ForsbergTheGreat

Hip This is the last time I’ll explain it to you and I’ll be cordial. You’re are ignoring the negative effects that came along with the benefits. There was more to the NEP in the 80’s than just pipelines and refineries. There were extremely negative conditions (conditions I’ve pointed out over and over) that came along with it, conditions that DID crippled the economy during the downturn of oil. You need to consider ALL context before you can claim something was good or bad. You call me ignorant but you’re the one blind fully ignoring important context, even when that context is laid out in front of you. You stick your nose in the air and continue on making the same debunked statements.

Funny how you wouldn't dare post the per capita numbers that an Albertan puts in....Gee wonder why you would glaze over that part..... It's also funny that you only choose to take one of the subgroups and portrayed it as the whole, meanwhile once again ignored important context, Unless you don't think that federal transfers for Employment Insurance, the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security and net federal government spending on goods and services per capita matter. When all is said and done, here is the difference between revenue gained and total expenses at a per capita level..... @Ryan Strome, i really don't know why I attempt anymore, it just bothers me when I see misinformation spread and the easily gullible get sucked into believe it.. I mean why would I expect anyone to double check the validity of the posts....but I think it's time to pull chute, watching this stupidity spread is giving me a head ache. Enjoy your tea party boys, i'm out, so I wont get in your way anymore to stomp all over your childish fantasies.

Yeah, I’m at that point too, i mean how many times does hip need be to explained that the NEP Trudeau Sr implemented was terrible, not even the biggest liberal lovers defend it. Even the man who put the plan in place said what the intensions were. yet he’s still going on about how Alberta throughout great opportunity. Lol. With transfer payments it is a complex calculation, But they get so focused on trying to simplify it that they miss very important context, Even when it’s pointed out over and over they choose to ignoring. I think it’s because people love to try and look for ways to justified taking jabs at our great province. Similar to what fans do with rival NHL teams. But in the end it really comes down to an obsession people have about Alberta. For example, look at Jimmy, he had to go out of his way and create a brand new thread on a topic that has already been discussed over the moon about. What good does this thread do on a Canucks hockey board? It accomplishes nothing, no minds will be swayed, no good debate will spark, and no offense but it’s on a very biased environment that wont have too many objections to the opinion. I mean what’s the goal that he’s trying to accomplish? He could have achieve the same result bringing up this topic amongst his own peer group, or even PM the very same members who discuss it and achieved the same result. It’s a pointless thread to create.... again when the topics being discussed elsewhere.....topics that lead by him. Honestly It’s purely a way to satisfy his fixation on Alberta. It’s like that friend who’s went through a break up and doesn’t shut up about how his ex’s new BF is so dumb. Move on buddy it’s getting creepy.

I’ve already pointed out to you why the original NEP was terrible for Alberta. There’s no denying it or arguing for it. Why are you still going on about this?

It’s not easy to create an economy out of nothing. Resources are the main drivers of a provinces economy. and they have tried. This started in the 80 and 90’s when the govt provided loans and equity stakes to companies in the non energy sector. And they even tried to open up for investment firms. It hasn’t been that successful but with that said today we are more diversified then ever. They focused on renewable energy they already have the largest wind farm in Canada. And they are in the process of building Canada’s biggest solar farm.

Alberta does need to diversify its economy there’s no question about that.

Do you not understand how it works? see this is what creates so much anger. Your lack of understanding is how you justify passing off your judgment and claim it they were incompetent. . equalization payments are evaluated every 3 years. This allows you to adjust when markets crash or flourish. They weren’t locking into anything long term, thus calling them “idiots” to setting up something during a different market era is really stupid and lacks logic. But, hey don’t let logic get in the way of calling conservatives stupid.

You guys seems to not understand that the price of oil was a lot different in 2007. In 2008 it was the highest point it’s been over the last 20 years. Oil didn’t average below $85 Per barrel until 2015. (When Trudeau took over). Yet despite this huge economic down turn Alberta is Still expected to contribute as if it was still generating revenue like it was in 2014. How is that fair? It’s not and it’s why Alberta is up in arms about seeing some alterations. If you’re raking in a 7 figure salary, letting the trophy wife go out and hit the mall on a shopping spree every month isn’t something to bat an eye about. But if all of the sudden you get a job demotion to now only barely crack the 6 figure mark, things start to change. If the wife has to continue her spending habits, eventually you’ll be looking to spilt.

