|
Re: Trudeau
Apparently the lady who is in the picture with Trudeau where ha has his hand down her front has denied his comment that they were close friends. May or may not be connected with his leaving the school.
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12740252)
Apparently the lady who is in the picture with Trudeau where ha has his hand down her front has denied his comment that they were close friends. May or may not be connected with his leaving the school.
|
Re: Trudeau
|
Re: Trudeau
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12741862)
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12741862)
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
|
Re: Trudeau
So now Trudeau is apologising to grade school kids about painting himself brown. Why do the parents and teachers get kids involved in this nonsense. Hasn't he had his fifteen minutes of shame by now.
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12746269)
So now Trudeau is apologising to grade school kids about painting himself brown. Why do the parents and teachers get kids involved in this nonsense. Hasn't he had his fifteen minutes of shame by now.
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12746274)
By his own beliefs there can be no time limit.
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by CanadaJimmy
(Post 12740042)
A lot of people in the Oil & Gas industry and those who support it see the carbon tax as an attack on their jobs and wealth, he's just pandering to them.
It's definitely an attack on their wealth - no question. Or more precisely their ability to even get by. If someone came along and said we want to end your ability to earn a living, now!, you'd be a wee bit perturbed to say the least. I didn't spend a lot of time there, on me recce, but I didn't meet anyone that didn't say it needs to end. Most seem to put a 10 to 15 year time frame on it. Interestingly enough, I airbnb'd it around Edmonton, and the more left wing, affluent the people I stayed with the more they were against oil and gas and wanted it shut down now. And when I pointed out that if they get their wish and shut down oil and gas in the next few years, who do you think is going to pay you the $750,000 you think your house is worth now when you need to leave the province because it's completely collapsed. You'll be lucky to get 50k... For some reason there was no answers to that. Since I've come back, one thing I've notice is inter-provincial thinking hasn't changed. In fact I think it's got worse. Most are either ignorant, or at worse obtuse to how their neighbours can and will affect them. No one wants to know that the provinces don't operate in a vacuum. If Quebec and BC tank Alberta's oil and gas, which they seem keen to do, BC may not completely tank but it will flounder badly as a result for years if not decades. And Alberta, like the Maritimes, will be another welfare boat anchor around the country's neck dragging it down for decades to come. Everyone will be negatively affected. Many who have foreign passports maybe pulling them out to find greener pastures. The country needs to stop the American style politics and derision and find a solution to keep it strong, which means you have to consider your neighbours and find solutions that a best for everyone. I'll go back to Australia in a couple days and be watching the election and the next few months closely. And there may be a chance I will pull the pin on Canada (not that anyone would care LOL) if they look like they're going to bite off their nose to spite their face. I certainly ain't interested in living in BC - not interested in a mortgage when I'm 100, and the rest of the country doesn't really appeal to me. I never thought I would ever say this, let alone think it, but depending on this next election, Australia maybe the better option for quality of life. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by sun burnt in aus
(Post 12749523)
It's definitely an attack on their wealth - no question. Or more precisely their ability to even get by. If someone came along and said we want to end your ability to earn a living, now!, you'd be a wee bit perturbed to say the least. I didn't spend a lot of time there, on me recce, but I didn't meet anyone that didn't say it needs to end. Most seem to put a 10 to 15 year time frame on it. Interestingly enough, I airbnb'd it around Edmonton, and the more left wing, affluent the people I stayed with the more they were against oil and gas and wanted it shut down now. And when I pointed out that if they get their wish and shut down oil and gas in the next few years, who do you think is going to pay you the $750,000 you think your house is worth now when you need to leave the province because it's completely collapsed. You'll be lucky to get 50k... For some reason there was no answers to that.
