ForsbergTheGreat
-
Posts
12,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by ForsbergTheGreat
-
-
15 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:
When I say ignorant I mean lacking in knowledge. You say Edler is "Not good at getting shots through" on the pp so I will just post this below:
Vancouver Canucks ALL TIME NHL LEADERS:
Oh look, Edler is the 2nd best Canuck defense man in history for ppgs. The narrative that his shot is crap on the pp is ridiculous imo. And yes....I am logical.
That will be my last post on Edler in this Virtanen thread. Sorry to the other posters this was bugging.
Ppg doesn’t equate to him being good at getting his shots through. What’s his conversation rate, that’s what determines the criteria for judgment.
for example. If he’s takes 10,000 shots and only hits the net on 100, his conversion rate is 1%. the fact the he score 46 goals is irrelevant.
Compare that to Juice Only taking 100 shots, hitting the net on 50 of them, a conversion rate of 50%.
Just because elder scored more goals doesn’t mean he was better at getting the shots through. If you want to use facts you’ll have to get total shot attempts vs shots that hit target. Not just posting career ppg
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 minutes ago, luckylager said:Declining investment in Canada in never a good thing.
It's too bad the Alberta Gov didn't have a plan for the future of its economy years ago when pressure was just starting to be evident from the international community.
I believe if they take a cold hard look and forecast properly they'll see they absolutely need to diversify their investments and make a strong push towards a greener more sustainable future.
Here's a fun fact. Today alberta has the second biggest Wind farm in Canada. The are also in process fo building a new wind farm that will take over as the countries biggest.
Alberta is also in the process of building canada's biggest solar farm just outside of Vulcan.
Alberta is pushing, the problem is it gets lost in the noise of people just blindly bashing Alberta.....
If you want my opinion, Alberta needs to tap more into natural gas as a cheap energy source. The world is looking for cheap clean energy. I've actually been in the works helping a few buddies start up a company doing exactly this. Although we are mostly selling our cheap energy to crypto mining (in negotiations with cannabis to) it's really an area that hasn't been tapped into. We're finishing up the last few days of raising fund and should be public on the venture before the year is out.
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
47 minutes ago, cuporbust said:No , because the word "cracker" does not come with the history of centuries of severe physical and sexual abuse, torture, murder and enslavement of an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin.
I’m going go here while all that stuff is terrible. How does that relate to the individual in the current situation that has had little experience with that disgusting past.
im really curious and looking for an honest opinion. Everyone experience disrespectful comments in life, how does that word negatively affect an individual more than many of the other negative slurs that exist today. Again I’m looking at an individual level not a historical level.
call a black person a n word 10 years ago and you lose your job and get scorned off the earthCall a homosexual three letter f word ten years ago and no one bats an eye. No ones loosing there job over that.
call a promiscuous women the s word ten years ago and people laugh.
Call an over weight person, who struggles with severe depression fat 10 years ago and again no one really thinks twice.
To the individuals does one word cause more emotional pain? If you believe the answer is yes. I’m truly looking for an opinion on why and really looking for an honest discussion as I’m open to understand.
I’d argue that its based on the individual, and has very little to do with race, gender, sexual orientation or body type. Even person is affected differently and every person struggles with insults on different levels.
-
3
-
4
-
3 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:
Aka he’s quitting hockey to pursue a career in video games.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, joe-max said:
Just for fun: What if JB had picked only consensus top picks:
2018: Filip Zadina (consensus ~3: 13 points in 18 games in the AHL, -6)
2017: Gabe Vilardi (consensus ~4/5: 0 points in 1 AHL game, -1)
2016: Jesse Puljujärvi (consensus 3: career high: 28 points, currently in Liiga in Finland)
2015: Ivan Provorov (consensus 6: career high 41 points, this year 14 in 22)
this makes absolutely zero sense. How could canucks take the consensus pick you are listing when that player was already off the board. All you did is cherry pick some players taken ahead that’s haven’t turned out. That makes no logical sense. You might as well claim he could have drafted the “consensus” McDavid Matthews dahlin with that type of logic.
you can’t control what teams ahead of you do only what you can do at your position.
