Canadian Politics Redux

16364666869141

Comments

  • dignin said:
    I'm not so sure about the manslaughter charge needing to stick.

    Many are depicting the scene as an innocent one where those youths stumbled on to Stanley's property with no harm intended- this simply isn't true.

    It was chaos at the farmstead. Aside from the attempted theft of the vehicles... Stanley's wife had been physically assaulted. Boushie had a rifle on him. The youths' testimonies were fraught with lies.

    We can't expect the guy to act with ice in his veins as madness is ensuing around him and with no assistance from anyone. He says there was an accidental discharge of the handgun. If he wanted to lie, he could easily have made up a lie involving Boushie and the rifle (there was a bullet in the chamber).
    You need to read that CBC article I posted, because you don't have your facts straight.

    I did read it and several others.

    Exactly what don't I have straight?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,206
    Twitter features many people that seem to have not fully understood the full gravity of the situation.

    They were in very close proximity- Stanley was in the driver's side window of the SUV trying to grab the keys as Bouchie resisted his efforts.

    It's questionable for sure, but in my mind... he gets the benefit of the doubt given his role in the entire mess.
    LOL, well if social media is your barometer.......of course there will be people, lots of them, that don't actually read the articles/facts relating to any case. they see it on the surface, or they see someone's post and take it as fact. 

    when I say I hadn't seen anything depicting the victim as completely innocent, I meant in official outlets, like real media or other organizations. 

    but that is largely irrelevant anyway. he didn't deserve to get shot in the head. 
    Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
  • Twitter features many people that seem to have not fully understood the full gravity of the situation.

    They were in very close proximity- Stanley was in the driver's side window of the SUV trying to grab the keys as Bouchie resisted his efforts.

    It's questionable for sure, but in my mind... he gets the benefit of the doubt given his role in the entire mess.
    LOL, well if social media is your barometer.......of course there will be people, lots of them, that don't actually read the articles/facts relating to any case. they see it on the surface, or they see someone's post and take it as fact. 

    when I say I hadn't seen anything depicting the victim as completely innocent, I meant in official outlets, like real media or other organizations. 

    but that is largely irrelevant anyway. he didn't deserve to get shot in the head. 

    Come on. All I said was 'many are depicting the scene'. This is true.

    He did not deserve to get shot in the head. With that said, the Stanley family did not need that unfortunate event to happen to them either. Do you think Stanley is living the good life right now?

    And Trudeau has again spoke out of turn over this incident after meeting with Bouchie's family yesterday. 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,431
    Where are people at with the Colten Boushie trial and verdict?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313

    Some people are saying this is a race issue. I don't think it is. When you live on an isolated farm and intruders invade your domain- trying to steal multiple vehicles and creating chaos- I don't think you are noting the color of their skin when you attempt to defend what is yours.

    The fatal shot could be debated, but in all honesty... this was an intense situation on an isolated farm with nobody but themselves to assist them. Things could have gone very badly for the Stanleys. They never went looking for this trouble- they were forced to deal with it.

    I guess I'm surprised at the response. And I guess I'm not. Despite not sitting in on the jury trial... Trudeau has already publically expressed a veiled disappointment for the verdict. He's still losing me.


    With two friends who were first stationed in this area for their RCMP stint and the stories they tell me, this is common place. It wouldn't matter if it was a car full of white, Chinese, black, native, whatever. Read what the drunk youths were doing on this guys isolated farm and tell me you would not retrieved a weapon to protect yourself?

    But....the guy should have got manslaughter thrown at him for sure.

    Need to fix the problem on the rez and it is not going to happen with more free money from the government.

    I agree that a manslaughter conviction seems to have been appropriate. Given that manslaughter is "a homicide committed without the intention to cause death", and given that the circumstances of the shooting suggest criminal negligence in how he approached the truck without taking due care of his firearm, I'm puzzled why it wasn't raised (am assuming if it had been raised, it would have been reported upon). I don't think the jury on its own can't make that finding unless directed by the judge to consider a verdict if they don't convict for murder, so it would be interesting to know if the judge considered that direction, though we'll probably never find out. 

    As for the last sentence, the "free money" comment burns me. The government so systematically destroyed the First Nations cultures that it was essentially genocide, which, after all, was their intention. Money alone isn't the answer, but definitely money should be a major part of the equation.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,206
    Twitter features many people that seem to have not fully understood the full gravity of the situation.

    They were in very close proximity- Stanley was in the driver's side window of the SUV trying to grab the keys as Bouchie resisted his efforts.

    It's questionable for sure, but in my mind... he gets the benefit of the doubt given his role in the entire mess.
    LOL, well if social media is your barometer.......of course there will be people, lots of them, that don't actually read the articles/facts relating to any case. they see it on the surface, or they see someone's post and take it as fact. 

    when I say I hadn't seen anything depicting the victim as completely innocent, I meant in official outlets, like real media or other organizations. 

    but that is largely irrelevant anyway. he didn't deserve to get shot in the head. 

    Come on. All I said was 'many are depicting the scene'. This is true.

    He did not deserve to get shot in the head. With that said, the Stanley family did not need that unfortunate event to happen to them either. Do you think Stanley is living the good life right now?

    And Trudeau has again spoke out of turn over this incident after meeting with Bouchie's family yesterday. 
    yes, you did, which was a very vague statement, and I took that to mean people other than idiots on twitter. after experiencing twitter for a few years now, I fail to consider comments by trolls who think they know everything and express themselves in virtually nothing but hyperbole. 

    Stanley's current LIVING circumstances can not in any way shape or form be compared to Bouchie's current DEATH circumstances. 

    was bouchie a criminal? YES. did his punishment fit the crime? NO. 

    as has been said, a manslaugher conviction would have been justice here. 
    Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
  • Twitter features many people that seem to have not fully understood the full gravity of the situation.

    They were in very close proximity- Stanley was in the driver's side window of the SUV trying to grab the keys as Bouchie resisted his efforts.

