poochy

Crusaders for a cause, most of the arguments made are at best tangential to their true aims. Making most of it completely disingenuous. This, from the first post is all you need to know about the entire thread "this is the image they have when Alberta is selflessly trying to build a pipeline to pump their toxic sludge across Canada" We give to much oxygen, in the form of replies, to these peoples opinions.

O sure, then again i didn't report anyone for changing Trudeau's name, or Harper's, even though it was ubiquitous, but suddenly poor Trudeau needs to be protected, and at least one of those leading the charge is the biggest offender of the snide, back handed, drive by insult, to other members, yet no one else notices, this Trudeau thing though, that's is a big deal. It's funny that the others concerned about poor Mr Trudeau's honor completely missed the obvious when it came to the behavior of one of their own, otherwise, being so concerned about such things, they clearly would have reported it. They can't all be hypocrites, right? O and fyi, i asked, if i was ok, perhaps when you report things you get an answer and immediate action, we can't all be so lucky FFS. I could also ask, is it ok if we curse at each other so long as we stick to abbreviations? Such as GFYS?

Btw, is ok for Waldo to shorten peoples screen names, for example, from keepitsimple, to simple? Perhaps there is some loophole that allows this behavior for a select few while they claim it's ever so wrong for the PM to be referred to as Jnr. "MLW member Simple, your hyperbole is not the measure of reality! And now the strawmanStruts! I trust going forward you might actually try to substantiate your statements, yes?" Special rules for special people.

Why haven't the new liberals already fixed the problem created by the old liberals? Better yet, why can't you find something better to do with your time than trolling and as you almost invariably do, adding nothing to the discussion.

Is it ok to call him an eco marxist? I dont know if that means anything, how about a communist? It's probably not true though, how about a grown man with a child's intellect? Anyway, all I know is here, and all over, wild eyed leftists had and still do refer to Harper as a dictator, or fascist, or both, i would be a little surprised if some of the very same people up in arms about "Jnr" hadn't ever done it. Of course while neither may be true, one is an insult to a man, the other to millions who suffered under and were murdered by actual dictators, so if you are one of those people who had done it and is now complaining, you have no credibility, and you should pull your head out of your arse.

I cant listen to him speak, but his efforts are generally lost on intelligent people unless they have deeply invested themselves in this version of the liberals. Hopefully some of those people will eventually be able to admit how empty he really is, for now im willing to, if not believe, then at least hope that he is only the face of the party, not the leader. To think the later would be a truly scary thing, when i see a doctor i at least expect them to appear to be as smart as i am, and hopefully more than just appear to be, i expect the same from our PM, our leader should be one of our best, nothing he says makes me believe that he is, quite the opposite. A lot of us have probably worked for someone who you knew was inferior to you, him as PM is a lot like that.

Thanks for dropping by to spread your ridiculous hyperbole, while pretending to be 'reasonable', next you will be telling us how pro science you are, while you prefer we pretend we dont need oil or that pipelines aren't the best way to move it, for everyone. Petrophiles eh, yea, that's right, im sure you are completely oil free, im sure that all of the other people who are against this pipeline are as well. Anyway, lets get this straight, the work has been done, the assessments are done, there is no real reason to delay building this except to placate the kind of person who would use a made up word like "petrophile". They have something you might call a credibility gap, and probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Since we know that we will keep using and producing oil, and that pipelines are the safest method of transport, it simply makes sense to build it. No lovey dovey social license nonsense that seemingly impresses you is going to change the nature of the pipeline, if it ever gets built, there is no middle ground, you can build it or not, but no one is talking about a shut down if this doesn't get done, oil sands production has increased while the price has dropped, and the price of oil is going to rise, so it'l just be on trains instead, less safe, but hey, that seems to be the preferred choice of smart people like you, why should we argue? Maybe you are for the pipeline, if that's the case maybe you should say so and perhaps add the additional things that should be done to make sure it meets your complete approval, then again attacking people who simply want the logical thing, and calling them made up names doesn't come across as someone who has a reasonable opinion on the subject. Do you think we don't care if it's safe? Really? No doubt it could always be safer, but then, what couldn't? Ultimately this is more about an anti oil philosophy for most of you than an anti pipeline philosophy, of course it's difficult to bring that philosophy through the front door to a society that needs and wants oil, not even to mention the economic importance to a nation with lots of it, so the anti pipeline movement is simply the more dishonest back door. But you know what's good for us, the ends, the means, and all that.

