Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Claudius's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. Oh my god. An auditor general who doesn't agree with Dunn. Whatever am I to do? It's like you've found my Kryptonite or something. <snap> Oh wait! I almost forgot! Your rationale for completely abjectively dismissing Jim Roy's sourced and easy-to-understand report was based on the idea that he was bias against the government in question, because he was fired by the same government. Well an assumption of a logic like that would be that the reverse logic works just as well : Valentine was "bias" towards the government in question because he was hired by them. He said what the PC's preferred to hear and, lo and behold! Everyone kept their job. This is diametrically the very same rationale you used to dismiss Jim Roys report so it kind of evens out. ....IF it wern't for the fact that your end of this rationale just doesn't hold water. You've been hemorrhaging credibility ever since you plied this logic, since naturally it makes utterly no sense that a report written long before Jim Roy was fired, could be bias against the government based on the reasoning that he is bias because was fired. And then you wonder why I don't bother with every little simplistic point you think you have.
  2. I didn't read past this.... LOL! Nonsense. Of course it's enough. It's not that it's "not enough", it's that it's not enough for a goal-post shifter. It's not that a Senior advisor on Royalties policy, the Auditor General and an entire review panel hired by Klein backing Jim up is not enough, it's that it's not enough for you. It never will be as I predicted and you keep proving. However it`s plenty for anyone honest. Now even Alberta Venture Magazine isn`t manistream enough for you. How convenient you think that you decide what's mainstream enough before you just move on to some other disengenuous reason to ignore reality. Children also think their little game of repeating, "But why Daddy? But why Daddy? But why Daddy?" over and over and never accepting the answer is clever and believe that somehow that'll get them the reality they want instead of the reality that is. There's an entire society dedicated to the idea that the world is flat too. God, Shiva and Buddha could literally appear, part the clouds and tell them they're wrong, and they'd just sit there and say, "Nah-uh! Is not!". That all the evidence is not enough for them doesn't stop our satellites from orbiting the Earth. No, AC, luckily that it's not enough for you is completely irrelevant. You're not the arbitrator of truth though it's plain you think you are. 9 experts now - Jim Roy, Fred Dunn the auditor general with all the information in front of him that you don't have, and a 7-member panel of others hired to assess the royalties all saying basically the same thing: Royalties are low, and the royalties we have, have been miscalculated costing us even more money. Alberta could have had billions instead of cuts to health care and education, all of which surely led to unnecessary misery and likely even deaths, all because people just like you refuse to believe what is plainly, inarguably right in front of them and think they're being clever in doing it. Meanwhile I'll post some more links from sources that "aren't good enough", for the honest people on the forum to profit from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-losing-billions-on-energy-royalties-auditor-general-1.657629
  3. Blah blah blah. Didn't even bother to read it. Now or 1000 posts from now, Jim Roy, former Auditor General Fred Dunn and an entire review panel hired to specifically assess the situation, (who were also all fired with Jim Roy because they were telling Klien what he didn't want to hear), completely, inarguably silence your irrelevant nattering. That's enough for intelligent and honest adults. That you're not part of that demographic doesn't surprise me. I guess that's why your side lost the election. Intelligent Albertans prevailed. Keep on babbling and embarrassing yourself. Oh! Also thanks for proving what I said about evidence, expertise and reality having little affect on your species of perpetual arguer. Hopefully it might warn rational people away from this forum so they don't waste their valuable time. :-)
  4. I say let him. No, actually I dare him. This is a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to save us all a lot of time and money by striking the law as unconstitutional as they did with manditory minimums, extended detentions and safe injection clinics.
  5. Oh, speaking of mainstream media, apparently it's not just Jim Roy but the Auditor General as well backing up his claim: http://albertaventure.com/2008/09/exile-in-the-oilpatch-albertas-oil-and-gas-royalty-mess/ I suppose Alberta Venture Magazine will now be religated by yourself as "not mainstream media" for no better reason that it's convenient for you. More interesting reading you can ignore... https://books.google.ca/books?id=MYesAAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PT7&lpg=RA1-PT7&dq=Jim+Roy+fired+royalties&source=bl&ots=BJSEzAckHD&sig=tfJTy-QRVlS15bQr9im9l8ldyT4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zkBRVZ-wMMiXNrnEgXA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Jim%20Roy%20fired%20royalties&f=false I suppose again this is all invalid because you can just baselessly claim Fred Dunn the auditor General was just bias? lol.
