible. All that needs to be said in this day is the issue is settled, period. We donít need the dog whistles.

    This is politics and the game of spin.

  59. #159
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Come on ken... then why say anything on the matter at all. This is done and said so a candidate can look as attractive to a far right base as possible. All that needs to be said in this day is the issue is settled, period. We donít need the dog whistles.

    This is politics and the game of spin.
    iím not sure how this is a response to anything i posted???
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  60. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Some people might say they don’t support smoking tobacco etc or drinking alcohol however they love many of the people that do...

    Intolerant bigots?
    Sexual orientation isn't a choice. Horrendously poor argument/analogy, and offensive to boot given that you're comparing orientation to addictive and unhealthy substances. I would suggest you retract it.
    I’m not comparing them. I’m providing a separate example.

    Additionally, now that you’ve raised it, a question, for anothet thread: Is addiction a choice?

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Some people might say they donít support smoking tobacco etc or drinking alcohol however they love many of the people that do...

    Intolerant bigots?
    Sexual orientation isn't a choice. Horrendously poor argument/analogy, and offensive to boot given that you're comparing orientation to addictive and unhealthy substances. I would suggest you retract it.
    Iím not comparing them. Iím providing a separate example.

    Additionally, now that youíve raised it, a question, for anothet thread: Is addiction a choice?
    I don't see the purpose of providing a separate example except to invite comparison.

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Come on ken... then why say anything on the matter at all. This is done and said so a candidate can look as attractive to a far right base as possible. All that needs to be said in this day is the issue is settled, period. We donít need the dog whistles.

    This is politics and the game of spin.
    iím not sure how this is a response to anything i posted???
    Actually thatís my bad. I was replying to a point made some time ago. I had not checked the thread in some time.... and Iím not totally comfortable with some of the new formatting.

    It was in response to how this lady for the upc is wording her justification of why she doesnít support gay marriage and some of the suck and blow tactics that have become very prevalent in todayís politics. We say something to signal to the base we are with them but then tone it down with virtue signaling.

  63. #163
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Come on ken... then why say anything on the matter at all. This is done and said so a candidate can look as attractive to a far right base as possible. All that needs to be said in this day is the issue is settled, period. We donít need the dog whistles.

    This is politics and the game of spin.
    iím not sure how this is a response to anything i posted???
    Actually thatís my bad. I was replying to a point made some time ago. I had not checked the thread in some time.... and Iím not totally comfortable with some of the new formatting.

    It was in response to how this lady for the upc is wording her justification of why she doesnít support gay marriage and some of the suck and blow tactics that have become very prevalent in todayís politics. We say something to signal to the base we are with them but then tone it down with virtue signaling.
    thanks for confirming that youíre not painting me with that brush...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  64. #164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Some people might say they don’t support smoking tobacco etc or drinking alcohol however they love many of the people that do...

    Intolerant bigots?
    Sexual orientation isn't a choice. Horrendously poor argument/analogy, and offensive to boot given that you're comparing orientation to addictive and unhealthy substances. I would suggest you retract it.
    I’m not comparing them. I’m providing a separate example.

    Additionally, now that you’ve raised it, a question, for anothet thread: Is addiction a choice?
    I don't see the purpose of providing a separate example except to invite comparison.
    Yes, I guess when people are predisposed to putting things in nice little boxes with nice little labels, comparisons are inevitable.

  65. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Some people might say they don’t support smoking tobacco etc or drinking alcohol however they love many of the people that do...

    Intolerant bigots?
    Sexual orientation isn't a choice. Horrendously poor argument/analogy, and offensive to boot given that you're comparing orientation to addictive and unhealthy substances. I would suggest you retract it.
    Back to this. (And let me again say that I wasn’t comparing nor making an analogy.)

    So, if something is a choice, like one’s religion (assuming that can be a choice), how would that change the discussion?
    Last edited by KC; 02-08-2018 at 04:28 PM.

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post


    Uh-oh spaghetti-os.

    Prepare for Jason Kenney juggernaut.

    https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/new-poll...rgin-1.4033461

    If these numbers hold then it's devastating for the NDP: they've even lost support in Edmonton. The UCP could end up with 70 seats.
    Oh my, what great news...
    Then the alternatives need to be assessed as to what they represent:

    Braid: Lougheed's son blasts Kenney for co-opting dad's legacy

    Don Braid, Calgary Herald Updated: October 21, 2017

    Kenney often harshly criticized aspects of Lougheed’s legacy when he was a young advocate for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and later as a Reform Party MP.

    Today, Kenney says he wants to build a Lougheed-style “big-tent” party, drawing in conservatives of all stripes. He refers warmly to Peter Lougheed.

    It drives the Lougheed loyalists crazy.

    “I never, ever heard him speak of my father with any degree of respect,” says Stephen Lougheed, the eldest of four Lougheed children and former CEO of Alberta Innovates.

    “Jason Kenney was an unfair critic of Peter Lougheed’s policies throughout that time,” says Richardson, former MP for Calgary-Centre, who was in the Stephen Harper federal caucus with Kenney.

    “And now he wants to wrap himself in that cloak to get some support from progressive conservatives. He’s the furthest thing from a progressive conservative.” “


    https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...ng-dads-legacy

  67. #167
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    KC, it's good news for me, and lots of other people in AB, no matter what you post..

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    KC, it's good news for me, and lots of other people in AB, no matter what you post..
    Actually I’d love to hear some well thought out reasons why.

  69. #169
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post


    Uh-oh spaghetti-os.

    Prepare for Jason Kenney juggernaut.

    https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/new-poll...rgin-1.4033461

    If these numbers hold then it's devastating for the NDP: they've even lost support in Edmonton. The UCP could end up with 70 seats.
    Oh my, what great news...
    Then the alternatives need to be assessed as to what they represent:

    Braid: Lougheed's son blasts Kenney for co-opting dad's legacy

    Don Braid, Calgary Herald Updated: October 21, 2017

    Kenney often harshly criticized aspects of Lougheed’s legacy when he was a young advocate for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and later as a Reform Party MP.

    Today, Kenney says he wants to build a Lougheed-style “big-tent” party, drawing in conservatives of all stripes. He refers warmly to Peter Lougheed.

    It drives the Lougheed loyalists crazy.

    “I never, ever heard him speak of my father with any degree of respect,” says Stephen Lougheed, the eldest of four Lougheed children and former CEO of Alberta Innovates.

    “Jason Kenney was an unfair critic of Peter Lougheed’s policies throughout that time,” says Richardson, former MP for Calgary-Centre, who was in the Stephen Harper federal caucus with Kenney.

    “And now he wants to wrap himself in that cloak to get some support from progressive conservatives. He’s the furthest thing from a progressive conservative.” “


    https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...ng-dads-legacy
    The bolded is just too funny coming from the pc son of a former premier and who was at one time a CEO of a crown corporation. A sample of the rot.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •