Kyoto opposition surges: 72% of Albertans demand Ottawa withdraw from the accord

[CyberGnu]

no, actually, your actions, or rather, lack of actions, are the basis of my theory. As such, they are not unfounded, merely non-proven.

your claims, however, are unfounded. i'v repeatedly asked for your underlying reasoning, and facts to back them up, but you refuse.

[CyberGnu]

Ahh, where did you go?!

Please continue! This is hilarious!

[DinoDoc]

You two made this thread boring again.

[KrazyHorse]

That's because they're not Canadian and thus do not understand that the ideal political discussion should consist of 3 parts family feud, 1 part Shakespeare...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Don't give me any of that crap, I hate the people who sensationalize everything. blahblahblah destroy Canada if anyone leaves, blahblahblah. You know Canada would be just fine, and Canada was founded before Alberta was a bunch of right wingers and it STILL did fine. It WILL do fine if Alberta leaves. If you don't like it, get Jean to start listening otherwise HE will destroy Canada.

Yup, once again I have to explain a simple concept to Asher repeatedly . This does get tiring.

The Canadian nation is more than just geographical boundary. It is more than just an economic union. It is a whole whose sum is greater than its part. Take away one part and the remaining parts are become far less. It is a conceptual belief in a nation that exists from sea to sea and incorporates a diverse range of opinions. Canada is a nation that includes all ten provinces and three territories. Take away any of these parts and what is left is no longer Canada, but rather something that is simply the Rest of Canada.

Furthermore, as a young nation, Canada remains fragile. If one leaves, others will follow. I suppose we could say that a "Canada" would continue to exist, just as the state of "Yugoslavia" continues to exist today, but it would not be the same thing that it was before. It would be a shadow of itself.

Originally posted by Asher
It's like an abusive marriage, where one of them leaves (Alberta) while the other one *****es about how they're destroying their life.

First off, there is no abuse occuring.

If we do use your analogy, then in this marriage, sometimes the Conservative partner makes the decisions, sometimes the Liberal partner makes the decisions, and sometime both sides agree on a common course of action. In other words, this is a natural state of marriage. You may not realize this, but in any marriage, one side often wins more often then the other side. It is rarely a 50-50 situation.

But your marriage analogy is weak because this is not a situation that only involves two groups. There are fourteen groups involved (10 prov., 3 terr. plus the fed gov't). Each of the groups consists of different sub-groups with different beliefs.

Originally posted by Asher
Hey: Newsflash. If Alberta leaves, that would mean most of Alberta doesn't agree with the concept of Canada. You know whose fault that is? Jean, Trudeau, etc. Not Alberta.

This statement comes as no surprise. Once again, you want to blame others for your own actions. "It's not my fault. Someone else made me do it."

You've been told this before: "Time to grow up and accept responsibility."

Originally posted by Asher
My sexuality has WHAT to do with this argument?

See previous post.

Originally posted by Asher
You're the one talking about destroying Canada, we're the realists talking about possible separation since Ottawa and the rest of Canada constantly gives Alberta a cold shoulder in politics and never even discusses compromises.

Once again, you're blaming other people for your actions. Ralphie the one who opened this can of worms.

You and Ralphie are not realists. You're scare-mongers, hostage-takers, blackmailers. Do what we want or we'll pull the trigger. Don't push us or we'll kill. Either kill Kyoto or we'll kill Canada.

Originally posted by Asher
Don't like it -- fix it. Otherwise "Canada will be destroyed" by your inabilities to compromise.

The rest of Canada has given into Alberta in the past and what happens? Alberta forgets about it.

The notwithstanding clause, for example, was demanded by Alberta and the rest of Canada gave into the Canadian demands.

Every time Canadians give conservatives a chance to rule, the Albertan conservatives manage to screw things up.

Compromise is a two-way street. Alberta's plan allows pollution to increase massively. What compromise is Alberta willing to offer? Nothing meaningful.

[Flubber]

Ahhh round 127 of the Asher- Tigkai debate

A few points

1. Asher --- Alberta separation is highly, highly unlikely . . . partly because of the economic success to which you constantly refer but ALSO because of the net in-migration to this province. The numbers of people here who were born elsewhere in this country are massive. Also, people have an allegience to the idea of this country that is not based only on tax rates and revenues. I realize you have no such allegience or loyalty or feeling of national pride and therefore don't consider it much as a factor in others but it does exist . . .

