Warhippy Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: and that’s Mr. Forsberg to you. Not from what I've seen. Also, I never quoted Lethbridge. Anywhere. Carbon tax affects everything, but magically, the supply that is already out of the ground and is estimated to last at least 3.5 months is somehow affected and people like yourself and stroke say it isn't greed. It's like explaining colours to a blind man, except he's also licking the window and rolling on himself. Respect earned is respect given. Not worth trying. You're the OldNews of the off topic section. Always have to be right. Up to and including trotting out your glorious former ajhl days to try to demean the type of player most knew Makar would become. So...maybe in your eyes, in mine; there;'s a few steps to climb before you get called Mr anything Edited January 4, 2020 by Warhippy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Another gem of intelligence from the Alberta government. Cannot believe these are the types of people that some genuinely thought had their best interests at heart. Offloading corporate costs on to the home owner. Mass development ALWAYS leads to the occasional home having issues with plumbing, heating and more. As the explosive growth in Alberta tended to be more condos, townhouses and row homes this leads/lead to large numbers of strata or condo councils. So now, any defect or issue that is NOT the fault of the homeowner could see the deduction payment for the event pushed back on the homeowner instead of the developer or council. Remember, in most normal cases; strata is in charge of or at fault of payment for all events occurring outside of the homes 4 walls, including plumbing etc while the home owner is or was intended to carry insurance for risks occurring within the home or 4 walls. Now, those councils or developers can push the cost of insurance deductibles back on to the homeowner. Isn't that nice. https://globalnews.ca/news/6363998/alberta-condo-owners-insurance-deductible-changes/?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_source=GlobalEdmonton&fbclid=IwAR1uQPN3sslQgGcGSYJQ6HTmazLCyY6Oh1DSmSGiDQzQs3zP6EKZmow0L_8 New rules that came into effect at the beginning of the year mean Alberta condo owners could be on the hook for upwards of $50,000 if damage is caused within their unit. Effective Jan. 1, 2020, condominium corporations will be able to seek recovery of the deductible portion of the corporation’s insurance claim — up to a maximum of $50,000 — from a condo owner for any damage that originates in their suite or private area. “That means that if something happens in the unit and it’s not your fault — the toilet explodes, there’s water loss, water damage goes through to the floors below — and there’s a $50,000 deductible or a $25,000 deductible, the owners are now responsible for the deductible,” Todd Shipley, of Reynolds Mirth Richards & Farmer LLP, explained at a recent Canadian Condominium Institute educational event. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 14 minutes ago, Warhippy said: right here my man https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Canada/Calgary/gasoline_prices/ Thanks for sharing. I now know where to find unreliable data. It's only about 20% off. Surprised you would rather take the word of a team from Atlanta over someone that actually lives in Calgary. This data isn't even consistent with your own statements in this thread. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Just now, Shift-4 said: Thanks for sharing. I now know where to find unreliable data. It's only about 20% off. Surprised you would rather take the word of a team from Atlanta over someone that actually lives in Calgary. This data isn't even consistent with your own statements in this thread. I correspond that data to the numbers on my receipt. That's about the only reason I even used that site, otherwise I'd have had forsturd and the wexiteers jumping on me about not having any source at all. The main issue is that with that side of the fence, if you present an argument they immediately move to discredit it unless you provide proof. If you provide proof then they deride it as false if they don't agree with it. If they cannot disagree with it then they go ahead and attack the person instead or go off on a tangent. I provided the only visible data outside of a receipt that is probably still shoved in a Tim Hortons cup in my truck that actually corresponded with the amount I paid. $1.13.9. For me, it wasn't much because in my area of the Okanagan prices jumped from $1.13.9 to $1.32.9 in a morning. I fail to see how it isn't consistent. if it's wrong or erroneous fine. It's wrong or erroneous, but it doesn't detract from the price I paid to fill up before I left. As for my statements in this thread I fail to see how they somehow don't jive with each other. I said I paid x, someone asked for proof; I provided the only visibly proof I could find that didn't immediately only show the lowest possible price. Other statements include how minimal the effect of the carbon tax would be and how laughable it is that kenney agreed to the revisions of the federal implementation and how exactly similar it is to the one he