Since I've come back, one thing I've notice is inter-provincial thinking hasn't changed, most are either ignorant, or at worse obtuse. No one wants to know that the provinces don't operate in a vacuum. If Quebec and BC tank Alberta which they seem keen to do, BC may not completely tank but it will flounder badly as a result for years. And Alberta, like the Maritimes, will be another welfare boat anchor the country's neck that they can ill afford for decades to come. Everyone will be negatively affected. The country needs to stop the American style politics and derision and find a solution to keep it strong. I'll go back to Australia in a couple days and be watching the election and the next few months closely. And there may be a chance I will pull the pin on Canada (not that anyone would care LOL) if they look like they're going to bite off their nose to spite their face. I certainly ain't interested in living in BC - not interested in a mortgage when I'm 100, and the rest of the country doesn't really appeal to me. I never thought I would ever say this, let alone think it, but depending on this next election, Australia maybe the better option for quality of life. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by CanadaJimmy
(Post 12749528)
I don't think anyone expects Alberta to turns the taps off overnight, heck the Liberals bought the oil pipeline just for them (though apparently they didn't like that?), but the carbon tax is designed to put pressure on fossil fuel industries to try and be more efficient at least and maybe start to transition to greener tech. Alberta actually receives the most hours on sunlight in the entire country, making it perfect for solar energy.
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by CanadaJimmy
(Post 12749528)
I don't think anyone expects Alberta to turns the taps off overnight, heck the Liberals bought the oil pipeline just for them (though apparently they didn't like that?), but the carbon tax is designed to put pressure on fossil fuel industries to try and be more efficient at least and maybe start to transition to greener tech. Alberta actually receives the most hours on sunlight in the entire country, making it perfect for solar energy.
Solar is great but the world over, other than a few European countries, it's been mismanaged. And sorry for all the windies, wind power is a joke. And waves are even worse than that... So I get why albertans are resistant to investing in any alternatives at the moment because, more than likely, in ten or twenty years there will be another energy fad that's perpetuated by some click bait hungry journalists that grips the world and or they will find that what's been taking place now has no real future viability. Being a technology leading province or company is an extremely expensive and a risky proposition and can be argued is not where government should be dipping it's toes. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12749535)
Wouldn't it be better to incentivise the green tech rather than tax the carbon? Or is that what's happening?
Alberta is in a very strong position to lead Canada's green tech sector. Plenty of appropriate resources (sunshine, wind, space) and plenty of people with the right sort of technical knowledge to make commercial sense of the opportunity. IMO the Greens' argument against the pipeline expansion is a weak one. For the next decade at least (and probably a lot longer) Canada's economy and infrastructure will be dependent on fossil fuels. Right now, too much of Alberta's oil is put in tanker cars and taken by rail to wherever it's going - that is dangerous (just ask the residents of Lac Megantic) and environmentally unsound. At the same time, massive amounts of Saudi oil are being delivered by tanker to refineries on both coasts, which is politically pretty ropy and not exactly environmentally golden either. A sensible decision to get Alberta oil to tidewater, to service both Canada's domestic needs and provide revenue from exports to help with defecits and so on, would be wise. And some of the profits from that exercise ought to be ring-fenced for incentivizing better commercial exploitation of green tech, not just in Alberta but across the country. There's hydro resources in BC, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes that could be put to much better use if there was a proper national energy strategy rather than the stupid petty fighting between provinces which leads to the ludicrous situation of exporting hydro power to the US at a financial loss, while simultaneously importing power from coal-fired stations. (I don't have a reference for that and may not have my facts completely aligned there, but recall hearing something about the ridiculousness of the arrangements between Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, in particular). Here endeth my party political broadcast on behalf of the Curmudgeonly Old Git party. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by sun burnt in aus
(Post 12749544)
If you listen to the left leaning parties and the mulling of coalitions and they form government Alberta is dead.
Solar is great but the world over, other than a few European countries, it's been mismanaged. And sorry for all the windies, wind power is a joke. And waves are even worse than that... So I get why albertans are resistant to investing in any alternatives at the moment because, more than likely, in ten or twenty years there will be another energy fad that's perpetuated by some click bait hungry journalists that grips the world and or they will find that what's been taking place now has no real future viability. Being a technology leading province or company is an extremely expensive and a risky proposition and can be argued is not where government should be dipping it's toes. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12749535)
Wouldn't it be better to incentivise the green tech rather than tax the carbon? Or is that what's happening?
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 12749550)
Both, I think.
