Canadian Election

[doulos]

Small sample size I guess, but I've known dozens of Christians throughout my life. Maybe a few hundred even.
The above statement is absolutely true for them and, I would guess, for most Christians.

They didn't judge me or tell me that I'm going to burn in hell when I openly admit to being Agnostic. They genuinely hurt for me and pray for me.
They would be the first people to open their homes to me if I needed it. Feed me. Help me if I needed help. Listen to me if I was distressed.

They didn't express disgust towards people they consider sinners and/or non-believers. At least the group I know doesn't. Of course, many are more vocal than that. And even judgmental in the worst examples.

They just live by a code. They live by their faith. Most of them are solid, wonderful people.
So why would I ever mock them the way some Atheists mock them?
It's just wrong. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

That's encouraging. Guess you lucky. The experiences of myself, and many others I know, have been extremely different.

[Auston'sWilly]

[Wonko]

There has to be something between accepting that this is the way it is, and demanding that the West separate from Canada; can't there be something in the middle? To say that the West is under represented in Canada is a legitimate argument. The problem is, that electoral reform is really difficult, being that those currently in power obtained that power by using the current electoral system; why would they want to change it? Change can happen, but it is hard to do.

Rylant

I agree the west may be marginally under represented in Canada, but it is becoming egregiously exaggerated on social media. 57 ridings went conservative east of Saskatchewan. Fifty Seven of 121. Pretty much half. So who exactly would a 'Wexit' exit be breaking off from? The other half of the conservative base?

If conservatives want to wail into the void I get it. It can be cathartic. I have done it before myself. But lets not kid ourselves. At the end of the day that is all this fervor over 'Wexit' is.

Screaming into the void.

[Hoopo]

lol, congrats for being off someone else's teat for 10 years.
But "you're welcome" still applies unless you're a province showing all zeroes in the table attached.
*checks table* BC is not one of them.

As for the other stuff, you're a textbook collectivist, which is perfectly fine.
You want to give to the guy on the street, just in case someday you are the guy on the street. Terrific. Be an enabler.
But do it with your own money, instead of expecting everybody to pitch in.

Individualists believe in themselves.
They take pride in being self-sufficient, and if they end up on the street anyway, well, I guess that's God's will.
But thank you in advance for the handout if you happen to pass by me.

Attachment 4654


source
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/datas...6-e692897d393f

so I more or less skipped over this one

we are operating on some misunderstandings.

First off, that spreadsheet is being used for a "no true scotsman" argument. That would be a fallacy. Not to mention not all tax expenditures come out of the taxes applied to Alberta. The entire province of Alberta's GDP is less than the GDP of Toronto, for example. And all of Alberta's oil industry accounts for 6% of Canada's GDP, less than the GDP of the City of Vancouver. If Alberta is bankrolling the entire country while only producing 15.5% of the country's GDP, well...it ain't much of a bankroll. Oil is not "the engine" of Canada's economy if 94% of its GDP comes from things that aren't oil.

re: individualism/collectivism and transfer payments:

Transfer payments were baked into confederation all the way back in 1867. Alberta joined in 1905. So not only is it "totally OK", it was part of the deal Alberta signed on to.

And it's probably not well described as "collectivism" anyway; this is more or less what being a country, or city, or province is about. Society, civilization, especially democracy, is a collective endeavour. Canada is not a bunch of folks in the woods living off the land for themselves, and it's not communism, and you are fooling yourself if you think its despotism even under another Big Bad Trudeau. it's people working, in some part together, for common goals while enjoying a great deal of personal freedom. That is made possible through taxes and redistribution and shared, collective expenditures that make it all possible.

Back in 1905 and earlier, sure, you could say there were "individualists", as most settlers anywhere more or less largely were. A lot of them had very hard lives scrounging and breaking their backs for a living. And that is not unique to Alberta. And some people still do. But today? I'm not sure how someone that enjoys public roads and highways, health care, education, military, RCMP, rule of law, even corporations and regulated markets, and any number of other public benefits can call themselves an "individualist". I mean, do you seriously think people who don't object to these things on principle are all not thinking for themselves? There is so much you enjoy, and so much of your freedom is owed to, that is not provided on an "individual" level.

