Derek 2.0

........Or you go to the police and file criminal charges if you're sexually assaulted. Why would I need to go back to it? The highlights alone confirm nearly all the Sanders and Trump slogans and talking points over the Clintons and Wall Street......I'm still waiting for the alleged influence peddling via the Clinton Foundation well she was in the State Department......thats' the kinda thing that could put her in jail.

Why would I do that? I'd trust a person, filing a civil suit vice criminal charges against a rich person they accuse of rape, about as far as I could throw them.......

Call me melba toast for once pining for a Bush/Rubio ticket

Has Trump been convicted of rape or is that your projection? Frankly, I'm surprised that its even news worthy.......I mean anyone that hasn't been under a rock since the 80s knows that Trump is a misogynist flim-flam artist......Aside from the reaches of the far-right (and the populist far left), the Clintons have been placed on a pedestal......this recent Wikileaks dump all but confirms the many once thought kooky conspiracies from the far right/left about the Clintons are true.

I like neither, but if I had to choose, I'd go with atypical locker room talk from Trump over the elitist backroom dealings of a Clinton.....Wikileaks might have just saved the Trump campaign from being a total dumpster fire.

The latest from Wikileaks.........Clinton's speechifying is far worse then Trump's latest flub.....

Glad you enjoyed it....what did you have?

That's what I was kinda thinking.....or maybe a corporate spy? What I question, as he said, he's been going to the park for decades, "screwing and shooting the robots"..........what meaning is he looking for? I'll go out onto a limb and submit Harris's character is some sort of "anti technology" revisionist and is in league with Hopkins character........both attempting to put the robot genie back in the bottle.

From only seeing one episode (and the movie waaay back) I'd have to say all the characters have their flaws.... from first impression, Ed Harris's character seems dark and twisted, well Hopkins is clearly conflicted and longing for the "good old days" when nothing was "perfect"....we'll need more episodes to "flesh it out".......right now I'd say "root for" the robots.

I trust you've never taken out a mortgage on a house? Mortgages with less than a 20% down payment require insurance because they're deemed risky.........Canadian taxpayers, through the CMHC, took on the risk of all such mortgages in Canada (~10-15%), including mortgages deemed "sub-prime" in nature....i.e 0% down, or the 5% down payment obtained through a credit card or line of credit, or a cash back scheme through a borrower. My entire statement is correct....there is nothing "theoretical" about the debt created by borrowing, and the ensuing follow on effects on the inflated economy. That's a good start.......the economy should be allowed to deflate to a point that it naturally stops, absent Government stimulus and changing of interest rates..........a far better prospect then further inflating the credit/debt bubble, building to the eventual bursting of our economic bubble.......

I never said they did. Huh? That sounds like you're describing a Ponzi scheme.......and backwards at that.........borrowed monies from the "magic hat" introduce a debt that has to be paid back with interest.......this in turn creates both debt and the expansion in our economy of credit.....and that increases the cost of everything within our economy.....but when credit and debt stop expanding the whole house of cards comes crashing down.....enter "Government stimulus" and the rebuilding and expansion of said house of cards.... That's not what I asked.......where in your link does it suggest the economy would be worse off without Trudeau pissing away billions of borrowed money?

First..uhh....it did.....Canadian Banks received charted loans from both the US Federal Reserve and BoC, likewise, CMHC bought over $60 billion of risky mortgages off of Canadian banks............and its very relevant, as in both cases, Canadian taxpayers footed the bill......hence no "magic hat" full of money...... Where does your link support your claim that the economy would have been worse without Trudeau pissing away billions?

No, clearly it is you that doesn't understand......when the Canadian bank's (Or any other First World nations) "magic hats" went dry during the sub-prime crisis who took on the debt in the form of bailouts?.......Taxpayers Wasn't the Government's $30 billion in extra spending suppose to "improve the economy"? If the economy is getting worse, per the cited forecast, wouldn't that indicate the Trudeau governments use of tax dollars as wasted? Nice deflection

I said as much in the post above.......but thanks for trying to teach me what I already know, Huh? Did this borrowed money come out of a "magic hat"? Clearly it "existed" or there would have been no wealth to finance the lending to the GoC...... Except what I cited above based on this Government's data and forecasts put together by numerous economists....... Why would that be a "net positive"? If "Green infrastructure" was a "net positive" in economic terms, "corporate Canada" wouldn't be "hording their money", but investing in said areas.......