In current transfer payments there’s a lot of rule set up that determines on how much each province gives. It’s not simply you make the most, you pay the most that people love to parrot so much. would call it. First, we have fiscal stabilization that pays up to $60 per capita to provinces that suddenly lose more than 5% of their revenue. It’s why a province like Ontario still received $1 billion despite being a have province. Alberta should also fall into that category since lost more than 5% the last few years but here’s the kicker, fiscal stabilization doesn’t count for natural resource revenue unless it loses over 50%. So Alberta gets next to no benefit for that. But where Natural resources don’t account for fiscal stabilization, they sure do count for equalization. With Equalization payments it’s not just the personal income taxes of individuals that so many here love to parrot. There are five different revenue streams taken into consideration, personal income taxes, business income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes and Alberta’s biggest stream natural resource revenues. Because Alberta is able to generate large amounts of revenue from it’s natural resource it will always be on the hook for equalization payments, even if the personal and business income taxes drop below other provinces. The formula to calculated the “how much” is in place for 3 year segments. It’s set up this way to allow for changes in the market. With the way Alberta has been hurting in the down turn of oil the last four years, you would assume this the ideal reason for adjustment. But Trudeau approved the current plan to remain the same for another 3 years in 2018. It’s a system that has some major flaws that many of you are not willing to admit. One example would be A province like Quebec has government owned hydro, they can technically artificially keep prices low to bring in lows revenue that in turn makes the province look poorer than they actually are = more equalization money. It’s a win/win for them as lower hydro looks good on a provincial political level but also helps keep their ability to generate revenue lower than it actually should be. This is why Albertans want change, we are working on an uphill battle pulling other have not provinces up the mountain with us. And to make matters worse, many of these provinces are trying to make life even more difficult for us by attempting to hurt our natural resource revenue.

Before you want to start claiming I’m full of false information you might want to learn how to read, before you get all triggered.

Except in this case, your doctor is a 16 year old girl with zero climatology background spreading a message that not all actual climatologists agree on. Not all scientist agree that we are in a climate emergency, most agree climate change is happening and man made but not at the point of no return. If we were, we'd be pushing a lot more extreme measures than simply attacking Alberta oil. When the message is turn or burn and you are seen not following your own advice, you taint the severity of the warning you are declaring. It's become very cult like and media with much of the public has sucked it up. IF you want a more resembling example it would be a like priest telling his congregation that god demands all of the followers donate 10% of their salaries or they're going to hell, but then you see the priest income taxes and not only is he not donating anything and he's spending the congregation donations of material items for his personal life. That's why I ask Gurn for the example, why aren't people hypocrites for not giving up their petroleums products. We all know the answer, and it's because the majority of people need those items (such as a car and computers) in order to provide for their family household. They can't afford to stop supporting oil for their own lively hoods depend on it. The hypocritical part is these same people wont give up oil because of the slight effects it will have on their own lives, but they are ok with telling the families in Alberta who's income is directly involved in oil, that production needs to stop.

it one 100% is. Just because you try to make it something that doesn't relate to real life topic at hand, in order to make transition the debate, doesn't mean it's not a valid point. Unfortunately that is grade 8 style debate, most adults can see right through that. People aren't calling her a hypocrite for wanting change. They are calling her a hypocrite for massively contributing to the carbon footprint. Honestly ask yourself. Why aren't people hypocrites for driving cars, for eating out at restaurants, and continuously buying/demand more and more products produced by petroleum? I'm curious if you can give an actual reason and not another false fallacy.

It's actually a fair argument. Facepalming calling the argument dumb is nothing short of just admitting you don't have an answer.

3 point night for Hughes tonight. 5 points in his last 3 games.

Haha they probably would have brought him on as a 18 old and ruined his confidence. perhaps the also don’t move hall for a D either though. I also wonder if canucks would have taken petey had we drafted our center need in Dubois.

From all those projections placed in the month of June (10 reports). Joulevi was only ranked the first D in 4 reports. Sergachev was also ranked first in 4 D in 4 reports. So he wasn’t ranked ahead of all three. it really was a toss up between the two. Oilers had stated post draft that had pool party not dropped they were taking Sergachev at #4. Which meant canucks would have landed Dubois.

The only attention they’ve gained is how stupid some people look. They essentially have become that crazy person screaming the sky is falling in the streets. We used to lock those people up in the looney bins. Now we just call them liberals.....I kid, I kid.

I’ve tried to explain this to people throughout last year but having watched ferland closely during his time in Calgary, you have to just accept he’s not a 82 game player. He’s the type that really only shows up for 40ish games at best and the rest of the time he’s invisible. when he’s on he can be a force, just don’t let that be the expectation. Very kassian esq. he’s constantly listed as day to day, or a game time decision due to some random sickness/cold or body ache. It became a running joke in flames radio of what he’d listed as next. Hang nail, throat felt scratchy, stubbed a toe. He typically shows up and play games just a lot of question marks on if he is ever 100%, there’s always something with him. I’m sure he did lose weight and was sick and maybe that is affecting him. But as soon as I heard the report I thought to myself, so it begins. it’s been three games of him being not noticeable so he’s due for a good game.