You want lower federal taxes and I guess don't want any money from Alberta being redistributed outside of Alberta. But you enjoy the benefits of money being redistributed anyway. That's not individualism. Individualism is a romantic fantasy. Imperfect collectivism is reality. It doesn't get less imperfect when people yell "I GOT MINE, EFF YOU" whenever its convenient, like they are personally responsible for the good times and blameless in the bad.

[PenguinHunter]

I agree the west may be marginally under represented in Canada, but it is becoming egregiously exaggerated on social media. 57 ridings went conservative east of Saskatchewan. Fifty Seven of 121. Pretty much half. So who exactly would a 'Wexit' exit be breaking off from? The other half of the conservative base?

If conservatives want to wail into the void I get it. It can be cathartic. I have done it before myself. But lets not kid ourselves. At the end of the day that is all this fervor over 'Wexit' is.

Screaming into the void.

But the bigger question is how many out of 121 are Liberal??

[Wonko]

so I more or less skipped over this one

we are operating on some misunderstandings.

First off, that spreadsheet is being used for a "no true scotsman" argument. That would be a fallacy. Not to mention not all tax expenditures come out of the taxes applied to Alberta. The entire province of Alberta's GDP is less than the GDP of Toronto, for example. And all of Alberta's oil industry accounts for 6% of Canada's GDP, less than the GDP of the City of Vancouver. If Alberta is bankrolling the entire country while only producing 15.5% of the country's GDP, well...it ain't much of a bankroll. Oil is not "the engine" of Canada's economy if 94% of its GDP comes from things that aren't oil.

re: individualism/collectivism and transfer payments:

Transfer payments were baked into confederation all the way back in 1867. Alberta joined in 1905. So not only is it "totally OK", it was part of the deal Alberta signed on to.

And it's probably not well described as "collectivism" anyway; this is more or less what being a country, or city, or province is about. Society, civilization, especially democracy, is a collective endeavour. Canada is not a bunch of folks in the woods living off the land for themselves, and it's not communism, and you are fooling yourself if you think its despotism even under another Big Bad Trudeau. it's people working, in some part together, for common goals while enjoying a great deal of personal freedom. That is made possible through taxes and redistribution and shared, collective expenditures that make it all possible.

Back in 1905 and earlier, sure, you could say there were "individualists", as most settlers anywhere more or less largely were. A lot of them had very hard lives scrounging and breaking their backs for a living. And that is not unique to Alberta. And some people still do. But today? I'm not sure how someone that enjoys public roads and highways, health care, education, military, RCMP, rule of law, even corporations and regulated markets, and any number of other public benefits can call themselves an "individualist". I mean, do you seriously think people who don't object to these things on principle are all not thinking for themselves? There is so much you enjoy, and so much of your freedom is owed to, that is not provided on an "individual" level.

You want lower federal taxes and I guess don't want any money from Alberta being redistributed outside of Alberta. But you enjoy the benefits of money being redistributed anyway. That's not individualism. Individualism is a romantic fantasy. Imperfect collectivism is reality. It doesn't get less imperfect when people yell "I GOT MINE, EFF YOU" whenever its convenient, like they are personally responsible for the good times and blameless in the bad.

Summed that up rather nicely. Drop the mic and take a bow.

[PenguinHunter]

so I more or less skipped over this one

we are operating on some misunderstandings.

First off, that spreadsheet is being used for a "no true scotsman" argument. That would be a fallacy. Not to mention not all tax expenditures come out of the taxes applied to Alberta. The entire province of Alberta's GDP is less than the GDP of Toronto, for example. And all of Alberta's oil industry accounts for 6% of Canada's GDP, less than the GDP of the City of Vancouver. If Alberta is bankrolling the entire country while only producing 15.5% of the country's GDP, well...it ain't much of a bankroll. Oil is not "the engine" of Canada's economy if 94% of its GDP comes from things that aren't oil.

re: individualism/collectivism and transfer payments:

Transfer payments were baked into confederation all the way back in 1867. Alberta joined in 1905. So not only is it "totally OK", it was part of the deal Alberta signed on to.

And it's probably not well described as "collectivism" anyway; this is more or less what being a country, or city, or province is about. Society, civilization, especially democracy, is a collective endeavour. Canada is not a bunch of folks in the woods living off the land for themselves, and it's not communism, and you are fooling yourself if you think its despotism even under another Big Bad Trudeau. it's people working, in some part together, for common goals while enjoying a great deal of personal freedom. That is made possible through taxes and redistribution and shared, collective expenditures that make it all possible.