    It's questionable for sure, but in my mind... he gets the benefit of the doubt given his role in the entire mess.
    LOL, well if social media is your barometer.......of course there will be people, lots of them, that don't actually read the articles/facts relating to any case. they see it on the surface, or they see someone's post and take it as fact. 

    when I say I hadn't seen anything depicting the victim as completely innocent, I meant in official outlets, like real media or other organizations. 

    but that is largely irrelevant anyway. he didn't deserve to get shot in the head. 

    Come on. All I said was 'many are depicting the scene'. This is true.

    He did not deserve to get shot in the head. With that said, the Stanley family did not need that unfortunate event to happen to them either. Do you think Stanley is living the good life right now?

    And Trudeau has again spoke out of turn over this incident after meeting with Bouchie's family yesterday. 
    yes, you did, which was a very vague statement, and I took that to mean people other than idiots on twitter. after experiencing twitter for a few years now, I fail to consider comments by trolls who think they know everything and express themselves in virtually nothing but hyperbole. 

    Stanley's current LIVING circumstances can not in any way shape or form be compared to Bouchie's current DEATH circumstances. 

    was bouchie a criminal? YES. did his punishment fit the crime? NO. 

    as has been said, a manslaugher conviction would have been justice here. 
    Yes. It has been said. And I disagree. So did the jury and the courts.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,431
    In my opinion, Stanley had no business approaching the SUV and attempting to wrest the keys away. It wasn't his SUV, and no one in it was directly threatening him at the time.  He says he thought that the SUV had run over his wife, with no evidence. He made a mistake, and when your mistake kills someone, you don't get to just say "oops, guess I was wrong about that". 

    Even if you buy his story, in doing so he was careless with his firearm and that directly led to someone's death, which are grounds for a manslaughter conviction. He admits himself he wasn't even paying attention to what was happening with his gun. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Where are people at with the Colten Boushie trial and verdict?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313

    Some people are saying this is a race issue. I don't think it is. When you live on an isolated farm and intruders invade your domain- trying to steal multiple vehicles and creating chaos- I don't think you are noting the color of their skin when you attempt to defend what is yours.

    The fatal shot could be debated, but in all honesty... this was an intense situation on an isolated farm with nobody but themselves to assist them. Things could have gone very badly for the Stanleys. They never went looking for this trouble- they were forced to deal with it.

    I guess I'm surprised at the response. And I guess I'm not. Despite not sitting in on the jury trial... Trudeau has already publically expressed a veiled disappointment for the verdict. He's still losing me.


    With two friends who were first stationed in this area for their RCMP stint and the stories they tell me, this is common place. It wouldn't matter if it was a car full of white, Chinese, black, native, whatever. Read what the drunk youths were doing on this guys isolated farm and tell me you would not retrieved a weapon to protect yourself?

    But....the guy should have got manslaughter thrown at him for sure.

    Need to fix the problem on the rez and it is not going to happen with more free money from the government.

    I agree that a manslaughter conviction seems to have been appropriate. Given that manslaughter is "a homicide committed without the intention to cause death", and given that the circumstances of the shooting suggest criminal negligence in how he approached the truck without taking due care of his firearm, I'm puzzled why it wasn't raised (am assuming if it had been raised, it would have been reported upon). I don't think the jury on its own can't make that finding unless directed by the judge to consider a verdict if they don't convict for murder, so it would be interesting to know if the judge considered that direction, though we'll probably never find out. 

    As for the last sentence, the "free money" comment burns me. The government so systematically destroyed the First Nations cultures that it was essentially genocide, which, after all, was their intention. Money alone isn't the answer, but definitely money should be a major part of the equation.
    I think he meant just handing the bands cash as if that is going to make the problems go away.

    We need a better plan moving forward towards reconciliation. I'm in favour of the better plan being financed appropriately.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,206
    Twitter features many people that seem to have not fully understood the full gravity of the situation.

    They were in very close proximity- Stanley was in the driver's side window of the SUV trying to grab the keys as Bouchie resisted his efforts.

    It's questionable for sure, but in my mind... he gets the benefit of the doubt given his role in the entire mess.
    LOL, well if social media is your barometer.......of course there will be people, lots of them, that don't actually read the articles/facts relating to any case. they see it on the surface, or they see someone's post and take it as fact. 

    when I say I hadn't seen anything depicting the victim as completely innocent, I meant in official outlets, like real media or other organizations. 

    but that is largely irrelevant anyway. he didn't deserve to get shot in the head. 

    Come on. All I said was 'many are depicting the scene'. This is true.

    He did not deserve to get shot in the head. With that said, the Stanley family did not need that unfortunate event to happen to them either. Do you think Stanley is living the good life right now?

    And Trudeau has again spoke out of turn over this incident after meeting with Bouchie's family yesterday. 
    yes, you did, which was a very vague statement, and I took that to mean people other than idiots on twitter. after experiencing twitter for a few years now, I fail to consider comments by trolls who think they know everything and express themselves in virtually nothing but hyperbole. 

    Stanley's current LIVING circumstances can not in any way shape or form be compared to Bouchie's current DEATH circumstances. 

    was bouchie a criminal? YES. did his punishment fit the crime? NO. 

    as has been said, a manslaugher conviction would have been justice here. 
    Yes. It has been said. And I disagree. So did the jury and the courts.
    funny that you cite the jury and the courts as being correct when it agrees with your stance. we both know how rare that is. 

    not to mention your sympathy for the killer here and what he is enduring, yet on the flip side, you mock us "bleeding hearts" for what you perceive as doing just that (when it's justice we want, not sympathy for the killer). 
    Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,487
    dignin said:
    I'm not so sure about the manslaughter charge needing to stick.

    Many are depicting the scene as an innocent one where those youths stumbled on to Stanley's property with no harm intended- this simply isn't true.

    It was chaos at the farmstead. Aside from the attempted theft of the vehicles... Stanley's wife had been physically assaulted. Boushie had a rifle on him. The youths' testimonies were fraught with lies.

    We can't expect the guy to act with ice in his veins as madness is ensuing around him and with no assistance from anyone. He says there was an accidental discharge of the handgun. If he wanted to lie, he could easily have made up a lie involving Boushie and the rifle (there was a bullet in the chamber).
    You need to read that CBC article I posted, because you don't have your facts straight.