Quinn Hughes was the consensus best pick available at #6. He was ranked 4-6th among most draft rankings. Canucks went with BPA despite us really needing a right shot D.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:
this has been the argument against every raise in the min wage, and even for the idea of a min wage. $20 works fine for the Aussies.
But - IF we could get our governments to get off their hineys and build the co-op style housing needed to fix this crisis, we woudn't need a $20 min wage.
Funny you praise the Aussies. They have an age tiered min wage where you don't make $20 until you reach 21 years old. 17 and under only makes 11.27 per hour.
When Kenney proposed this exact same strategy in Alberta you and few others on here lost your minds on him.....Strange how the exact same strategy is praised and labeled good in one thread but terrible the next....
-
1 hour ago, aGENT said:
Waaah we're so rich and make so much money we had to pay larger amounts of income tax...whaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!
Personal taxes are only a small part of what goes into equalization. No matter how many times this has been dumbed down and explain to you two, it still seems to just go in one ear and out the other.
Stupid BCers and your poor edUMAcatioN. Derrrpp...
now we wait....
-
1
-
1
-
-
yeah investing pension into a resource is quite stupid.....
-
2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:
that's not what the claim is. it's a sneaky little dodge by the CC deniers. The actual claim is 97% of Climate scientists:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
This is probably the 100th time I've posted this link on CDC. Most times it's ignored by the deniers, although some of the more adventurous try and write it off as a bunch of guys "trying to maintain their funding".
It's pretty tough to try and make the claim that NASA and the IPCC are "Fake News!"
If been proven false more than the 100 times you posted it. NASA is basing that off the Oreskes and cooks report which has been refuted and debunked over and over. Even Scientists that were chalked in pro side on that report have came out stated they were falsely quoted. Anyone still using that claim has deeply stuck there head in the sand.
don’t believe American uncovered. How about
-
8 hours ago, UnkNuk said:
From your link:
"Sky News host James Morrow says a petition calling for the declaration of a climate emergency is signed by "climate cultists" trying to enforce "their own socialist ideals".
Mr Morrow’s comments come after it was revealed that 11,000 signatures touted in the media as proof there was a climate emergency may have been hijacked by a few fake signatories including Mickey Mouse from the Mickey Mouse School of the Blind and Zoology professor Araminta Aardvark from the University of Neasden."
I'm not clear on why a "few fake signatories" disqualify a petition.
Nor am I clear on how James Morrow has determined how many of the signatories are socialist climate cultists.
That being said, if it turns out that thousands and thousands of people who have signed this petition turn out to be fakes or people who have no credentials in climate science, then, by all means, lets ignore this particular petition.
Just as we should ignore climate skeptics who have no credentials in climate science.
When a climate reports starts discussing how it will improve gender equality, it does begin to cross the line from being a warning to another way to impose socialist empowerment.
Either way, with the names coming out it’s unclear how many are made up, signed or duplicated by people with no real world credentials. but that’s to be expected when you have an publicly open signature petition.
When what you are proposing is going to negatively affect people’s lives you can bet it’s going to be dissect by every little detail. So If they want their point to be taken seriously then don’t have ass the work.A few weeks before 500 “scientists” sent a report to U.N. stating we weren’t in a climate emergency and... crickets. it is written off because some of the scientists werent directly involved climatology, fair enough. Same thing happens on this report, except to an even bigger extreme, where even fictitious characters are being used and the response is totally different. People blindly support “reports” that share the same viewpoint they have. Like I said, how many people simply just read the title and started salivating over it.
-
22 minutes ago, Lancaster said:
Yeah, a lot of the "scientists" do not have any relevance to the climate debate.