Back in 1905 and earlier, sure, you could say there were "individualists", as most settlers anywhere more or less largely were. A lot of them had very hard lives scrounging and breaking their backs for a living. And that is not unique to Alberta. And some people still do. But today? I'm not sure how someone that enjoys public roads and highways, health care, education, military, RCMP, rule of law, even corporations and regulated markets, and any number of other public benefits can call themselves an "individualist". I mean, do you seriously think people who don't object to these things on principle are all not thinking for themselves? There is so much you enjoy, and so much of your freedom is owed to, that is not provided on an "individual" level.

You want lower federal taxes and I guess don't want any money from Alberta being redistributed outside of Alberta. But you enjoy the benefits of money being redistributed anyway. That's not individualism. Individualism is a romantic fantasy. Imperfect collectivism is reality. It doesn't get less imperfect when people yell "I GOT MINE, EFF YOU" whenever its convenient, like they are personally responsible for the good times and blameless in the bad.

I think there is one more misunderstanding that may be missed here.

What is the GDP per capita??

We need to compare apples to apples not apples to watermelons.

[Auston'sWilly]

I think there is one more misunderstanding that may be missed here.

What is the GDP per capita??

We need to compare apples to apples not apples to watermelons.

Not only that, but he falsely claimed Alberta people pay less tax than all the other provinces.
Not true. Evidence given.
He falsely claimed BC hasn't received any equalization payments.
Not true. Evidence given.
This is liberalism 101. Make claims. Back them up with nothing.
When someone challenges those claims, just argue something different.

[rataylor22]

First off, that spreadsheet is being used for a "no true scotsman" argument. That would be a fallacy. Not to mention not all tax expenditures come out of the taxes applied to Alberta. The entire province of Alberta's GDP is less than the GDP of Toronto, for example. And all of Alberta's oil industry accounts for 6% of Canada's GDP, less than the GDP of the City of Vancouver. If Alberta is bankrolling the entire country while only producing 15.5% of the country's GDP, well...it ain't much of a bankroll. Oil is not "the engine" of Canada's economy if 94% of its GDP comes from things that aren't oil.

An expert summary of why we should just eliminate all transfer payments. As you've pointed out, it's so small that it doesn't even matter, so why bother right?

Transfer payments were baked into confederation all the way back in 1867. Alberta joined in 1905. So not only is it "totally OK", it was part of the deal Alberta signed on to.

I'm sure if you asked Hoopo about gun control and the second amendment, somewhere along the line he'd (correctly) point out that the ancestors of the 1700s couldn't possibly account for the type of guns we have today.

[Eskimo Brother]

Alright guys, we made it through the election without any massive stupidity in this thread. Any further personal attacks (no matter how veiled) and I'm going to start handing out infractions.

[forumname]

Not only that, but he falsely claimed Alberta people pay less tax than all the other provinces.
Not true. Evidence given.
He falsely claimed BC hasn't received any equalization payments.
Not true. Evidence given.
This is liberalism 101. Make claims. Back them up with nothing.
When someone challenges those claims, just argue something different.

The guy (Hoopo) writes a well thought out post that makes some great arguments, and you ignore it and start flinging poo at other things he's said previously. Then you call that exact thing liberalism 101 and say he's guilty of it... Just an outrageous level of irony.

You are extremely frustrating to deal with, and even when you say something I agree with (rare, but it does happen), it's hard to side with you because you're so abrasive and seemingly close-minded.

[lobo1969]

I'm sure if you asked Hoopo about gun control and the second amendment, somewhere along the line he'd (correctly) point out that the ancestors of the 1700s couldn't possibly account for the type of guns we have today.

Don't drag American 'sensibilities' on the 2nd amendment into this thread.

[ericdaoust]

As a rule of thumb slapping labels on people is a bad idea.

[Dennis]

As a rule of thumb slapping labels on people is a bad idea.

Exactly what commie scum would say. Eh, comrade?

[rataylor22]

Don't drag American 'sensibilities' on the 2nd amendment into this thread.

It's almost like saying "this was the deal 100+ years ago so it should stay" on any topic probably is a worthless statement