    I did read it and several others.

    Exactly what don't I have straight?
    Did you see the condition of the "rifle"? The shooter never saw the "rifle" until after he shot and killed the kid, so it played no roll in his death. The wife was assaulted after the kid was dead.

    That's not even getting into the accidental discharge defense, which was completely bogus and refuted by experts.

    All that said I don't think it was willful murder. Stanley never asked for what happened to him that day and the victims to bare some responsibility for how it played out. I do think that he could have definitely been convicted of manslaughter though, he took a shitty situation and escalated it ten fold. Another reason why regular joe blow has no business owning a handgun.


  • In my opinion, Stanley had no business approaching the SUV and attempting to wrest the keys away. It wasn't his SUV, and no one in it was directly threatening him at the time.  He says he thought that the SUV had run over his wife, with no evidence. He made a mistake, and when your mistake kills someone, you don't get to just say "oops, guess I was wrong about that". 

    Even if you buy his story, in doing so he was careless with his firearm and that directly led to someone's death, which are grounds for a manslaughter conviction. He admits himself he wasn't even paying attention to what was happening with his gun. 
    No business approaching? In my opinion, Bouchie et al had no business trespassing on Stanley's farm and trying to steal vehicles.

    He had every right to try and prevent the theft of an SUV he was responsible for. When someone has invaded your home and is wresting property from it, you don't just have to sit there and say, "Shit. They're taking my stuff."
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dignin said:
    dignin said:
    I'm not so sure about the manslaughter charge needing to stick.

    Many are depicting the scene as an innocent one where those youths stumbled on to Stanley's property with no harm intended- this simply isn't true.

    It was chaos at the farmstead. Aside from the attempted theft of the vehicles... Stanley's wife had been physically assaulted. Boushie had a rifle on him. The youths' testimonies were fraught with lies.

    We can't expect the guy to act with ice in his veins as madness is ensuing around him and with no assistance from anyone. He says there was an accidental discharge of the handgun. If he wanted to lie, he could easily have made up a lie involving Boushie and the rifle (there was a bullet in the chamber).
    You need to read that CBC article I posted, because you don't have your facts straight.

    I did read it and several others.

    Exactly what don't I have straight?
    Did you see the condition of the "rifle"? The shooter never saw the "rifle" until after he shot and killed the kid, so it played no roll in his death. The wife was assaulted after the kid was dead.

    That's not even getting into the accidental discharge defense, which was completely bogus and refuted by experts.

    All that said I don't think it was willful murder. Stanley never asked for what happened to him that day and the victims to bare some responsibility for how it played out. I do think that he could have definitely been convicted of manslaughter though, he took a shitty situation and escalated it ten fold. Another reason why regular joe blow has no business owning a handgun.


    Oh. So I did have my facts straight when I spoke to the chaos of the scene? Apology accepted.

    There was a rifle. Did I see it? No. Did you? I never said he saw the rifle and became alarmed. I said there was a rifle with which he could have used to concoct a better 'lie'.

    Stanley's wife was assaulted.

    And the accidental discharge was not refuted by all experts.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,487
    In my opinion, Stanley had no business approaching the SUV and attempting to wrest the keys away. It wasn't his SUV, and no one in it was directly threatening him at the time.  He says he thought that the SUV had run over his wife, with no evidence. He made a mistake, and when your mistake kills someone, you don't get to just say "oops, guess I was wrong about that". 

    Even if you buy his story, in doing so he was careless with his firearm and that directly led to someone's death, which are grounds for a manslaughter conviction. He admits himself he wasn't even paying attention to what was happening with his gun. 
    No business approaching? In my opinion, Bouchie et al had no business trespassing on Stanley's farm and trying to steal vehicles.

    He had every right to try and prevent the theft of an SUV he was responsible for. When someone has invaded your home and is wresting property from it, you don't just have to sit there and say, "Shit. They're taking my stuff."
    At that time they were no longer attempting to steal anything, they were trying to flee. 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,431
    In my opinion, Stanley had no business approaching the SUV and attempting to wrest the keys away. It wasn't his SUV, and no one in it was directly threatening him at the time.  He says he thought that the SUV had run over his wife, with no evidence. He made a mistake, and when your mistake kills someone, you don't get to just say "oops, guess I was wrong about that". 

    Even if you buy his story, in doing so he was careless with his firearm and that directly led to someone's death, which are grounds for a manslaughter conviction. He admits himself he wasn't even paying attention to what was happening with his gun. 
    No business approaching? In my opinion, Bouchie et al had no business trespassing on Stanley's farm and trying to steal vehicles.

    He had every right to try and prevent the theft of an SUV he was responsible for. When someone has invaded your home and is wresting property from it, you don't just have to sit there and say, "Shit. They're taking my stuff."
    Read a little more closely....

    "Three people who were in the SUV that brought Boushie to the Stanley farm ......"

    and:

    "Meechance said the group, which also included Boushie and his girlfriend Kiora Wuttunee, got into Wuttunee's grey SUV ...."

    The SUV did not belong to Stanley, nor was he "responsible for it". If anything, Wuttunee could have made the case Stanley was trying to steal the SUV. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,206
    dignin said:
    dignin said:
    I'm not so sure about the manslaughter charge needing to stick.

    Many are depicting the scene as an innocent one where those youths stumbled on to Stanley's property with no harm intended- this simply isn't true.

    It was chaos at the farmstead. Aside from the attempted theft of the vehicles... Stanley's wife had been physically assaulted. Boushie had a rifle on him. The youths' testimonies were fraught with lies.

    We can't expect the guy to act with ice in his veins as madness is ensuing around him and with no assistance from anyone. He says there was an accidental discharge of the handgun. If he wanted to lie, he could easily have made up a lie involving Boushie and the rifle (there was a bullet in the chamber).
    You need to read that CBC article I posted, because you don't have your facts straight.

    I did read it and several others.