killed off because "it was Notley's" but the money now goes to the feds. So if you feel my statements don't jive, that's fine please educate me. if others feel that the carbon tax is so terrible fine. but thus far their statements are kind of more towards omg nothing has changed. So which is it? I also want to say I appreciate your taking an actually mature approach to this instead of going down...that other route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Warhippy said: I correspond that data to the numbers on my receipt. That's about the only reason I even used that site, otherwise I'd have had forsturd and the wexiteers jumping on me about not having any source at all. The main issue is that with that side of the fence, if you present an argument they immediately move to discredit it unless you provide proof. If you provide proof then they deride it as false if they don't agree with it. If they cannot disagree with it then they go ahead and attack the person instead or go off on a tangent. I provided the only visible data outside of a receipt that is probably still shoved in a Tim Hortons cup in my truck that actually corresponded with the amount I paid. $1.13.9. For me, it wasn't much because in my area of the Okanagan prices jumped from $1.13.9 to $1.32.9 in a morning. I fail to see how it isn't consistent. if it's wrong or erroneous fine. It's wrong or erroneous, but it doesn't detract from the price I paid to fill up before I left. As for my statements in this thread I fail to see how they somehow don't jive with each other. I said I paid x, someone asked for proof; I provided the only visibly proof I could find that didn't immediately only show the lowest possible price. Other statements include how minimal the effect of the carbon tax would be and how laughable it is that kenney agreed to the revisions of the federal implementation and how exactly similar it is to the one he killed off because "it was Notley's" but the money now goes to the feds. So if you feel my statements don't jive, that's fine please educate me. if others feel that the carbon tax is so terrible fine. but thus far their statements are kind of more towards omg nothing has changed. So which is it? I also want to say I appreciate your taking an actually mature approach to this instead of going down...that other route. I thought you were talking about prices in Calgary? beautiful area FYI but iirc everything cost more there doesn't it? The numbers I've seen show b.c has always paid more in fuel , lived in Inveremere for a bit ever summer gas stations would raise their prices , but canal flats and cranny were cheaper. Maybe talk to guy that owns your gas station.... Edited January 4, 2020 by RowdyCanuck Grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: I thought you were talking about prices in Calgary? beautiful area FYI but iirc everything cost more there doesn't it? The numbers I've seen show b.c has always paid more in fuel , lived in Inveremere for a bit ever summer gas stations would raise their prices , but canal flats and cranny were cheaper. Maybe talk to guy that owns your gas station.... I was talking about Calgary prices. When I left I filled up for the same price as I pay in Penticton. Yesterday in penticton prices jumped 19 cents across the city. There's zero justification for a near 20 cent increase, or a dime over set taxation prices without any disruption in the production lines outside of greed Penticton currently only grows three things. Retirement resorts. Homeless shelters and our new municipal flower that blooms year round, the okanagan syringe Edited January 4, 2020 by Warhippy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Warhippy said: Remember, in most normal cases; strata is in charge of or at fault of payment for all events occurring outside of the homes 4 walls, including plumbing etc while the home owner is or was intended to carry insurance for risks occurring within the home or 4 walls. I had this happen. Burst pipe in the wall under the kitchen sink. Wrecked the condo below mine. It was all covered under our strata insurance. Insane that AB is letting corporations do this. Those poor condo owners, sometimes literally, as an apartment is often the starter home for most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: I had this happen. Burst pipe in the wall under the kitchen sink. Wrecked the condo below mine. It was all covered under our strata insurance. Insane that AB is letting corporations do this. Those poor condo owners, sometimes literally, as an apartment is often the starter home for most It isn't just Alberta, BC actually just had this happen with a newer development, the deductible went from something small to like $250,000. The difference is that the BC government stated they were going to look in to making this practice of offloading costs on to home owners illegal and capping strata fees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, Warhippy said: It isn't just Alberta, BC actually just had this happen with a newer development, the deductible went from something small to like $250,000. The difference is that the BC government stated they were going to look in to making this practice of