You can’t really claim it will be a mid-round pick. We don’t know the true value of this pick and at this point it’s all just assumptions. The Canucks took a gamble that we will get fair value out of this trade. We are the team that took on the risk. That’s not to say it was a good or bad trade, just a gamble. You can debate whether it was the right or wrong gamble but it’s still a big gamble nevertheless. As you say, JT Millers value today is around a mid-round pick in the 15-20 range, therefor the absolutely worst case scenario for Tampa bay is Canucks win the cup and Tampa is only awarded the 31sts overall. The value between a 15th overall and 31st overall isn’t huge, it’s about 5-7% in NHL draft odds that the player turns into a top 6 Forward. So really, there was very little risk for the bolts on this trade, it also brought in an added benefit of clearing up cap space. So regardless what happens in the future this is a win/win situation the bolts put themselves into. The same can’t be said for the Canucks. Canucks absolutely worst case scenario it truly a doom and gloom situation, in the same light of Ott giving up Byram this last draft. If Canucks are to miss playoffs this year and our next years pick becomes a top 5 pick, then the value of the pick we gave up for the player we received is no longer remotely close. This trade on Canucks end could be a win or a loss. And really from JB’s perspective, if Canucks don’t make playoffs two years in a row, he’s likely gone regardless so it’s not like the gamble affects his future. So really, it comes down to how certain Canucks are that we will not be giving up a top 5 pick next year? Consider the draft lottery, consider how much parity there is in this league, consider Canucks injury history. Whether we want to admit it or not, it’s a risk, in the end my opinion is that it will likely result in a balance trade…but I can definitely see why there is a area of concern.

I’ve never had a problem with 22 more than other calibers. Shotgun pellets are far more likely to ricochet in my experience. I don’t think people have little value for human life. Or want to. But people Tend to value the lives of their own and their family over the guessing what the intentions of the criminals are.

The only issue with that is by the time they reach the household its a very good chance it’s too late. if they are in the house and you miss your shot the two men should be able to overpower you. Even if you do shoot one. There’s still the other guy who’d be able to assault you likely before you get a second shot off. not a risk I would take with my family. I think Maurice did a very reasonable job. Yelling, warming shot and had the warming shot not hit them and scared them away. Then it would be time to start consider leather force. I that situation, personally. I wouldn’t grab my 22. To much room for error. I’m not so sure about higgys suggesting that a 22 is more likely to ricochet than other calibers. I’ve shot tens of 1000’s of rounds and never really found them to be any more dangerous than say my 7mm or 223. Shotgun pellets would be worse for ricochet. And that’s actually what I would grab and likely some #8 shells. Would have to wait till they get between 40 and 60 yards which would probably only severely wound them. And if they got closer and then, well....self defense.

I think what Alf is trying to say is, where is the line between what is perceived from property crime to the safety of your family. A guy walking onto your property with his hands air announcing his intentions is different than getting caught stealing and most rational people can differentiate that. But there’s a lot of grey situations that it’s not so black and white and it would be very hard to know What the intentions are. In those situations where a crime is already in progress it’s better to be safe than sorry, is it not. the way are current law is set up. It would be better to shoot to kill right off the bat and just claim self defense later. I don’t think that’s right either. But rural homeowners need to have more protection.

Unless he was seeing double there was only two guys. But I think there is a very grey line between what is justifiable and what isn’t. How was Maurice to know they wouldn’t charge his house. Again there was likely less than 20 seconds for him to make that conclusion if they started to charge him. The fact that they didn’t leave after being sighted and yelled at would have to put him on edge even more. Let’s say his warning shot didn’t ricochet and they continued to go through his stuff and proceed to get even closer. At what point does it turn to justifiable to shoot to kill? Does it Ever?

This post show how out to lunch people are outside of there own bubble. First unless you catch and apprehend a person at the scene of the crime, there isn’t much that can be done. This isn’t your CSI tv show with finger prints and hair samples. My parents neighbor has had three vehicles stolen from his yard in the last year. He’s even got them on camera, but unless you get a clear face shot (no hats, no hoodies, hair out of the face) nothing can be done. Also what good is an investigation after someone’s been murdered and raped? Is that a risk people are willing to take? When is comes to the safety of one’s family, more freedom needs to be allow for an individual to protect themselves and their property. These criminals were yelled at to leave and they persisted, most thieves would have left the moment they were sighted, that didn’t faze these guys. How’s he to know that they wouldn’t all of the sudden charged his home and laid harm on his wife and baby. He was using a 22, so it’s not like he was scoped up picking them off at 200+ yards away, they likely could have been at his front door in under 20 seconds. You never know what kind of sicko criminal you are dealing with and when it comes to family it’s always better to be safe than sorry. When it comes to protecting a wife and a young daughters you plan with the assumption that their intention aren’t noble. He gave them a warning, they ignored it and are lucky things didn’t end up more severe than a ricochet to the arm. Do they deserve to die? I don’t think you can answer that without really knowing their full intensions. Had they pulled their own weapon out killed Maurice and then entered the home raping/killing the wife and daughter I think most people would say, yes they do. Thankfully a warning shot stopped any further crime from happening on that property.