    Exactly what don't I have straight?
    Did you see the condition of the "rifle"? The shooter never saw the "rifle" until after he shot and killed the kid, so it played no roll in his death. The wife was assaulted after the kid was dead.

    That's not even getting into the accidental discharge defense, which was completely bogus and refuted by experts.

    All that said I don't think it was willful murder. Stanley never asked for what happened to him that day and the victims to bare some responsibility for how it played out. I do think that he could have definitely been convicted of manslaughter though, he took a shitty situation and escalated it ten fold. Another reason why regular joe blow has no business owning a handgun.


    Oh. So I did have my facts straight when I spoke to the chaos of the scene? Apology accepted.

    There was a rifle. Did I see it? No. Did you? I never said he saw the rifle and became alarmed. I said there was a rifle with which he could have used to concoct a better 'lie'.

    Stanley's wife was assaulted.

    And the accidental discharge was not refuted by all experts.
    you are really reaching here. 
    Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,487
    dignin said:
    dignin said:
    I'm not so sure about the manslaughter charge needing to stick.

    Many are depicting the scene as an innocent one where those youths stumbled on to Stanley's property with no harm intended- this simply isn't true.

    It was chaos at the farmstead. Aside from the attempted theft of the vehicles... Stanley's wife had been physically assaulted. Boushie had a rifle on him. The youths' testimonies were fraught with lies.

    We can't expect the guy to act with ice in his veins as madness is ensuing around him and with no assistance from anyone. He says there was an accidental discharge of the handgun. If he wanted to lie, he could easily have made up a lie involving Boushie and the rifle (there was a bullet in the chamber).
    You need to read that CBC article I posted, because you don't have your facts straight.

    I did read it and several others.

    Exactly what don't I have straight?
    Did you see the condition of the "rifle"? The shooter never saw the "rifle" until after he shot and killed the kid, so it played no roll in his death. The wife was assaulted after the kid was dead.

    That's not even getting into the accidental discharge defense, which was completely bogus and refuted by experts.

    All that said I don't think it was willful murder. Stanley never asked for what happened to him that day and the victims to bare some responsibility for how it played out. I do think that he could have definitely been convicted of manslaughter though, he took a shitty situation and escalated it ten fold. Another reason why regular joe blow has no business owning a handgun.


    Oh. So I did have my facts straight when I spoke to the chaos of the scene? Apology accepted.

    There was a rifle. Did I see it? No. Did you? I never said he saw the rifle and became alarmed. I said there was a rifle with which he could have used to concoct a better 'lie'.

    Stanley's wife was assaulted.

    And the accidental discharge was not refuted by all experts.
    You obviously did not read the CBC article. there were pictures of the rifle there, so yes I saw the rifle. Why lie about that? And you made it sound like Stanleys wife was assaulted therefore they had a right to defend themselves....so you are miss-characterizing the story.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,762
    edited February 2018
    Pretty impressed with Rachel Notley's recent performance.  The BC  government 's unconstitutional actions against an approved pipeline cannot be tolerated. 
    Government's cannot simply drag out decisions with the hope investors will simply back out.  This is no way to run a country. If you don't think it's unconstitutional, just look up Section 121 of the Constituion Act of 1867

    121. All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.




    I bet you'd have a different perspective if the pipeline ended 3 blocks from your house and seriously threatened the environment right at your doorstep (not that our delicate marine ecosystem doesn't reach further than that)! Easy to be for a pipeline that doesn't fuck up your own backyard, eh?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • In my opinion, Stanley had no business approaching the SUV and attempting to wrest the keys away. It wasn't his SUV, and no one in it was directly threatening him at the time.  He says he thought that the SUV had run over his wife, with no evidence. He made a mistake, and when your mistake kills someone, you don't get to just say "oops, guess I was wrong about that". 

    Even if you buy his story, in doing so he was careless with his firearm and that directly led to someone's death, which are grounds for a manslaughter conviction. He admits himself he wasn't even paying attention to what was happening with his gun. 
    No business approaching? In my opinion, Bouchie et al had no business trespassing on Stanley's farm and trying to steal vehicles.

    He had every right to try and prevent the theft of an SUV he was responsible for. When someone has invaded your home and is wresting property from it, you don't just have to sit there and say, "Shit. They're taking my stuff."
    Read a little more closely....

    "Three people who were in the SUV that brought Boushie to the Stanley farm ......"

    and:

    "Meechance said the group, which also included Boushie and his girlfriend Kiora Wuttunee, got into Wuttunee's grey SUV ...."

    The SUV did not belong to Stanley, nor was he "responsible for it". If anything, Wuttunee could have made the case Stanley was trying to steal the SUV. 
    I do need to read more carefully. For some reason, I had it in my mind that the SUV was one the Stanleys were repairing?

    Dignin's comment is correct (and so are you here): they were trying to flee and Stanley should have let them go.

    This fact changes things at least a bit for me. I need to reprocess. Sorry.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dignin said:
    dignin said:
    dignin said:
    I'm not so sure about the manslaughter charge needing to stick.

    Many are depicting the scene as an innocent one where those youths stumbled on to Stanley's property with no harm intended- this simply isn't true.

    It was chaos at the farmstead. Aside from the attempted theft of the vehicles... Stanley's wife had been physically assaulted. Boushie had a rifle on him. The youths' testimonies were fraught with lies.

    We can't expect the guy to act with ice in his veins as madness is ensuing around him and with no assistance from anyone. He says there was an accidental discharge of the handgun. If he wanted to lie, he could easily have made up a lie involving Boushie and the rifle (there was a bullet in the chamber).
    You need to read that CBC article I posted, because you don't have your facts straight.

    I did read it and several others.

    Exactly what don't I have straight?
    Did you see the condition of the "rifle"? The shooter never saw the "rifle" until after he shot and killed the kid, so it played no roll in his death. The wife was assaulted after the kid was dead.

    That's not even getting into the accidental discharge defense, which was completely bogus and refuted by experts.

    All that said I don't think it was willful murder. Stanley never asked for what happened to him that day and the victims to bare some responsibility for how it played out. I do think that he could have definitely been convicted of manslaughter though, he took a shitty situation and escalated it ten fold. Another reason why regular joe blow has no business owning a handgun.