The serious and honest debate laid bare, but you 'forgot' about this part "Please list those which have gay pride parades or where women have full equality with men." I suppose you couldnt even think of a ridiculous deflection away from that.

No, i wouldn't say that, maybe in combination with the two oil refineries and the oil tankers arriving via the St Lawrence, the obvious continued desire for oil, the benefits they have received as a part of confederation that has an oil industry and the fact that not a single one of you or they can put forward a realistic argument against it adds up to a lot of hypocrisy and stupidity on the subject. They want oil, they need oil, we have oil, they should bear the risk associated with it's extraction, transportation, refinement, and use, just like the rest of us, fyi, you're continued insistence of using terms like "massive dilbit pipeline" only undermines anything you might have to say. That sort of hyperbole is the calling card of the fringe enviro movement, but frankly it's unsurprising that you continue to argue in such childish ways while pretending to be reasonable, pretending to be arguing against a pipeline, when you are actually arguing against oil, oil companies, and capitalism in general. It's all so disingenuous.

Please enlighten us, how many of them are claiming that we don't need oil anymore, or fighting a safer method of transport for oil as a backdoor to reducing it's extraction? If they are all serious people the answer will be none.

In a country that couldn't even bear to be unfriendly to Iran it's not really surprising that we can't stand up to the environmental movement and the know nothings that follow them, we are just weak, pathetic really, we are an easy target because too many of us have been born and raised to believe that to be Canadian means standing for nothing while always trying to be the nicest kid in the class. Our own self interests be damned, we just can't take being disliked, even if it is for producing a tiny fraction of the pollution of other countries, we are supposed to be better! We had almot 10 years where that wasn't completely the case, but now we are going to over compensate for it, it's the Canadian way, and it's sad.

O don't worry, most of us are fully aware of the complete irrationality of a vocal minority in this country, but a sensible leader, like Harper was, would just ignore them. We might as well be talking with anti vaxxers. Ah the science based approach.

Well all of the unofficial live sports sites are pirated and because of that they aren't reliable, especially if you're wanting HD streams, and of course the more popular events will have more eyes on them straining the ability of the pirated source to provide smooth playback, it's going to be hit or miss. It doesn't matter quite as much when you want to stream an episode of a tv show, and if you have to switch sources it's no big deal becuase it's not live. The, 'i want to see it live' nature of sports is why sports broadcasting rights are so valued when everything else can be found for free or pvr'd and commercials skipped. Maybe when the new pick and pay system comes on line maybe you could get only the sports channels, etc, that you can't live without and stream the rest, though it seems some providers are already offering at least a version of it, idk how the cost works out. I have a PC that serves all of my music and video to my TV and home network, and also can be used to stream via kodi, but I rarely use it for that, i would rather pay to get reliable HD quality and not have to worry about which repository is working or buffering video etc. It's not worth the effort, i would rather just pay for it, when i do stream something its a show that I missed when it was on or forgot to record. I really doubt you are going to find a truly reliable high quality sports stream, if it was that good it would probably become too popular and no longer be so.

I suppose the possible lie might have something to do with Trudeau's stated plans to restart the review process, but then he lied through his teeth constantly before he was elected, it's no small wonder that those lies are leading to some confusion. Hopefully he will come to..., no that won't happen..ah, right, hopefully some of the rational people in his government will knock some sense into him, that's at least possible.

That's how the real resourceful Canadians do it.

Well, I guess it's their choice, they can prefer to continue to be afraid of train loads of oil that have killed no one rather than pipelines that have killed dozens, no, that's not right..anyway, maybe if the pipeline company does it's 'homework', whatever that means, they can ensure that that world will be perfect for all and never a drop can be spilled. Sunshine and lollipops for everyone! Heaven forbid a society completely reliant upon oil bear some of the risk associated with it's transport, especially when the proposed method is the safest one that we have. Fyi, homework is for children, and that is a much more appropriate description of the people who object to this pipeline than of the adults who pay the bills in this country and want to see it built.

Maybe you can ask some people here to stop inventing other peoples arguments for them. Or maybe it's better to allow them to frustrate others until those others say something they shouldn't and get themselves suspended for it.

