Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #76 
K. van Hoof:  

The following tables which I understand were the basis for the poll in question may answer your interesting question.  There were 758 Males and 772 Females in the sample and the results are broken down here http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016.08.24_Political-Correctness-Omni-ReleaseTables.pdf

As I read the tables one of the questions is"
"would you say you would agree or disagree with each of the following statements ...... political correctness has gone too far .... (response  i.e. agree)  Male - 77%  Female - 75% 
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #77 
Well, that seems to confirm that the poll is not affected by lopsided gender issues.
0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #78 
Thanks for the link to the charts @skeptic. It makes for some interesting reading: there are more categories than the simple "do you think political correctness has gone too far"; plus there are stats shown for different age groups, income and education levels, and the different provinces. Some results are wider apart than the simple 77-75% male vs female you quoted. I suspect statisticians and sociologists could pore over those results and present quite different conclusions, depending on their focus.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #79 
K Van Hoof:  I agree with your comments 100%.  If one examines the various tables, there are gender differences depending upon the question.  Someone skilled in analyzing these sundry tables could, I suspect conclude that females are more favourable to political correctness than males .

I quoted the results on only one table simply because it supported the 76% figure quoted in the journal article. However, one thing seems clear from the data .... people are tired of this "political correct overreach."
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #80 
Kevin, I don't want to speak about OMG but I do know Linda H. She is a wonderful person. She is very intelligent, witty, empathetic, kind resourceful, honest to a fault, respectful, dignified, unquestionably loyal, and not politically correct [thank God]. She is also a great cook? And lastly this Linda character is not only very modest, but she is one "Precious Soul."

0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #81 
Proof this carbon tax (pst) is a tax grab and not about the climate or environment.

‘Aboriginals Exempt From Alberta Carbon Tax’

Nothing like a race based law to prove your climate leadership statements are a clear lie.

Explain yourself NDP supporters.
0
who_me

Member
Registered:
Posts: 73
Reply with quote  #82 

I see that once again Jennifer Henderson has managed to embellish yet another article in the St. Albert Gazette.

In today's (Sat. Feb 4) front page article, I believe it would be much more accurate to report that MLA Renaud and her team autodialed 3700 constituents. In my book, that's not quite the same as talking to 3770 individual constituents, but hey, it's all good, ...there is that thing about poetic license.

 Being one of the3700, and having been jolted from a sound sleep at the time, I restrained myself from leaving a very terse message, and just hung up.

Now awake and coherent, I do have a question or two for MLA Renaud.  Have you ever herd of the Do Not Call list?  And why, as my legislative representative do you assume you have the right to disregard my explicit wish to not be disturbed?

You may think the technology is great, and it is a cool way to reach out to a lot of people. It is another way to connect with the people, and I'm glad you had fun doing it, but a politician should surely comprehend respecting the wishes of the people. Do not call, is DO NOT CALL. 


0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #83 
Just what Alberta needs right now. New legislation making it easier for unions to organize to place extra strain and costs on Alberta businesses. Notley and her henchmen just can't leave well enough alone.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-labour-laws-1.3977786
0
goldfinger41

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #84 
As an online participant re: MLA Renaud.
I waited for about an hour before being listed for a chance to ask a question of Ms Renaud. Then, waited until the autodialed session was over, and never did have a chance to ask my question. The whole session during this timeframe was all sugar and spice, and not much spice/substance. I guess now, Ms Renaud can say that she listens to voters. Somehow, it sounded so hollow, especially when I know a friend tried to no avail for several months on a near daily basis to have a chat in her constituency office. Is not technology wonderful. We don't even have to face anyone to indicate "lip service."
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #85 
If I am not mistaken.....the NDP MLAs were advised not to meet with constituents.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #86 

Soooo ... in the Legislature the Deputy Premier states that “we’re focused on hard hats, they’re [the opposition] spending a lot of time with sewer rats.” So is there any possible explanation for such highly nauseating behaviour?


A partial explanation was recently laid out by the Black American Conservative commentator Shelby Steele. He pointed out that as liberalism evolved into "progressivism" it mutated from a movement for freedom to one of moral authority.

Progressivism has two main pillars, namely:
1. a Heglian view that history is on a predetermined path and the progressives, in contrast ; to other ideologies, are on the right side of history; and
2. Progressives are morally superior to their opponants as they are above intolerance, racism, nationalism, sexism, homophobia, etc. etc.