    Oh. So I did have my facts straight when I spoke to the chaos of the scene? Apology accepted.

    There was a rifle. Did I see it? No. Did you? I never said he saw the rifle and became alarmed. I said there was a rifle with which he could have used to concoct a better 'lie'.

    Stanley's wife was assaulted.

    And the accidental discharge was not refuted by all experts.
    You obviously did not read the CBC article. there were pictures of the rifle there, so yes I saw the rifle. Why lie about that? And you made it sound like Stanleys wife was assaulted therefore they had a right to defend themselves....so you are miss-characterizing the story.
    I was describing the chaos at the scene. Don't think for a second being immersed in it would not be extremely stressful.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,487
    dignin said:
    dignin said:
    dignin said:
    I'm not so sure about the manslaughter charge needing to stick.

    Many are depicting the scene as an innocent one where those youths stumbled on to Stanley's property with no harm intended- this simply isn't true.

    It was chaos at the farmstead. Aside from the attempted theft of the vehicles... Stanley's wife had been physically assaulted. Boushie had a rifle on him. The youths' testimonies were fraught with lies.

    We can't expect the guy to act with ice in his veins as madness is ensuing around him and with no assistance from anyone. He says there was an accidental discharge of the handgun. If he wanted to lie, he could easily have made up a lie involving Boushie and the rifle (there was a bullet in the chamber).
    You need to read that CBC article I posted, because you don't have your facts straight.

    I did read it and several others.

    Exactly what don't I have straight?
    Did you see the condition of the "rifle"? The shooter never saw the "rifle" until after he shot and killed the kid, so it played no roll in his death. The wife was assaulted after the kid was dead.

    That's not even getting into the accidental discharge defense, which was completely bogus and refuted by experts.

    All that said I don't think it was willful murder. Stanley never asked for what happened to him that day and the victims to bare some responsibility for how it played out. I do think that he could have definitely been convicted of manslaughter though, he took a shitty situation and escalated it ten fold. Another reason why regular joe blow has no business owning a handgun.


    Oh. So I did have my facts straight when I spoke to the chaos of the scene? Apology accepted.

    There was a rifle. Did I see it? No. Did you? I never said he saw the rifle and became alarmed. I said there was a rifle with which he could have used to concoct a better 'lie'.

    Stanley's wife was assaulted.

    And the accidental discharge was not refuted by all experts.
    You obviously did not read the CBC article. there were pictures of the rifle there, so yes I saw the rifle. Why lie about that? And you made it sound like Stanleys wife was assaulted therefore they had a right to defend themselves....so you are miss-characterizing the story.
    I was describing the chaos at the scene. Don't think for a second being immersed in it would not be extremely stressful.
    Absolutely. That's why I think manslaughter was a more appropriate charge. He didn't ask for what happened that day, but he made a bad situation worse.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,431
    In my opinion, Stanley had no business approaching the SUV and attempting to wrest the keys away. It wasn't his SUV, and no one in it was directly threatening him at the time.  He says he thought that the SUV had run over his wife, with no evidence. He made a mistake, and when your mistake kills someone, you don't get to just say "oops, guess I was wrong about that". 

    Even if you buy his story, in doing so he was careless with his firearm and that directly led to someone's death, which are grounds for a manslaughter conviction. He admits himself he wasn't even paying attention to what was happening with his gun. 
    No business approaching? In my opinion, Bouchie et al had no business trespassing on Stanley's farm and trying to steal vehicles.

    He had every right to try and prevent the theft of an SUV he was responsible for. When someone has invaded your home and is wresting property from it, you don't just have to sit there and say, "Shit. They're taking my stuff."
    Read a little more closely....

    "Three people who were in the SUV that brought Boushie to the Stanley farm ......"

    and:

    "Meechance said the group, which also included Boushie and his girlfriend Kiora Wuttunee, got into Wuttunee's grey SUV ...."

    The SUV did not belong to Stanley, nor was he "responsible for it". If anything, Wuttunee could have made the case Stanley was trying to steal the SUV. 
    I do need to read more carefully. For some reason, I had it in my mind that the SUV was one the Stanleys were repairing?

    Dignin's comment is correct (and so are you here): they were trying to flee and Stanley should have let them go.

    This fact changes things at least a bit for me. I need to reprocess. Sorry.
    Thanks for acknowledging that. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Where are people at with the Colten Boushie trial and verdict?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313

    Some people are saying this is a race issue. I don't think it is. When you live on an isolated farm and intruders invade your domain- trying to steal multiple vehicles and creating chaos- I don't think you are noting the color of their skin when you attempt to defend what is yours.

    The fatal shot could be debated, but in all honesty... this was an intense situation on an isolated farm with nobody but themselves to assist them. Things could have gone very badly for the Stanleys. They never went looking for this trouble- they were forced to deal with it.

    I guess I'm surprised at the response. And I guess I'm not. Despite not sitting in on the jury trial... Trudeau has already publically expressed a veiled disappointment for the verdict. He's still losing me.


    With two friends who were first stationed in this area for their RCMP stint and the stories they tell me, this is common place. It wouldn't matter if it was a car full of white, Chinese, black, native, whatever. Read what the drunk youths were doing on this guys isolated farm and tell me you would not retrieved a weapon to protect yourself?

    But....the guy should have got manslaughter thrown at him for sure.

    Need to fix the problem on the rez and it is not going to happen with more free money from the government.

    I agree that a manslaughter conviction seems to have been appropriate. Given that manslaughter is "a homicide committed without the intention to cause death", and given that the circumstances of the shooting suggest criminal negligence in how he approached the truck without taking due care of his firearm, I'm puzzled why it wasn't raised (am assuming if it had been raised, it would have been reported upon). I don't think the jury on its own can't make that finding unless directed by the judge to consider a verdict if they don't convict for murder, so it would be interesting to know if the judge considered that direction, though we'll probably never find out. 