But of course no one has suggested that they should have "carte blanche" you made that up, you imposed that alleged point of view on someone who didnt say it and doesn't hold it, so you could then use it against them in an argument. This is what you do, it's what you always do, some of us are here talking about things that matter to us, you are here to lie, cheat, and steal yourself into an argument, it's a sad joke really that those of us who actually care about the country have to suffer someone as dishonest as you.

Yes, and you can cry foul all you like, but you don't know the meaning of the word, never have.

It isn't the fault, of the "fossil fuel apologists" that you believe in a world that doesn't exist, in a 'communism would have worked if everyone got on board' sort of way, not only that, no one here is a fossil fuel apologist, we are realists, but again and as usual you can't argue the facts so you have a reflexive need to misrepresent someones argument so you can then attack them for it. Which, i'll admit, is fair play here. Anyway, there is no proof that we are wrong, none, zero. Nothing moves oil more safely or efficiently than a pipeline, if you can prove otherwise, please do so, show us the math, ill start you out, 47 people died in Lac Megantic in one oil train accident, how many people have been killed by oil pipelines? The Exxon Valdez spilled almost 32 million gallons of oil, the spill in the kalamzoo river is as much as 1 million gallons, the Odyssey sank 800 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia, it spilled 4 times as much as the Valdez. So it's less risky to bring it to the refineries on the east coast by ship, safer to do it by train? There is no 100% safe/clean method, but since we are going to keep using it, and o yes we are, a pipeline is the safest way to do it. The entire basis for your argument is an unreal point of view on just about everything, the world is not going to become what you wish it would be, therefore accept the truth, and stop arguing so dishonestly, or provide what should literally be mountains of evidence to support your argument, but let me guess, there's a catch, the oil companies have bought and paid for every scientist, every journalist, and every government official who disagrees with you, us too i suppose. Strange though, one might think all of those climate change scientists who clearly haven't been paid for would have produced some well known and easy to find work that proves you right. Then again most of them are probably honest enough to suggest we use less oil instead of dishonestly debating the merits of pipelines in hopes of curtailing the use of the substance they carry, that would just make them look silly.

Well, since the absolute, no doubt fact of the matter is that we aren't going to stop using oil any time soon, and pipelines are the safest and most efficient way of moving it, no one wishing to see a pipeline built has to prove anything. We don't have to presume pipelines are safe, they have proven to be so, in so far as anything can be. So here in the real world the fight some of you make against them means that you are the ones fighting against safer transport, it's you who is holding back real progress, like getting oil off of the trains. Now as i said earlier in this thread, you aren't arguing honestly about this, you are arguing against oil and using pipelines as another line of attack, . It's striking to me how much your posting style, the deflections, the back handed insults, the drive by smears, purposefully taking things out of context, the all around intellectual dishonesty, the over use of punctuation in the same places, etc etc etc, reminds me of someone who was banned from just about every forum in the country and that i havent seen in 10 years or more. Im sure wherever old cagey is, he appreciates your style.

No doubt he also planted a few trees to compensate for the existence of the 200 million dollar super yacht that he borrowed last year, i would have thought the existence of such billionaire extravagance would be abhorrent to someone like him, such excess, but i suppose if the millionaires can plant some trees they shouldn't have to practice what they preach.

You should go to lac Megantic and see what a train load of oil did there, I mean you're arguing for train and truck transport over pipelines right? Well of course we know that isn't true, you're arguing for, like you do on every thread like this, is the impossibility of an oil free economy, an eco marxist utopia, and with opinions like that...Anyway, to say the you're arguing against a pipeline from a dishonest position would be putting it mildly.

Your efforts to dimish the incident in Germany are obvious and transparent, as is usual, and common from anyone or your side of any argument you do it in a dishonest, back handed fashion, You recieved a factual response and now because your personal bias can't allow you to accept that reality you have turned to the insults and xenophobia card, well color me all impressed, i haven't seen that before, here, on this forum, ever. Im not supposed to notice or comment on it, but w/e. A mass, attack on women, performed seemingly by an identifiable group, and in spite of actual evidence to support the reports, we have to equivocate, pretend it must have been something else, and in no way question the moral grounding of the people who would do this, or of others that share the same beliefs. Im convinced.