This sense of moral superiority transforms "progessivism" from a political ideology into an identity. That is, "progressivism" becomes the very essence of the individual in contrast to being a set of ideas to which an individual adheres.

Consequently when their ideas are challenged it is viewed as a direct attack on their very essence as a human being. Since they feel the other side has attacked their very essence, and since they view the other side as morally inferior, they have a compulsion not simply to defeat the opposing argument ... but to annihilate the other side. Their reaction is not to debate the issue on its merits but rather to stigmatize their opponents as racist, sexist, homophobic ... and in this case as "sewer rats."

It seems that the "progressives" have transformed political debate into a religious war of moral superiority.

0
Joyce

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #87 
Did anyone else read the "Sun" column by Gunther about the NDP restructuring the rules regarding the Heritage Trust Fund and the Alberta Pensions. It is something that every Albertan, especially anyone with pensiom being held by the Alberta Government should keep watch. I have to wonder how low they can go. Just my opinion.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #88 

Rachel Notley’s NDP tricked Albertans into not noticing how drastic its new labour bill really is

Quote:
The reviews are in on the Alberta NDP’s new labour bill and most critics agree … it’s not as outrageously terrible as expected. That’s apparently what passes for good news in the province these days, where a sort of Stockholm syndrome has sunk in. Albertans, having inadvisably stumbled into the clutches of four years of union-friendly, carbon-hostile, socialist-inspired NDP rule, now feel grateful when some blows their government delivers are less painful than usual.

“This could have been so much worse,” the Edmonton Sun’s right-wing columnist Lorne Gunter reassures readers. The opposition Wildrose party has mostly griped that Bill 17 is too big and needs to be broken up, and also that it seems unfair that dozens of NDP legislators with personal union ties — even the premier, Rachel Notley, is herself married to a union administrator — should be voting on a bill that directly impacts union power. Business groups so far merely say the bill is too far-reaching to assess. That’s presumably how the NDP likes it, since the government is racing to pass the bill before the legislature’s spring session ends.

And the bill, at more than 250 pages and tabled after just a few brief weeks of consultation with those affected, was designed to be too large for Albertans to quickly digest. It reaches into every nook and cranny of the provincial labour market, rewriting the entire rulebook to reflect the NDP’s anti-capitalist worldview.

There are hundreds of labour code amendments packed into the so-called “Fair and Family-Friendly Workplaces Act,” each sprung from the assumption that Alberta’s workplaces are unfair and unfriendly, requiring the beneficent hand of progressive regulation to protect employees from the exploitations of heartless bosses.

This in a province that last year, in its worst recession in a generation, still saw workers take home Canada’s largest weekly paycheques, and where, before oil crashed, bars, cafés, retail stores and restaurants gave away trips and other prizes to young people willing to take highly paid entry-level work, while nearby oilfields dangled six-figure salaries at high-school dropouts. Witness Alberta’s dark satanic mills.

Albertans might console themselves that the NDP restrained itself from its most radical impulses, no doubt still hopeful that it might yet recover enough popularity to survive into a second term. But the changes already mark some of the most pro-union, anti-business policies in the country.

The NDP insists that the “updates and improvements to Alberta’s labour legislation are long overdue,” noting that they haven’t been updated since 1988 when, as Labour Minister Christina Gray noted, Die Hard was still in theatres. That seems to strike most pundits as a good enough excuse to change it now, but that’s just lazy thinking. If workers’ rights were well protected back then, the passage of three decades won’t have eroded those rights any more than 45 years have eroded the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Twenty-nine years certainly hasn’t eroded the awesomeness of Die Hard one bit.


Kevin Libin: Rachel Notley’s NDP tricked Albertans into not noticing how drastic its new labour bill really is | Financial Post

0
Joyce

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #89 
Watching the news last night made my blood boil.
As a female and mother I am disappointed in the entitlement attitude of the politions of today.

Now that they have opened the door of demanding baby accomodations in the worplace. How long will it be before others demand it as well. Employers are at the mercy of the current legislators who are out of control.

We all have an illusionary wish list but most of us live in the reality world. There are wants, needs and reality.

Babies in the boardroom are not reality. We have daycare availabe. If our politions are not willing to live with it they have a choice. They can stay at home with their child.

0
AlbertaShank

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 128
Reply with quote  #90 
So does our MLA not live in St. Albert?  I read she was injured outsider her home in Edmonton... I know she made a big show of "moving" to St. Albert before the last election....   And what the hell does she even do other then tweet about abortions being a gift from god?
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.