    As for the last sentence, the "free money" comment burns me. The government so systematically destroyed the First Nations cultures that it was essentially genocide, which, after all, was their intention. Money alone isn't the answer, but definitely money should be a major part of the equation.

    I used to have "teachers" in fits because of this statement. And judging by the homo thread it won't go over too well. It pertains to the Jews, Natives and whoever else has lost a war and still wants rights. You lost, be happy you didn't all get wiped out. You don't dictate how it flows. We can work with you.

    Anyway....if money stops addiction which it hasn't. If money stops abuse, which it hasn't. If money stops child birth at sixteen, seventeen, etc., until you have a big, extended family needing government money because you don't want to get out of the situation that plays over like a bad dream over and over. If you want to play the "i'm so oppressed" for ever and a day? Then live like that. I don't care. If you think you're a victim try and see a different path. I don't feel guilty for what I didn't do, nor do I think I should keep apologizing for something I didn't do. Get on with it. The rez suits a purpose for 1900.

    Why doesn't black lives matter ever talk about Chicago? Same f'n reason. Not their problem to fix!!!

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,206

    Where are people at with the Colten Boushie trial and verdict?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313

    Some people are saying this is a race issue. I don't think it is. When you live on an isolated farm and intruders invade your domain- trying to steal multiple vehicles and creating chaos- I don't think you are noting the color of their skin when you attempt to defend what is yours.

    The fatal shot could be debated, but in all honesty... this was an intense situation on an isolated farm with nobody but themselves to assist them. Things could have gone very badly for the Stanleys. They never went looking for this trouble- they were forced to deal with it.

    I guess I'm surprised at the response. And I guess I'm not. Despite not sitting in on the jury trial... Trudeau has already publically expressed a veiled disappointment for the verdict. He's still losing me.


    With two friends who were first stationed in this area for their RCMP stint and the stories they tell me, this is common place. It wouldn't matter if it was a car full of white, Chinese, black, native, whatever. Read what the drunk youths were doing on this guys isolated farm and tell me you would not retrieved a weapon to protect yourself?

    But....the guy should have got manslaughter thrown at him for sure.

    Need to fix the problem on the rez and it is not going to happen with more free money from the government.

    I agree that a manslaughter conviction seems to have been appropriate. Given that manslaughter is "a homicide committed without the intention to cause death", and given that the circumstances of the shooting suggest criminal negligence in how he approached the truck without taking due care of his firearm, I'm puzzled why it wasn't raised (am assuming if it had been raised, it would have been reported upon). I don't think the jury on its own can't make that finding unless directed by the judge to consider a verdict if they don't convict for murder, so it would be interesting to know if the judge considered that direction, though we'll probably never find out. 

    As for the last sentence, the "free money" comment burns me. The government so systematically destroyed the First Nations cultures that it was essentially genocide, which, after all, was their intention. Money alone isn't the answer, but definitely money should be a major part of the equation.

    I used to have "teachers" in fits because of this statement. And judging by the homo thread it won't go over too well. It pertains to the Jews, Natives and whoever else has lost a war and still wants rights. You lost, be happy you didn't all get wiped out. You don't dictate how it flows. We can work with you.

    Anyway....if money stops addiction which it hasn't. If money stops abuse, which it hasn't. If money stops child birth at sixteen, seventeen, etc., until you have a big, extended family needing government money because you don't want to get out of the situation that plays over like a bad dream over and over. If you want to play the "i'm so oppressed" for ever and a day? Then live like that. I don't care. If you think you're a victim try and see a different path. I don't feel guilty for what I didn't do, nor do I think I should keep apologizing for something I didn't do. Get on with it. The rez suits a purpose for 1900.

    Why doesn't black lives matter ever talk about Chicago? Same f'n reason. Not their problem to fix!!!

    while agree that money being thrown at a problem by the government is a horrible way to try to fix the problem, you throw millions at ANY group of people and they are going to destroy themselves (look at any lottery winner, white or anything else), this post is horrendous. 

    it is incredibly difficult, and most times downright impossible, to escape the situation these people are in. in many cases they haven't had clean drinking water FOR DECADES. you think you can pick yourself up and get a suit and go get a job or afford school when you don't even have the same necessities of life that everyone else has and doesn't have to think about on a daily basis? these people are and have been treated like or worse than animals for eons. you don't think it's easier to just fucking buy a bottle and try to forget, for just a moment in your shitty life, how shitty it is? think of how many people in "white" communities go down the addiction rabbit hole and lose everthing. imagine having nothing to begin with. 

    the natives didn't "lose a war". they were systematically slaughtered and reprogrammed to be white. that's not war. that's genocide. 

    but hey, "get over it, eh?". 
    Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
  • edited February 2018

    Where are people at with the Colten Boushie trial and verdict?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313

    Some people are saying this is a race issue. I don't think it is. When you live on an isolated farm and intruders invade your domain- trying to steal multiple vehicles and creating chaos- I don't think you are noting the color of their skin when you attempt to defend what is yours.

    The fatal shot could be debated, but in all honesty... this was an intense situation on an isolated farm with nobody but themselves to assist them. Things could have gone very badly for the Stanleys. They never went looking for this trouble- they were forced to deal with it.

    I guess I'm surprised at the response. And I guess I'm not. Despite not sitting in on the jury trial... Trudeau has already publically expressed a veiled disappointment for the verdict. He's still losing me.


    With two friends who were first stationed in this area for their RCMP stint and the stories they tell me, this is common place. It wouldn't matter if it was a car full of white, Chinese, black, native, whatever. Read what the drunk youths were doing on this guys isolated farm and tell me you would not retrieved a weapon to protect yourself?

    But....the guy should have got manslaughter thrown at him for sure.

    Need to fix the problem on the rez and it is not going to happen with more free money from the government.

    I agree that a manslaughter conviction seems to have been appropriate. Given that manslaughter is "a homicide committed without the intention to cause death", and given that the circumstances of the shooting suggest criminal negligence in how he approached the truck without taking due care of his firearm, I'm puzzled why it wasn't raised (am assuming if it had been raised, it would have been reported upon). I don't think the jury on its own can't make that finding unless directed by the judge to consider a verdict if they don't convict for murder, so it would be interesting to know if the judge considered that direction, though we'll probably never find out. 