Many are like "professor"... yet not discipline is specified. Some are Professors of Digital Media, teaching accounting, teaching Communications, etc... heck, I could probably get a gig teaching finance at a local college and put my name on the report, lol.
Of not even scientists at all
QuoteHans Wienhold claimed to be a scientist in "BS detection and analysis" at Mohawk College to get on the list of 11,258 signatories from 153 countries supporting the declaration published in BioScience on Nov. 5. The viewpoint article warned the Earth is facing a climate emergency.
The list also included "Micky Mouse" as a professor at the "Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind" in Namibia, a country in Southern Africa.
-
1
-
-
On 11/6/2019 at 2:59 PM, UnkNuk said:
"More than 11,000 scientists issue fresh warning: Earth faces a climate emergency"
"An international consortium of more than 11,000 scientists is backing a study with a dire warning: Earth is facing a climate emergency.
The new study of how human activities have impacted the planet over the past four decades declares that harmful greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly rising, that governments are making insufficient progress in tackling the crisis, and that scientists have “a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat.” The findings were published Tuesday in the journal BioScience."
The report can be found here:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
On 11/6/2019 at 3:28 PM, kingofsurrey said:Yah but 4.3 million Albertans think that climate change is fake news.......
On 11/6/2019 at 3:23 PM, inane said:bunch of conniving "scientists" just scheming together in a massive global conspiracy to get more grants for themselves. typical lefties.
11,000 scientist.....including the likes of professors Mickey Mouse and Albus Dumbledore.
On 11/6/2019 at 3:42 PM, RUPERTKBD said:Besides that, they probably all drink coffee and have computers.....so they're complete hypocrites....
Not that I expected any of you to have read the report out side of the title, but had you did.....
"The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle. The most affluent countries are mainly responsible for the historical GHG emissions and generally have the greatest per capita emissions."
To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live, in ways that improve the vital signs summarized by our graphs. Economic and population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
"Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products"
"Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day, the world population must be stabilized"
Aka stop creating a demand for fossil fuels, stop eating meat, stop having kids....
Or is it still, do as I say, not as I do????
On 11/6/2019 at 4:20 PM, bishopshodan said:100% I hear.
It's all or nuthin!
Why wouldn't it be, is it not a climate crisis? It's either everyone change or the world is over.....right?
Or perhaps is it just not as dire as many claim?
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Dixon Ward said:
Right now he is tied for 34th in RW scoring with Kevin Hayes, Debrincat, and Cam Atkinson. Ahead of Timo Meier and Nino Neidereiter. This puts him in the upper echelon of 2nd line RW.
If he finished around there, will this be enough to remove the word bust entirely from the conversation? I think a solid scoring 2nd line RW is a pretty good result from a high draft pick. He might even climb from there.
If he can maintain a 40 point 20 goal pace it would be a huge stride forward for him but it also it still early and a very short sample size. 4 goals, 7 points in 14 games isn’t that biggest sample to project off of. In fact this time last year at the 14 game mark he was sitting with 5 goals and 7 points in 14 games, he maintained a similar pace up until the Christmas break where he had 11 goals, 18 points in 38 games. People were over the moon claiming him to be a top 10 player in his draft class until he followed that up with only 7 points in the final 32 games.
One other thing to point out is you can’t really use the RW/LW/C argument as they aren’t too accurate. For example NHL.com list only 86 RW to have played at least 1 game this years. Now simple math would state something doesn’t add up, 31 team (each team should technically have 4 RW) = 124 RW. The problem is forwards typically can play all positions. Marner is listed as a C but he typically lines up on the RW with Tavares at center. Lindholm plays RW alongside Monahan and Smurf but is listed as C.
Heck NHL.com only has Canucks listed at 2 RW’s lol
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, aGENT said:
Poor implementation =\= poor plan.
