PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[Northern Light]

To paraphrase Northern Light, we need to take away this veto from First Nations (some of which are as small as a few hundred members) which allows them to kill every pipeline. Everything they have, and we have, is derived from the market economy. They can't have it both ways; endless payouts and subsidies from an economy they are strangling.

Uhhh, that's not a paraphrase of anything I did say, would say, intended to say or would otherwise claim credit for having said.

The explicit statement I made was against nationalizing the loss of a for-profit corporation.

The reference I made was to a better way to have spent that money for jobs in Alberta, in the resource sector that would have produced far better added value and that was when comparing with with a built pipeline, not a blocked one.

Kindly don't paraphrase me when it involves a complete misrepresentation of my views.

 

[lenaitch]

. . . we need to take away this veto from First Nations . . .

There is no legal veto; the SCC ruled that the state had a duty to consult. There is; however, a de facto veto, because one side thinks there is and the other side hasn't got the parts to push back. It is curious that, in some cases, a de facto veto is solved by money changing hands.

 

[buildup]

Uhhh, that's not a paraphrase of anything I did say, would say, intended to say or would otherwise claim credit for having said.

The explicit statement I made was against nationalizing the loss of a for-profit corporation.

The reference I made was to a better way to have spent that money for jobs in Alberta, in the resource sector that would have produced far better added value and that was when comparing with with a built pipeline, not a blocked one.

Kindly don't paraphrase me when it involves a complete misrepresentation of my views.

I know Northern Light, I know. I just said "paraphrase' to annoy you. This entire Forum is so serious in that sanctimonious Canadian way.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I know Northern Light, I know. I just said "paraphrase' to annoy you. This entire Forum is so serious in that sanctimonious Canadian way.

Wait, that means you asked me irrelevant and stupid questions just to annoy me?

Nice one....I knew you were a clever bastard.

 

[BurlOak]

Premier Rachel Notley pulls Alberta out of federal climate plan over Trans Mountain ruling

The training wheels are falling off this government.
Who would have thought that voting for the least qualified PM in Canadian history would lead to the most incompetent government in Canadian history.?

 

[buildup]

There is no legal veto; the SCC ruled that the state had a duty to consult. There is; however, a de facto veto, because one side thinks there is and the other side hasn't got the parts to push back. It is curious that, in some cases, a de facto veto is solved by money changing hands.

50% of immigrants to this country have probably experienced within the last 2 generations victimization similar to surviving First Nations. But they usually celebrate Canada and just get on with Life. But we continue pandering to First Nations and apologizing endlessly. That would be fine if there weren't costs. The biggest risk is some separatist populistic surfacing in Alberta. They have been writing the cheques to cover Progressive Policies of other provinces for decades with no thanks to show for it. We don't like Oil, but we like their transfer payments. This could be the beginning of the end of Canada unless someone stands up to First Nations.

 

[buildup]

Wait, that means you asked me irrelevant and stupid questions just to annoy me?

Nice one....I knew you were a clever bastard.

No to annoy Northern Blight. You at least have a sense of humour...

 

[buildup]

I have an issue with profits derived indirectly from financial contributions or incentives that I have made, unwillingly and from which I derive no benefit, yeah, I do.

Why would you simplify the concept I presented and ask such a stupid, irrelevant question as whether or not I have an issue with profits?

How do I define corporate welfare?

Incentives, subsidies, buyouts, partial nationalisations (usually done to shift risk to the public) for and of private or public for-profit corporations, as undertaken by governments with revenue at least partially derived from individuals.

Why? What'd you think I meant?

I believe in free enterprise tempered by the self-preservation instincts inherent in ecological preservation.

Corporate subsidies, as described above, are not free enterprise. They are a mess of command economy ideas, applied half-way.


As to your first question....it has nothing to do with anything I said so I'm unsure as to why you'd bring it up, except maybe to try and prove your point using logical fallacy. Which obviously....just don't.
The answer is no....not sure why I even bothered answering that nonsense.

That's a nice word salad, LOL

 

[WislaHD]

50% of immigrants to this country have probably experienced within the last 2 generations victimization similar to surviving First Nations. But they usually celebrate Canada and just get on with Life. But we continue pandering to First Nations and apologizing endlessly. That would be fine if there weren't costs. The biggest risk is some separatist populistic surfacing in Alberta. They have been writing the cheques to cover Progressive Policies of other provinces for decades with no thanks to show for it. We don't like Oil, but we like their transfer payments. This could be the beginning of the end of Canada unless someone stands up to First Nations.

Immigrants chose to come to this country. The First Nations didn't choose to invite us over.

Not that I think the current status quo is particularly satisfactory, but I will have room for empathy for the plight of First Nations people and the systematic and unscrupulous destruction of their culture that they have endured.

P.S. there is a multi-quote button on the forum!

 

[buildup]

I have sympathy too. But that has to manifest in some form aside from cash payments and blocked pipelines.
Its true First Nations didn't invite us over, because they were not a monolith. They were just as engaged on inter-tribe genocides as the Europeans were among themselves.
They had also made good progress exterminating large mammal herds, as all humans have. They were not stewards of the environment, nor were we.

 

[BurlOak]

I have sympathy too. But that has to manifest in some form aside from cash payments and blocked pipelines.
Its true First Nations didn't invite us over, because they were not a monolith. They were just as engaged on inter-tribe genocides as the Europeans were among themselves.
They had also made good progress exterminating large mammal herds, as all humans have. They were not stewards of the environment, nor were we.

The inter-tribe genocides kept their populations small enough that their poor stewardship of the environment was not as evident.

 

[BurlOak]

50% of immigrants to this country have probably experienced within the last 2 generations victimization similar to surviving First Nations. But they usually celebrate Canada and just get on with Life. But we continue pandering to First Nations and apologizing endlessly. That would be fine if there weren't costs. The biggest risk is some separatist populistic surfacing in Alberta. They have been writing the cheques to cover Progressive Policies of other provinces for decades with no thanks to show for it. We don't like Oil, but we like their transfer payments. This could be the beginning of the end of Canada unless someone stands up to First Nations.

They already exist, but in small numbers still.
Western Independence Party, Alberta Independence Party.

I kinda like their flag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Independence_Party#/media/File:Flag_of_Western_Canada.png

 

[Northern Light]

No to annoy Northern Blight. You at least have a sense of humour...

Name calling? Really? Pathetic!

 

[steveintoronto]

But they usually celebrate Canada and just get on with Life. But we continue pandering to First Nations and apologizing endlessly.

If immigrants have standing and recourse under the Constitution and Law for land rights and special status, then they too are legally due consideration by the courts.

It appears that many who lean to the right in the last few generations are oblivious to why the Court rules as it does. And that tells far more about those same leaners than they realize.

Where exactly is your problem with the Court's ruling? To call for a further Appeal would be logical in view of your claim, but dissing those who have legal rights and using them just indicates how incredibly bereft you are of the what this nation is built upon. That's this odd term call "Law".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Name calling? Really? Pathetic!

That must be his dyslexia showing again. There is a cure for that.

MoD