Alberta is in a very strong position to lead Canada's green tech sector. Plenty of appropriate resources (sunshine, wind, space) and plenty of people with the right sort of technical knowledge to make commercial sense of the opportunity. IMO the Greens' argument against the pipeline expansion is a weak one. For the next decade at least (and probably a lot longer) Canada's economy and infrastructure will be dependent on fossil fuels. Right now, too much of Alberta's oil is put in tanker cars and taken by rail to wherever it's going - that is dangerous (just ask the residents of Lac Megantic) and environmentally unsound. At the same time, massive amounts of Saudi oil are being delivered by tanker to refineries on both coasts, which is politically pretty ropy and not exactly environmentally golden either. A sensible decision to get Alberta oil to tidewater, to service both Canada's domestic needs and provide revenue from exports to help with defecits and so on, would be wise. And some of the profits from that exercise ought to be ring-fenced for incentivizing better commercial exploitation of green tech, not just in Alberta but across the country. There's hydro resources in BC, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes that could be put to much better use if there was a proper national energy strategy rather than the stupid petty fighting between provinces which leads to the ludicrous situation of exporting hydro power to the US at a financial loss, while simultaneously importing power from coal-fired stations. (I don't have a reference for that and may not have my facts completely aligned there, but recall hearing something about the ridiculousness of the arrangements between Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, in particular). |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 12749550)
Here endeth my party political broadcast on behalf of the Curmudgeonly Old Git party.
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12749553)
Have you been living in a cave ?
No, a single story bungalow in Queensland. I'll leave you to do the research on wind turbines and their impact on terrestrial flying species yourself. You may have the narrow view that putting them in the ocean is a great idea but most the the world doesn't live next to a body of water that would accomodate hundreds of thousands of wind turbines. So really I should ask you: are you ignorant or obtuse. (notice it didn't have a ? at the end of the sentence) Remember: turn about is fair play |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by sun burnt in aus
(Post 12749563)
No, a single story bungalow in Queensland. I'll leave you to do the research on wind turbines and their impact on terrestrial flying species yourself. You may have the narrow view that putting them in the ocean is a great idea but most the the world doesn't live next to a body of water that would accomodate hundreds of wind turbines. So really I should ask you: are you ignorant or obtuse. remember: turn about is fair play
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12739060)
I'm not sure what "the Canadian brand" means. Is this intended to relate Trudeau and a horse's arse? If it's not some sort of pun please explain.
I think it's a roots hoody isn't it. And maybe a toque to go with it. And if you're 420 wet coaster... a joint tucked in your ear. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 12749550)
Both, I think.
Alberta is in a very strong position to lead Canada's green tech sector. Plenty of appropriate resources (sunshine, wind, space) and plenty of people with the right sort of technical knowledge to make commercial sense of the opportunity. IMO the Greens' argument against the pipeline expansion is a weak one. For the next decade at least (and probably a lot longer) Canada's economy and infrastructure will be dependent on fossil fuels. Right now, too much of Alberta's oil is put in tanker cars and taken by rail to wherever it's going - that is dangerous (just ask the residents of Lac Megantic) and environmentally unsound. At the same time, massive amounts of Saudi oil are being delivered by tanker to refineries on both coasts, which is politically pretty ropy and not exactly environmentally golden either. A sensible decision to get Alberta oil to tidewater, to service both Canada's domestic needs and provide revenue from exports to help with defecits and so on, would be wise. And some of the profits from that exercise ought to be ring-fenced for incentivizing better commercial exploitation of green tech, not just in Alberta but across the country. There's hydro resources in BC, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes that could be put to much better use if there was a proper national energy strategy rather than the stupid petty fighting between provinces which leads to the ludicrous situation of exporting hydro power to the US at a financial loss, while simultaneously importing power from coal-fired stations. (I don't have a reference for that and may not have my facts completely aligned there, but recall hearing something about the ridiculousness of the arrangements between Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, in particular). Here endeth my party political broadcast on behalf of the Curmudgeonly Old Git party. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12749574)
Your views on wind energy are embarrassingly out of date, especially if you originate from the UK, now a world leader in wind farms.