The plan was poor. It had nothing to do with the implementation, the plan to start with was flawed. PET was trying to put his control on the price of a volatile market. He was trying to take control over a market he had no business in. He should have built the refinery and pipelines, not added a export tax and not force albertans to sell to canadians at a discounted rate. That would have allowed Canadians to rely on domestic product instead of buying from foreign companies. It would have added job growth, it would have allowed oil production to breath during the down turn and it would have set this country up for massive success. Unfortunately the group you are using fantasy what if's to defend has no interest in allowing the west to succeed.
5 hours ago, aGENT said:Both sides deserve some blame on not sitting down like grown ups and hammering out a plan that worked for everyone.
Alberta didn't even get an option, it was enforced on them, you seem to be forgetting the Liberal motto. "Screw the West, we'll take the rest. ... Marc Lalonde" The guy who was the brain child of NEP. The same guy who said "The major factor behind the NEP wasn’t Canadianization or getting more from the industry or even self-sufficiency. The determinant factor was the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government,"
So which side do you think didn't want to sit down like grown ups?
Like I said, had PET not been got his greedy control hands into the plan, it might have worked even with the down turn of oil. He openly admitted he had little care for the well being of the citizens in the west and he single handedly destroy the opportunity for a legit NEP, Not Alberta.
5 hours ago, aGENT said:Imagine what we ALL could have had if NEP want tuned by a bunch of petulant politicians
imagining is taking the cherry picked parts, it's a fantasy world and not taking into consideration the actual facts of what happened. Yes it would be nice to have all the positive without the negatives.
5 hours ago, aGENT said:Never mind Alberta squandering the good years.
NEP destroyed the heritage fund.
5 hours ago, aGENT said:You wouldn't need to 'bank roll
the rest of Canada'
I wonder what your response to this would be if the roles were reversed and this was a bunch of lefty hippies in Quebec whining about how 'the rest of Canada is screwing them off producing marijuana' or something.
Because it's oil and because it's 'you', somehow it's not petulant whining...
you have a clear lack of knowledge and clear lack of understanding yet feel justified in your opinion. i'd suggest you do some more research to get a broaden your understanding before you solidify you're opinion, I have posted more than enough factual information on this thread, from over a half dozen sources, but if that's not enough, Please do your own. Don't just assume you have background based on the information you've heard one or two people post in this thread.
-
1
-
-
Prices in the 70’s prices were beginning to jump rapidly and the government wanted more control to help protect people in Ottawa and Ontario from price volatility. In 1970 (adjusting for inflation) the price of oil was $22.08/barrel, but 1979 it was $86.60/barrel. With that sharp of a rise, Liberals didn’t want people in the East to be on the hook since they expected the price to continue to go up. That’s when they created the NEP, it was to give the East cheaper fuel and redistributed the wests energy revenues. Alberta was forced to sell it’s oil with at lower prices for Canadian customers and then levied high taxes on oil and gas exports to foreign countries. This put a major restriction on the profitability of doing business. AKA sell to us at the fixed price (below global market) or don’t sell at all. Not surprisingly this pissed off a lot of American companies and spurred a chain reaction of the foreign companies selling off energy assets in Canada, add in the limited profitability Canada implemented with it’s price fixing and it ended up eliminating 10’s of thousands of jobs. Thousands of Albertans were unable to pay mortgages and the caused the real estate market crashed.
Had oil priced continue to rise Alberta may have had been able to keep businesses barely a float, but prices didn’t keep going up, they dropped significantly and Alberta was still on the hook forced to sell its oil to the East. While yes, the global market would have hurt Alberta, NEP essentially took any life in the industry and drove it right into the ground. That was a stake to the heart of Albertan’s. The fact that you have bought into the idea that the NEP blame was a misconstrued lie made up by the conservatives is laughable, (it’s like you forget that the supreme court ruled in favour of Alberta). The fact the you think the NEP didn’t have any negative impact on Alberta’s industries shows how clueless you are. For any so called “experts” that you can find to defend the NEP, I can find 9 more that disagree with that assertion. Heck even the creator of the NEP doesn’t agree with you.