Inversely there is no indication that the said spending helped improve it either........you've suggested the economy is helped by the Government "putting more money into it", but that is under the assumption that Government generates the wealth that equates to said monies....(All Government did was move money from piles A,B and C to piles X,Y and Z to "see what happens") That isn't an argument against "stimulus spending" itself, but on what this Government is spending the ~$30 billion on........based on the cited numbers, this government is moving money from pile A to a pile that is then rapidly tossed into a fire, with an opposite desired effect......this government's solution? Keep tossing more money onto the fire....... With all that being said, if one is to assume that your theory is true, if the government takes additional money out of the economy in the form of a carbon tax etc, money from both citizens and business, wouldn't this hinder the economy?

And its expected to continue to get worse despite the additional spending by the Trudeau government......you are getting personal with Argus, suggesting he doesn't know how the economy works, despite his point being confirmed by numerous economists.....as cited. You can continue to be snotty and point to "economic theories", but these numbers are compiled with Stats Can data and projections put together by actual economists.....and they support Argus' point...... Flaherty is dead and Harper is no longer the head of our Government........but nice distraction of the Trudeau governments handling of the economy and Government debt/spending....

These economists tend to support Argus' point.......simply put:

Yes.........and do you realize there would be no need for said flares absent a refining capacity? No LNG plant on BC's North Coast equates to no increase in the release of methane along BC's North Coast......

Uh......no....the largest man made contributor of methane currently in our atmosphere is from the O&G industries.........methane flares around the world disprove your "claim". ergo.......the less natural gases we refine, the less man will contribute to the ever increasing levels of methane in our atmosphere.

Exactly....there isn't, in terms of GHGs, burning LNG is actually worse in many ways then burning gasoline......though LNG is typically more efficient and "burns cleaner", natural gas is comprised of typically ~80% methane and releases said methane as its being burnt......just as burning gasoline releases carbon dioxide......the problem, methane gases in the atmosphere retain nearly 100 times more heat then carbon dioxide.........

Ouch........where did you find that?

I know.......don't get me wrong, the Federal Tories currently support and supported these projects and the voting public in BC knew it........maybe if they had of made more pretty mouth noises (lied) like Trudeau they'd still be Government..... Oh well, a whole other generation of Canadians needed to come to the realization that you can't spell Liberal without L-i-e............ Hell hath no fury like a women voter scorned.........

No, from a GHG POV oil and gas refinement and end use maters little if its in China or Northern Alberta.......inversely, it makes little economic sense unless you're a communist.......industry isn't going to build excess refining capacity in Canada. You're not suggesting Trudeau's next Hero Project should be the State sponsored construction of oil & gas refineries? They would either be under used or contribute to the glut already on the market......depressing oil prices and our economy........well pushing back renewable energy.

Not in this discussion........Canada has no feasible influence on end use (be it oil sands or fracked LNG from Northern BC), hence its a moot point....likewise msj's citing of various fuel sources emissions of carbon per 1 million btu burned. The point is the Trudeau government approved a new source of carbon emissions that will produce an equal or greater amount of greenhouse gases in Canada then our current two largest sources.......it wouldn't mater if this plant rendered unicorn tears and recycled hemp........ If BC is to meet the 2050 carbon reduction targets we will have to accept that this single source plant will account for nearly 80% of the province's total emissions........In other words, Trudeau just confirmed that he has no intention of coming close to meeting the limits his government signed onto (The previous Harper governments to boot) in Paris late last year. Politically, in BC (and I'm sure the sentiment will spread across the country) Trudeau has just alienated the progressive/Young voters/environmentalist/First Nation support he received during the last election.....not only with this proposal, but (as mentioned) another LNG plant in Woodfibre and more so the Site C dam.....and it can be assumed the Kinder Morgan expansion later this year or early next. Trudeau would have been better received if he just gave British Columbians the finger like his Dad:

No, it is you misrepresenting the discussion, as cited, this LNG plant will pollute more then the largest oilsand producer and coal fired power plant in Canada...that is factual until proven wrong........you are the one that started dropping grade 9 science class tidbits with regards to British thermal units...