  6. Blah blah blah blah. Your meek attempts to insult and your transparent bluffing only embarrass you further. I refer you to your own blustering pompous demand from earlier: I have done this. I have numerous links. I have the expert testimony. I have an entire essay of figures and data to prove the claim by the expert in question. Let's review what you have: Nothing. -You have no links proving the laughable claim that if something isn't reported by the mainstream media, (or more accurately that none show up on the first page of a Google search), then somehow that proves that something is incorrect. -You have no links proving - beyond a shadow of a doubt - Jim Roys bias to the extent he would lie and make up figures. You have nothing. By your own definition I win, you lose. Now everyone reading this knows that regardless of what you actually believe you will post back until the Second Coming with insults and bluster and bluffing and baseless assumptions hoping to save face in front of your imaginary audience. By all means have at it. Everyone knows internet cranks will argue that, "2 + 2 = banana" until the end of time no matter how much proof you rub their nose in. The argument is over. You lost and you know it, because as you say:
  7. He doesn't need to do the math to prove the math is wrong. LOL. I haven't seen something that stupid in print since I drove through Arkansas. Thank you for admitting that your claim his figures are incorrect has no rational basis at all.
  8. (sigh) The notion he was fired or that mainstream media hasn't run the story is 100% irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy actually. The guy presented his case using facts, figures and data. Facts, figures and data you didn't even bother to read. If you can find something wrong with those with those figures, showing that they don't add up the way he claims they do, then you would have a counter-point. Claiming those facts, figures and data don't add up because he's bias or because he was fired or because mainstream media hasn't run the story is about as relevant as claiming he's wrong because he's a Pisces. Either 2 + 2 = 4 or it doesn't. Claiming the math teacher is bias and that somehow means that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 is mutally embarrassing. Either you can demonstrate how his figures are incorrect, or you can't. There is no third option. There is no "opinion". There is no debate. Either the numbers are right, or they aren't and it doesn't matter if his intentions are pure as the driven snow, or he's Satan himself. Until then, when discussing Alberta royalty rates, a senior advisor on Alberta Royalty rates for the government of Alberta outweighs the claims of a million internet ranters regardless of whether he was fired, promoted or anything else.
  9. Yeeeep. Someone's going to break. We pushed back against the taxes, and the oil companies do the same. We have to be braver. We have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but we have huge wait times in hospitals and roads that would embarrass Zimbabwe. That oil is worth more than just, "a job".
  10. Doesn't get more rational, adult or honest than that. Kudos.
  11. You just keep proving my point. Thanks. :-) You have a bias agenda too, most people do. The diffence is you were never a senior advisor on royalty policy and he has the (real) information to back his claims. No it sucks when someone demands you back up a claim with a link or website and then when you do they just start dancing around making up childish reasons to ignore it. You wanted a link. Now you want 4 or 5 from an organization you decide is "mainstream" media. Anyone can move goal posts. It's not hard. I suppose if "mainstream media" does pick up the story you'll just fall back to your, "he's just bias" defense. Here is the man himself, Jim Roy with the Parkland institute with all the data one needs to back up the claims, data that you will doubtlessly ignore and refuse to even read: http://parklandinstitute.ca/research/summary/billions_forgone I look forward to your dancing around and pretending you know more than him, further solidifying my point that proof is meaningless to you. Kinda makes you wonder why someone would bother spending hours collecting information you demand doesn't it? It also sucks when someone demands you find a PC candidate who "wasn't really interested in running", when this is his claim and nothing to do with mine. I never claimed there was a PC candidate who "wasn't really interested in running". It also sucks when everyone is guessing about the future and someone thinks they're making a point by saying, "You're just guessing!" lol. It also sucks when you spend the time gathering links, like say some young PC candidates and you know full well the other personwill just say, "That's not young!" or "That's not 'plenty'". Why bother? Just fast forward and let them prance around thinking they've "won" something. Kinda makes a rule that says you have to back up claims with a link useless or otherwise meaningless doesn't it? It also sucks when the person you're spending time to reply to doesn't know what "per capita" means. Total waste of time. Or wasting time on someone who thinks that ego has nothing to do with motivation behind posting because everyone is "anonymous". lol. This happened last time. So yeah I'll be ignoring you, and you can dance around with the last word and all, and when my email notification alerts me to a rational post, by an adult with the pride necessary to be honest, who has disagreement with something I've said or claimed I'll come back and answer them.