Marc Lalonde Trudeau’s own energy minister stated “The major factor behind the NEP wasn’t Canadianization or getting more from the industry or even self-sufficiency. The determinant factor was the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government.... Our proposal was to increase Ottawa’s share appreciably, so that the share of the producing provinces would decline significantly and the industry’s share would decline somewhat.”
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/national-post-latest-edition/20080705/281603826230741
This is the same guy that also said “Screw the West, we'll take the rest.” During the 1980 election and people here are shocked on why Alberta feels alienated.
Again lets break down the impact NEP had on Alberta.
Economic disaster quickly followed. Alberta’s unemployment rate shot from 4% to more than 10%. Bankruptcies soared 150%. A housing crisis ensued resulting in values collapsing 40% in both Edmonton and Calgary. As Libin notes, “it would take office landlords a decade to work off the glut.” Alberta’s government plunged into significant debt levels.
Ted Byfield, founder of the now defunct Alberta Report, was quoted as saying “there was an enormous amount of pain everywhere, Alberta was very much a small-business province. Behind the big oil companies, there were thousands of little people..all this was just brought to a crashing halt.”
Former premier Ralph Klein, who was mayor of Calgary at the time, said “thousands of people lost their jobs, their homes, their businesses, their dignity. Some took their own lives.”
By the time the Brian Mulroney led Progressive Conservatives cancelled the NEP in 1986, the federal government collected more than $100-billion in today’s dollars from Alberta. Many billions more in potential investment fled the province of Alberta that up until that point, reveled in an economic boom. The damage caused was immense: construction and energy projects were nixed overnight.
https://boereport.com/2015/10/06/remember-when-albertas-economy-and-trudeau-the-elder/
“Many people were ruined, capital fled, much taxpayer funding was misspent chasing rainbows such as Arctic oil and gas that has yet to be produced. The NEP turned out to be so destructive for Western Canada and for Alberta in particular because of its oil and gas dependence — that it was dismantled after the 1984 election of Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government….. As a policy, the NEP turned into such an embarrassment that it remains a black mark on the federal Liberal and the senior Trudeau’s record and is rarely spoken about.”
“The NEP that Trudeau’s government dropped in 1980 wasn’t for Alberta oil sector’s benefit; it was to give the rest of Canada cheaper fuel and redistributed energy revenues. Among its meddling ways, the program mandated lower prices for Canadian customers, levied taxes on oil and gas exports and further supercharged Petro-Canada. Together with plunging oil prices and a global recession, these policies battered the oil sector and led to massive layoffs.”
https://www.macleans.ca/economy/governments-tight-grasp-on-alberta-oil-a-shortish-history/
“The NEP had been put in place on the expectation that world oil prices, and demand, would continue to rise indefinitely. When they didn't, the justification for the NEP evaporated, and the program itself was shown to have been ill conceived.”
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/national-energy-program
so while he couldn’t control the Global oil prices. He took a bad market and drove a dagger deeper into albertas pain. It’s a perfect example of how attempting to control and price fixing a volatile market is a stupid idea. PET was too worried about control that he screwed up (not Alberta) Canada’s opportunity to have a NEP. Had he simply just supported Canadians, and not got his greedy hands in the way perhaps it could have worked out. It didn’t and even brain child of the NEP came out and publicly stated the keeping the control in the East. It’s why a liberal jean Chrétien is the one that began the phasing out. It’s why the Supreme Court sided with Alberta. It’s why the liberal we’re replaced in 1984.
Anyone that thinks the NEP proposed and implemented by PET as a good thing clearly a moron and only understand the cherry picked bits and pieces people claim. all the while but ignoring the entirety of the policy.
-
Just now, aGENT said:
Imagine what we ALL could have had if you hadn't nixed the NEP and didn't squander the good years.