2. I think there have been a number of very good points made about flaws or at least possible issues in Kyoto

a) how is production of " cleaner" fuels handled ?
b)what credit if any is given to emisssions improvements prior to the magical 1990 date ?
c) does the treaty consider canada's cold climate and large size as factors in emissions
d) what about forestation
e) if the US doesn't ratify, won't our participation be irrelevant ?

There was a major story here in Calgary last week about an oil upgrader and the fact that they might relocate it south of the border if Canada implements Kyoto. Now , moving the exact same facility a couple of hundred ( or even a thousand) kilometres will have zero impact on emissions worldwide so i ask . . . if the US does not implement Kyoto isn't Canadian implementation kind of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic edit spelling

[CyberGnu]

Flubber, for your points a and e, see my answer to notyou earlier in this thread.

b) none. The comment on this is basically "tough". A limit has to be drawn somewhere, and this is the limit that was negotiated in the Kyoto. The real winners of this limit are the US and russia. The real losers are northern europe. Canada, IIUIC, falls somewhere in the middle.

c) Nope. this should already have been factored in in the 1990 emissions, unless Canada somehow moved north since then

d) What about it? If Canada plants more trees than it has now, it gets a credit. If it cuts down trees and does not replant, it shows up in he debit.

[CyberGnu]

dino, sorry if you think so. I just can't help confronting rampant ignorance, wherever I may encounter it. If it occaisonally entails verbally beating up a three year old, so be it...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yup, once again I have to explain a simple concept to Asher repeatedly . This does get tiring.

It sounds like the only reason you keep going on with your tirade is your want to convince yourself. "Canada" would not be destroyed if Alberta left -- that's an insane hyperbole and you know it. Stop trying to rationalize it. Even Frogger would probably agree Canada wouldn't be destroyed if Alberta left.

First off, there is no abuse occuring.

If we do use your analogy, then in this marriage, sometimes the Conservative partner makes the decisions, sometimes the Liberal partner makes the decisions, and sometime both sides agree on a common course of action. In other words, this is a natural state of marriage. You may not realize this, but in any marriage, one side often wins more often then the other side. It is rarely a 50-50 situation.

Um. The "conservatives" who've gotten in power federally aren't actually conservatives. I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you, but Mulroney was a Quebec-born-and-bred Liberal under the flag of progressive conservative. 95% of the time we've got a Liberal in power, and they constantly dictate what Alberta does for the "benefit of the nation" which is to say the benefit of the people who vote for the government (not Alberta).

But your marriage analogy is weak because this is not a situation that only involves two groups. There are fourteen groups involved (10 prov., 3 terr. plus the fed gov't). Each of the groups consists of different sub-groups with different beliefs.

It's polygamy, damnit.

This statement comes as no surprise. Once again, you want to blame others for your own actions. "It's not my fault. Someone else made me do it."

You've been told this before: "Time to grow up and accept responsibility."

Huh?????????????????????
Tingkai, YOU were the one talking about destroying Canada. I am the one talking about the realities of an increased movement for separation IF Kyoto is ratified. Nothing more, nothing less. You're a frickin' drama queen on steroids.

Once again, you're blaming other people for your actions. Ralphie the one who opened this can of worms.

You and Ralphie are not realists. You're scare-mongers, hostage-takers, blackmailers.

Ah, right -- the realists are the people like you who insist Kyoto will help the economy. What facts do you have to back that up? Oh, that's right -- you have none. But your rationale for passing it is you haven't seen any "non-biased" studies which say otherwise (you dismiss the ones proclaiming 450,000 job losses outright).

You're not a realist, Tingkai. Perhaps my realism is ruining your wet dream?

You really did make my day with all of your tear-filled posts about Canada being destroyed if Alberta left. Not only is it funny because you intentionally are taking my comments (and for that matter, Ralphie's comments) way out of how they were intended, you took it a step further by saying if Alberta did separate, Canada would be destroyed. All I've been saying, and all Ralphie has said, is Kyoto will cause increased interests in separation movements in Alberta. I'm not saying Alberta WILL separate, it's just that the movement will gain more momentum.

You can pass Kyoto, but it'll only further western alienation. That's up to Jean if he wants to deal with that. But, wait, Jean isn't going to be in office once Kyoto is actually in full swing? How damn convenient.