  12. http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2015/05/04/we-wont-get-fooled-again
  13. Thanks for proving your claim "that on this site we need to back things up" is a load of BS. I give you the former senior advisor on Royalty policy with the Alberta Government telling you that the royalty calculations were wrong and you sit there babbling about how the source isn't good enough. It is. Period. You prove everything I said by rocking back and forth yelling, "Nah-uh. Is not! He must be lying even though I really haven't the foggiest notion one way or another" ....and that's precisely what I did with the $13 billion royalty miscalculation claim, and what did you do? You ignored it and made a bunch of childish excuses. Do you ever tire of proving my point for me? Really? Why? Because you say so? Here we are again with the goal posts being moved back. He's the senior policy advisor on royalties to the Alberta Government. It doesn't get more credible than that and here you are fumbling around with the most ridiculous excuses to simply ignore what he said. Again you only prove me correct: I could get God himself to tell you you're wrong and you'd just sit there going, "Nah-uh! Am not!"...Which makes your "we back up our claims around here" the joke it is. No, you IGNORE backed up claims. So yeah you're the second child I'm done with. Ignored all the rest of your replies.
  14. But they are now, so..... And if you think Alberta hasn't been ready to show the PC's the curb for 10 years you're deluded. Not once you factor the PST. Now we're arguing in circles again because I pointed out the PST and you choose to ignore it because that's the only way your math adds up.
  15. lol!! No. On this site you need to try and argue things the other person never said, rather than what they did say. The excuses I've seen people post on this site are hilarious. Last time I was here I made a point involving infrastructure spending on a per capita basis and some nob tried to tell me, "Yeah but Ontario has more people!". lol. If a person doesn't 't know what per capita means or signifies then there'sreally no point talking to them is there? The last guy I spoke to on this thread thought he was making a super intelligent point by telling me, "You're just guessing". I literally chuckled for about 5 minutes over that. Yes I'm guessing. I'm guessing, he's guessing, Kevin O'Leary is guessing - everyone is guessing because no one knows for sure yet - they've been in office, officially, for 24 hours. There's really no point wasting time trying to have a sincere discussion with people like that. So, no, I don't actually need to show you PC's who 'didn't really want to run' since that was never my contention. That was YOUR contention. So no that was BS you spewed and no, I'm not remotely responsible for proving it wrong. It was never my contention. How is it hard? Because their profiles have magically disappeared from the records. Sure I could show you 10 and you'd say "that's not plenty". I could show you 20 and you'd say, "that's not plenty". That's how guys like you operate. Really? That's what it seemed like to me. If I'm wrong fair enough but that's certianly what it sounded like. I'm curious as to why that's not enough? I can understand not trusting the Tyee all by itself, they're definately a source with a slant, but all you have to do is read where their infomation is coming from to get an idea of whether or not it's accurate: Now if a former senior advisor on Royalty policy with the Alberta Government isn't enough for you then nothing will be, which kind of exposes your whole, "On this site we have to back up our claims", as the laughable BS it is. People can prove their claims all day and others can sit there with their hands over their ears, their eyes pressed shut shouting, "I-can't-hear-you! I-can't-hear-you!". Doesn't mean the claim wasn't backed up, it means the other person is too weak to accept it and move on with a different point.
  • Create New...