You wouldn't need to 'bank roll
the rest of Canada'
I wonder what your response to this would be if the roles were reversed and this was a bunch of lefty hippies in Quebec whining about how 'the rest of Canada is screwing them off producing marijuana' or something.
Because it's oil and because it's 'you', somehow it's not petulant whining...
Learn a damn thing about the NEP that was implemented, god the ignorance and stupidity constantly parroted on this board is mind numbing.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
No it's an obsession. Sorry.
Funny you and I have different views on who the "cry baby morons" are.
Yep. Who are they “pointing out” to? What is the purpose of this thread, what’s it trying to accomplish? It’s a hockey board and you got three different thread “crying” about Alberta.
Other than finding a reason for a little circle jerk about their favorite province, this type of conversation is pointless.
Again it’s like the friend that broke up with his ex and doesn’t shut up obsessing over how stupid his ex’s new BF is. If Alberta rattles you that much that you need to take your angst to a hockey board and post in not one but 3 different threads, you got some serious issues.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
What!?!
This 100% Hypocrite agrees with you!
I mean, it's cold outside but I had no idea hell had frozen over
Perhaps you’re only 75%.
-
1
-
-
On 10/28/2019 at 11:52 PM, *Buzzsaw* said:
Ok guys... keep your heads stuck in the sand... keep thinking fossil fuels are ok, and in twenty years your grandkids will shake their heads at what people like you were thinking.
If you’re truly concerned about the environment, you shouldn’t be having kids. Growth in population is the entire reason why CO2 emissions are so high.
Are people willing to put the environments needs over their wants. Doubt it.
It’s much easier to blame McDonalds for making you fat, then for you to just stop buying there products.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Duodenum said:
I think that's where you and I differ. I think tax brackets that increase as we increase in wage is a good thing, and that high earners should prop up the lower earners in society. Otherwise, we'd get a huge divide between the rich and poor which would result in a lot of issues in society.
Im ok with taxes increasing, I just wish I had more say/choosing to where my taxed income goes.
QuoteTaxing the top to support the lower/middle class and improve everyone's quality of life is a staple in all stable countries.
while that’s true there’s a fine line between support and becoming the crutch that people rely on. We need to teach people to be able to support themselves. Not to teach them to walk around with there hands out. When the focus becomes less about how can i improve and more about how can I maintain/take more advantage of that safety net. The people being used as support really start to feel the weight. there needs to be incentive for self improvement not dependance on others.
That’s the line many albertans feel has been crossed. The line is the discussion. Take your own house hold Most people accept the overall goal of taxes but, what’s the ceiling. If you be ok with 80% of your income taxed? Probably not.
QuoteThe more income inequality, the higher the crime rate and corruption, usually. Hard to keep a stable democracy when the rich are allowed to get richer unabated. Without the transfer of some wealth from the rich to the poor, The rich get too powerful, and society/democracy starts to crumble.
I do think it’s important and it’s why I donate money to charitable causes. but I also think we’re turning to a society where people are making rich people seem evil. That it’s immoral to want to gain and maintain wealth. Most people can comprehend large incomes and relate it to their own environment believing it’s unfair.
QuoteWhat I did like, was your post regarding the natural resources and how the revenue derived from that must decrease 50% before any alterations to equalization is made. I do think that could be reviewed and revised to be less restrictive because, while Alberta is rich, sudden downturns in their economy will result in strife still, and the province should be given a reprieve when they need it.
I agree and there is a reason why re-evaluation was added into the agreements. MarketS change, provincial economies fluctuate up and down.
-
21 minutes ago, Duodenum said:
One thing I've pointed out is that West Vancouver pays more than East Vancouver in taxes. Should West Vancouver be getting more of the pie than East Vancouver does?