offloading costs on to home owners illegal and capping strata fees Wow, My incident could have cost me up to 30k+ in my guess, if it wasn't covered. That's not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 16 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said: Like you have room to talk @kingofsurrey your the reason I don't go to Surrey. Thats the best news i have heard all day.... awesome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said: I agree with that 100% but we don't live in a world where that's 100% true, also not to be rude but Muslims religion gets a bad rep cause most people even my self included only really have saw or heard of Muslims threw the news or history , that doesn't help..... Seems like the most of the time you hear about them , they want to change something or they are getting into trouble due to their religion. Also in today's world I don't think we should show our religion cause there's alot of sicko's out there and why put a target on your head? Theres a reason why you go into a rcmp station and everyone looks alike and same goes for the post office , there is a safety side to it , also like I said I would be just happy to be in North America so that's a small price to pay , it's only 8 to 10 hours a day. I guess that's why I think they should just try to fit in or be one with Canada instead of changing everything here , there's a reason why their here.... if they want to repeat of what happen that brought them to Canada. Trying to change Canada into their home , which they left.... Im all for them spreading their religion or going to church but if we continue to change the rules we will have Middle East problems.... its interesting that you bring up how and when we hear about Muslims - its often in the very lazy news media and its often sensationalist. I get the argument for secularism for sure, I just don't think thats really what Quebec is doing. Edited January 4, 2020 by Jimmy McGill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: its interesting that you bring up how and when we hear about Muslims - its often in the very lazy news media and its often sensationalist. More Muslims have been killed in Canada by acts of terror/hate than any other group, but you never hear that. I get the argument for secularism for sure, I just don't think thats really what Quebec is doing. So true so like you said there is more Muslims killed in Canada then any other group cause of hate/ terror , so why make them easier targets? But I think we can kinda see eye to eye on that and understand each side. Quebec..........I don't even know where to start with that...... thats a different conversation all together.... i was was just going to say if the government doesn't help with the Muslims PR , teaching the public more , we will end up like the states........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 minute ago, RowdyCanuck said: So true so like you said there is more Muslims killed in Canada then any other group cause of hate/ terror , so why make them easier targets? But I think we can kinda see eye to eye on that and understand each side. Quebec..........I don't even know where to start with that...... thats a different conversation all together.... i was was just going to say if the government doesn't help with the Muslims PR , teaching the public more , we will end up like the states........ actually I edited that - after the last van attack in TO I think that might not the case anymore. Either way there have been horrible stories to go around for all unfortunately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: actually I edited that - after the last van attack in TO I think that might not the case anymore. Either way there have been horrible stories to go around for all unfortunately. I agree and for people to accept something usually it needs to be explained to them.... if you think about it , it's kinda like karma for the crusades and forcing religion on countries..... I know Canada didn't do any of that but our founders did , look at the Native Americans......people fear what they don't understand..... http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2014/06/19/three-misconceptions-westerners-have-about-muslims/ Edited January 4, 2020 by RowdyCanuck Grammar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: actually I edited that - after the last van attack in TO I think that might not the case anymore. Either way there have been horrible stories to go around for all unfortunately. Heh jimmy Looks like your fellow Canadians outside of Quebec do not share your views.... on Quebec laws on religious symbols..... Niqab...... An October 27 Angus Reid Institute poll found that 70% Canadians outside of Quebec supported "legislation similar to Bill 62" where they lived in the country, with 30% opposing it.