    As for the last sentence, the "free money" comment burns me. The government so systematically destroyed the First Nations cultures that it was essentially genocide, which, after all, was their intention. Money alone isn't the answer, but definitely money should be a major part of the equation.

    I used to have "teachers" in fits because of this statement. And judging by the homo thread it won't go over too well. It pertains to the Jews, Natives and whoever else has lost a war and still wants rights. You lost, be happy you didn't all get wiped out. You don't dictate how it flows. We can work with you.

    Anyway....if money stops addiction which it hasn't. If money stops abuse, which it hasn't. If money stops child birth at sixteen, seventeen, etc., until you have a big, extended family needing government money because you don't want to get out of the situation that plays over like a bad dream over and over. If you want to play the "i'm so oppressed" for ever and a day? Then live like that. I don't care. If you think you're a victim try and see a different path. I don't feel guilty for what I didn't do, nor do I think I should keep apologizing for something I didn't do. Get on with it. The rez suits a purpose for 1900.

    Why doesn't black lives matter ever talk about Chicago? Same f'n reason. Not their problem to fix!!!

    while agree that money being thrown at a problem by the government is a horrible way to try to fix the problem, you throw millions at ANY group of people and they are going to destroy themselves (look at any lottery winner, white or anything else), this post is horrendous. 

    it is incredibly difficult, and most times downright impossible, to escape the situation these people are in. in many cases they haven't had clean drinking water FOR DECADES. you think you can pick yourself up and get a suit and go get a job or afford school when you don't even have the same necessities of life that everyone else has and doesn't have to think about on a daily basis? these people are and have been treated like or worse than animals for eons. you don't think it's easier to just fucking buy a bottle and try to forget, for just a moment in your shitty life, how shitty it is? think of how many people in "white" communities go down the addiction rabbit hole and lose everthing. imagine having nothing to begin with. 

    the natives didn't "lose a war". they were systematically slaughtered and reprogrammed to be white. that's not war. that's genocide. 

    but hey, "get over it, eh?". 

    That is why we all have different opinions about things. Did you do anything to harm any red man? Probably about as much as I did. You want to wallow in the cycle that never stops, be my guest. I get the fact that the government has not stepped up to the plate for these people. It is horrible what has gone on. On the fact of getting on with it.....If my water isn't working, I find a plumber to fix it and pay him money. I'm sorry but with the amount of money being poured into some of these communities they could have running water in a heart beat. Don't think it can't be done? Explain. Without having to tell me about the genocide. What does that have to do with running water? You've had 100 years to move on with the world. There is no more buffalo to hunt. I need to have my water filtered due to pollution. Life doesn't revolve around 10 km of land anymore.


    Again I get the genocide that happened a while ago.


    I could go on as to why my mom's parents left Poland but it doesn't mean a thing to my life right here, right now.

    Post edited by even flow - question mark on

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,206
    100 years to move on? um, the last residential school closed not long ago. the systematic oppression and genocide STARTED 100 years ago. 

    your attitude towards this situation is exactly the reason it's not being fixed. too many people just simply don't give a fuck since it's not happening to them. they think that just because the government gave them a shitload of money that this would somehow fix the issue. it amazes me the inability of the average canadian to think clearly, objectively, and without prejudice and sympathize with their situation. 

    if your solution to getting clean running water to these communities is calling a plumber, you need to read this:

    http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-cant-we-get-clean-water-to-first-nation-reserves/
    Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 1,317
    edited February 2018
    PJ_Soul said:
    Pretty impressed with Rachel Notley's recent performance.  The BC  government 's unconstitutional actions against an approved pipeline cannot be tolerated. 
    Government's cannot simply drag out decisions with the hope investors will simply back out.  This is no way to run a country. If you don't think it's unconstitutional, just look up Section 121 of the Constituion Act of 1867

    121. All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.




    "I bet you'd have a different perspective if the pipeline ended 3 blocks from your house and seriously threatened the environment right at your doorstep (not that our delicate marine ecosystem doesn't reach further than that)! Easy to be for a pipeline that doesn't fuck up your own backyard, eh? "

    So you support this NIMBY environmentalism? and what proof do you have it will "fuck up your own backyard?"  There is already a pipeline operating here.  This one has been approved which included a very rigid environmental analysis. 
    Unfortunately our spineless PM (who has supported this pipeline because he knows it's good for the country) is allowing the BC government to use thwart tactics against the investors.

    You are probably against this pipeline but think nothing of all the foreign oil sitting in large tankers right in your "backyard" which bring in oil from nations with poor human rights records, who treat women deplorably and who get rich from us.  
    But for some strange reason no one protests that..... Not sure I can figure that one out.  It's a head scratcher.  Same water... Same risk.... But no money is flowing to the "anti-oil tanker environmentalists".  
    Post edited by 1ThoughtKnown on
    “We’re keepin it loose, maybe not Grateful Dead loose... but like Rolling Stones loose”
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 1,317
    https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/business/transcanada-going-ahead-with-2-4b-expansion-of-ngtl-system-1.3804571

    Right on.  They have the approvals.  It’s good to go! 
    Beaucratic Red Tape accomplishes nothing but put hard working taxpayers under economic distress 
    “We’re keepin it loose, maybe not Grateful Dead loose... but like Rolling Stones loose”
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,762
    edited February 2018
    PJ_Soul said:
    Pretty impressed with Rachel Notley's recent performance.  The BC  government 's unconstitutional actions against an approved pipeline cannot be tolerated. 
    Government's cannot simply drag out decisions with the hope investors will simply back out.  This is no way to run a country. If you don't think it's unconstitutional, just look up Section 121 of the Constituion Act of 1867

    121. All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.




    "I bet you'd have a different perspective if the pipeline ended 3 blocks from your house and seriously threatened the environment right at your doorstep (not that our delicate marine ecosystem doesn't reach further than that)! Easy to be for a pipeline that doesn't fuck up your own backyard, eh? "

    So you support this NIMBY environmentalism? and what proof do you have it will "fuck up your own backyard?"  There is already a pipeline operating here.  This one has been approved which included a very rigid environmental analysis. 
    Unfortunately our spineless PM (who has supported this pipeline because he knows it's good for the country) is allowing the BC government to use thwart tactics against the investors.