Short answer Yes.
long answer. It’s really depends on your outlook. I’m personally not a fan of where much of my tax dollars go. Personally I would love a system where you were forced to break down in sub groups to where your taxes go. (Not a super thought out idea). call me Scrooge but I don’t like that 7 billion a year goes to healthcare specifically for smoking causes when I and many others don’t smoke I’m sure many here don’t like seeing tax dollars go into religious/ Christian organizations.i get that your supposed to choose with your vote but I don’t feel votes do enough to allow you be heard. I would love more control personally.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:
It doesn't and never ends.
NEP in 1982. Pipelines and refineries with ports in BC, Newfoundland and New Brunswick with an option in Churchill and Quebec. Refineries and upgraders in every province. So we're not landlocked and dependent on other nations for our energy needs and can export outside of North America.
Alberta: What a terrible frigging idea, we have to sell to Canada for cheaper than anyone else? That's crap why should we lose money. We're going to go with the NAFTA plan instead, America is a dependable purchaser
Alberta 2019: we need pipelines and refineries with ports in BC, Newfoundland and New Brunswick with an option in Churchill and Quebec. Refineries and upgraders in every province. So we're not landlocked and dependent on other nations for our energy needs and can export outside of North America. Our only purchaser right now is America and they have no interest in buying and when they do they are buying it at below market value
The rest of the country:
Trudeau senior: Alberta we will give you pipelines to get your product across the country and we will build refineries.
Alberta: Great that sounds awesome.
Trudeau senior: but we will place huge exporting taxes on any of the product that leaves the country.
Alberta: So that defeats the purpose of getting the product to tide water, ok but we can still sell to Canadians.
Trudeau senior: Yeah about that, you will have to sell us the product for a 40% discount from global market rates.
Alberta: But a 40% discount means there will be no profit and in the current economic down turn of oil we will be losing money at that rate.
Trudeau senior: Too bad
Alberta moves forward, unemployment rate shoots up from 4% to more than 13%. Bankruptcies soared 150%. A housing crisis ensued resulting in values collapsing 40% in both Edmonton and Calgary. All foreign investment pulls out, construction and energy projects were nixed overnight, a 22% drop in drilling activity, and a 25% decline in exploration budgets. Overall, industry cash flow and earnings fell 34% to $3.1 billion in 1981 from $4.7 billion a year before. In 4 short years the damage caused Albertans over 97 billion. Recovery took decades was a big reason why the Heritage Trust Savings Fund wasn’t a success.
Yet people like hippy wonder why Alberta wasn’t on board.
Oh and it wasn’t just Alberta that wasn’t just on board, it was Jean Chrétien that began the phased shut down, add in the fact that the rest of the country also was on Alberta’s side when they chose not to reelect Trudeau senior, instead elect In Brian Mulroney to a majority.
But I’m the ignorant one….
Context, it’s important.
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:
yeah thats it.
Can you just answer the very simple question, why should Alberta get more than a per capita share back? its not a hard thing to answer.
because we pay more per capita.
if I pay the most for a pie why should I not get a bigger piece.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
BEcause even when you're wrong you keep coming back from a different angle attempting to be right. You're incapable of being wrong. Like literally incapable. There's dozens of arguments with dozens of posters over the years that indicate that clearly.
I have no issue admitting when I was wrong. I have said I was wrong about Makar, I said I was wrong about wanting Vilardi over EP.
I do have an issue with people spreading stupidity based information taking out of context. That’s when I step in.
2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:That's fine and all. But in time someone will come by again, refute your post with factual credible information or once again point out exactly why and how the numbers look so skewed against Alberta (hint, it has a lot to do with wages, population and resource extraction revenues) and you'll call them wrong and come back again.
here’s a hint. I’m the one that posts the factual numbers to bring context to the falsified claims, just as I did three posts above.
2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:So...see you in what, like 4 hours?
nope less. You’d miss me to much
-
1
-
Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW
in Alumni
Posted
While that is a lot closer. Shot the hit target are only accounted for. Ideally we need shot attempts which I honestly don’t think exist.