And what did I say about the rest of the world and their access to a body of water adequate for accomodating hundreds if not thousands of wind turbines... |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by sun burnt in aus
(Post 12749583)
And what did I say about the rest of the world and their access to a body of water adequate for accomodating hundreds if not thousands of wind turbines...
Originally Posted by sun burnt in aus
(Post 12749544)
Solar is great but the world over, other than a few European countries, it's been mismanaged. And sorry for all the windies, wind power is a joke. And waves are even worse than that... . |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12749587)
Here's what you said.......
Is it a joke or is it not? That's the problem when you start spewing random ideas and opinions, you end up making ridiculous statements and sound foolish. Nobody is proposing wind farms in the Great Sandy Desert or Stanley Park, but they have an important place in the green energy sector and should be recognised accordingly. |
Re: Trudeau
Not very convincing, I'm afraid.
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12749797)
Not very convincing, I'm afraid.
LOL this is the age of the narcissist - i'm not surprised |
Re: Trudeau
Liberals, Conservatives, Trudeau, Scheer pretty much the same according to the Guardian anyway. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 12750507)
Liberals, Conservatives, Trudeau, Scheer pretty much the same according to the Guardian anyway. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 12750507)
Liberals, Conservatives, Trudeau, Scheer pretty much the same according to the Guardian anyway. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12750516)
Not my interpretation of the article. It seemed to be urging a shift to the left, recognised that Conservatives were far from that, and that with a strong NDP vote the Liberals may end up in moving away from the right to form a coalition with them.
The Guardian so left wing though, its the newspaper version of the BBC! impartiality seems to be a thing of the past when it comes to news coverage nowadays. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12750516)
Not my interpretation of the article. It seemed to be urging a shift to the left, recognised that Conservatives were far from that, and that with a strong NDP vote the Liberals may end up in moving away from the right to form a coalition with them.
|
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 12750545)
Thats how I interpreted it too ...
The Guardian so left wing though, its the newspaper version of the BBC! impartiality seems to be a thing of the past when it comes to news coverage nowadays. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 12750545)
Thats how I interpreted it too ...
The Guardian so left wing though, its the newspaper version of the BBC! impartiality seems to be a thing of the past when it comes to news coverage nowadays. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 12750545)
The Guardian so left wing though, its the newspaper version of the BBC! impartiality seems to be a thing of the past when it comes to news coverage nowadays.
Boris Johnson has a deal. Now MPs must end the agony and vote it through We as MPs need to come together to get Brexit done – and move on This piece by Labour's Melanie Onn and Conservative's Victoria Prentis. So two articles going completely against the Guardian's general editorial stance and this is something they frequently do on any political subject - and one of them jointly done by MPs from two opposing parties. I think your view about the paper is fairly typical but completely wrong. Can you come up with a better example of impartiality or fairness? How about that Mail front page in the Boris thread. Impartial? |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 12750507)
Liberals, Conservatives, Trudeau, Scheer pretty much the same according to the Guardian anyway. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other Doug Ford just gutted Ontario's Student loans (OSAP) and some people have had to drop out of their courses because they could no longer get the loans required to pay for them. That kind of thing is a real consequence. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12750551)
I don't agree with this at all. The BBC is trudging along the same as it ever has but the conservatives have swung violently to the right. Johnson/Trump/Scheer/Ford would have been viewed as a lunatic fringe by even Thatcher.
Trump Ford Johnson Scheer* * honourable mention due to religiosity. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 12750561)
Even Corbyn isn’t left wing enough for the Guardian. Channel 4 news is always worth a watch to see what the latest “**** the tories†views are. The BBC probably genuinely think they are unbiased, just like David Icke thought he was the son of God. |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12750551)
I don't agree with this at all. The BBC is trudging along the same as it ever has but the conservatives have swung violently to the right. Johnson/Trump/Scheer/Ford would have been viewed as a lunatic fringe by even Thatcher.
The BBC have always been left wing biased.....just ask Peter Sissons he wrote a book about it! |
Re: Trudeau
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 12750625)
I am talking about journalism not politicians..... Trump is very right wing, and is an idiot in general so is not a good representation at all. An uneducated buffoon..
The BBC have always been left wing biased.....just ask Peter Sissons he wrote a book about it! |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:04 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.