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_ban_on_face_covering Edited January 4, 2020 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: I get the argument for secularism for sure, I just don't think thats really what Quebec is doing. Quebec’s controversial Bill 21 would prohibit certain public sector employees, such as teachers, government lawyers, and police, from wearing religious symbols of any size, including clerical collars, crucifixes, turbans, yarmulkes, and hijabs. (The ban will only apply to those who are new to the job or who change jobs. Workers currently in place in any of these professions will be allowed to continue wearing their religious symbols.) The proposed legislation would also be a de facto niqab ban, as it forbids people from delivering or receiving government services with their faces covered. The marketing firm Ipsos reports that nearly 70 percent of all Canadians support a similar ban in their own provinces. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/06/quebec-is-poised-to-undermine-religious-freedom/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 5 hours ago, Warhippy said: I correspond that data to the numbers on my receipt. That's about the only reason I even used that site, otherwise I'd have had forsturd and the wexiteers jumping on me about not having any source at all. The main issue is that with that side of the fence, if you present an argument they immediately move to discredit it unless you provide proof. If you provide proof then they deride it as false if they don't agree with it. If they cannot disagree with it then they go ahead and attack the person instead or go off on a tangent. I provided the only visible data outside of a receipt that is probably still shoved in a Tim Hortons cup in my truck that actually corresponded with the amount I paid. $1.13.9. For me, it wasn't much because in my area of the Okanagan prices jumped from $1.13.9 to $1.32.9 in a morning. I fail to see how it isn't consistent. if it's wrong or erroneous fine. It's wrong or erroneous, but it doesn't detract from the price I paid to fill up before I left. As for my statements in this thread I fail to see how they somehow don't jive with each other. I said I paid x, someone asked for proof; I provided the only visibly proof I could find that didn't immediately only show the lowest possible price. Other statements include how minimal the effect of the carbon tax would be and how laughable it is that kenney agreed to the revisions of the federal implementation and how exactly similar it is to the one he killed off because "it was Notley's" but the money now goes to the feds. So if you feel my statements don't jive, that's fine please educate me. if others feel that the carbon tax is so terrible fine. but thus far their statements are kind of more towards omg nothing has changed. So which is it? I also want to say I appreciate your taking an actually mature approach to this instead of going down...that other route. 5 hours ago, Warhippy said: I was talking about Calgary prices. When I left I filled up for the same price as I pay in Penticton. Yesterday in penticton prices jumped 19 cents across the city. There's zero justification for a near 20 cent increase, or a dime over set taxation prices without any disruption in the production lines outside of greed Penticton currently only grows three things. Retirement resorts. Homeless shelters and our new municipal flower that blooms year round, the okanagan syringe Actually I even took pictures on my phone for you Thursday evening to show you it was under a dollar. That fuel station in Airdrie you went to was 101.9 this morning. You should post your receipt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 35 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Heh jimmy Looks like your fellow Canadians outside of Quebec do not share your views.... on Quebec laws on religious symbols..... Niqab...... An October 27 Angus Reid Institute poll found that 70% Canadians outside of Quebec supported "legislation similar to Bill 62" where they lived in the country, with 30% opposing it.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_ban_on_face_covering You're missing the point @Jimmy McGill and I are making to you. Quebec is going against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. The Quebec government doesn't have the right to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: You're missing the point @Jimmy McGill and I are making to you. Quebec is going against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. The Quebec government doesn't have the right to do this. Yes provinces DO have the right to overide the charter...... https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/notwithstanding-clause Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the notwithstanding clause, is part of the Constitution of Canada. Also known as the override clause, Section 33 allows federal, provincial or territorial governments to temporarily override, or bypass, certain Charter rights. Section 33 overrides can last only five years, when they are subject to renewal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: You're missing the point @Jimmy McGill and I are making to you. Quebec is going against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. The Quebec government doesn't have the right to do this. Your missing the point. 70% of Canadians outside of Quebec support Quebecs Bill 62..... So if you are with Jimmy... you are both in the minority in Canada... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now