    You are probably against this pipeline but think nothing of all the foreign oil sitting in large tankers right in your "backyard" which bring in oil from nations with poor human rights records, who treat women deplorably and who get rich from us.  
    But for some strange reason no one protests that..... Not sure I can figure that one out.  It's a head scratcher.  Same water... Same risk.... But no money is flowing to the "anti-oil tanker environmentalists".  
    Your quote got fucked up.

    No, I'm not a nimby, lol. You made a lot of assumptions about me in your post eh?
    Yes, I am well aware that there is already a pipeline there, especially since I lived one block from where there was a spill from it, and it destroyed homes and other property and the ground there is still fucked, many years later. So yeah, I'm not excited about a second one! Are you aware of just how many pipeline accidents there are every year?? A lot. It's pure fantasy to think that pipeline disasters aren't going to happen. No, of course they won't definitely happen. But they very well could, and this pipeline in particular runs a route that makes that risk worse.
    I am not insane about this issue. I am aware that oil is still needed (but FWIW, I live car free, largely because of the oil issue). It's not like I want the existing pipeline to shut down. That isn't possible and I'm a logical person. What I do support is a slow move away from oil to the greatest extent possible, and focusing more on alternatives. That is obviously not supported by yet more pipelines that also specifically threaten particularly delicate ecosystems as well as densely populated areas.
    Yes, there are already some oil tankers in our waters. And we have had spills. The issue is that this new pipeline will bring 500 MORE of them to our waters every year, and I'm sure one needn't be a mathematician to know that increased traffic means increased risk. Also, yes, some do protest the existing situation, and yes, people are constantly working to make the industry safer for our environment. Sorry - it seems you really think you have this all worked out objectively, but you don't. You have some chip on your shoulder based on an uninformed impression of environmentalists that you put quotation marks around. Well opposition to it in BC has a much wider net than that. Also, you seem to be missing info, especially when it comes to environmental analysis and risk. Finally, wtf does BC even get out of it, besides severely increased risk?? Nothing. The proposed pipeline will provide the province with almost no jobs. It's ALL in AB's interest, and not at all in BC's, who is expected to shoulder all the risk. Hell, there isn't even a decent plan to support BC if there is a disaster. My view is that AB got fucked by the Conservatives because they put all its eggs in one basket. The oil industry is a controversial, non-renewable resource - AB can't keep depending on it almost completely for its economic security. Be it now or be it later, AB is going to have to seriously diversify if they want to make in the long run.

    All that said, the fucking oil companies almost always win. I have very little hope that money money money money won't win the day like it usually does. It is a very, very sad and depressing reality in this fucked up world.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 1,317
    edited February 2018
    well let's break that long post down shall we?

    1) I asked if you supported NIMBY environmentalism. It was a question.  You made the assumptions there, I was simply asking a question.
    2) although your language is strong (hard to have intelligent conversation full, of f-bombs I'll give it a go) the second pipeline would in theory be better and safer than the existing one as new technology is far better. Now that doesn't mean an accident cannot happen, just it's less likely
    3) I support the slow move away from oil to alternatives (so does Shell judging by their recent corporate directives) however while we have a resource in this country and the world needs it, does it not make sense to exploit that resource and use the revenues for our own benefit? Are jobs not important?
    4) oil coming in or going out is still in the water.  Once again, would you be as vehemently opposed if the line was proposed for Prince Rupert or in the middle of nowhere Bella Coola? 
    5) Environmentalists have been taken over by big money, They have picked a battle against Canadian pipelines and during this whole debate the US has built 19,000 miles of largely unopposed pipelines.  You do not see a correlation there? Perhaps you are not aware that Alberta oil is sold to the US at a discount because the oil is landlocked. Getting this oil to tidewater ensures we get fair market value.
    6) what does BC get out of it.  Well that's an interesting question isn't it? Let's unpack that one.  So the resource is the property of Albertans.  Every Barrel of oil which comes out of the ground results in resource revenue for the province. That resource revenue is part of transfer payments made between all provinces to ensure the have and have-not provinces all receive the same services. Now BC maybe a have province, they may not, but either way the revenue is good for all Canadians, especially those that need it. 
    People working in the oil industry are paying taxes. High wages result in heavy taxes.  That money goes to federal coffers which is i. Turn given to the provinces to pay for social programs, infrastructure, etc.  This does not even count the oil companies who pay a 24% corporate tax rate,  The higher their earnings, the more money goes to federal coffers to be distributed for federal programs and provincial and municipal, etc. 
    Not to mention that people being out of work is a drain on the welfare/EI system which is a drain on taxpayers. Oh, I worked with plenty of people from BC over the years who worked in Alberta and took their high wages back home to BC to spend on their days off. Seems pretty good for the economy to me. 
    7) you are correct that AB cannot continue to rely on oil. We aren't. Our economy is growing st 4% despite oil still suffering. Renewable,electricity particularly wind and solar investments are coming fast and furious. It is exciting. I have been impressed with Rachel Notley, an NDP leader.  She has performed far better than Imever could have  imagined.  
    8) If money doesn't rule the world what will? I paid $652 CDN for a pair of tickets to 2 Pearl Jam shows this summer. I'm not getting to either of them without oil. 

    Lastly, it is AB's constitutional right to get this oil to tidewater. We live in the same COUNTRY! I'm a Canadian first..... but for some reason many Canadians think of Albertans as some sideshow.  All we have ever asked for is some cooperation.... The economic boon is for all Canadians.... Social programs and infrastructure are not free or cheap. 
    Post edited by 1ThoughtKnown on
    “We’re keepin it loose, maybe not Grateful Dead loose... but like Rolling Stones loose”
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,762
    And many people do not think It's worth it. Simple as that, and it is not an uninformed opinion at all.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Sign In or Register to comment.