Accountability Now

Incorrectly flogging 959? You have gone completely mad. That number was a projected number from ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT. Not something I made up (unlike the crap you are spewing). Again...you just don't get it. If that 959 number does decrease to 628 then that means the flood is less severe. Which means this is NOT GLOBAL WARMING. Oh dear lord...how are you going to deal with that? Keep saying what you want...but if you keep tossing up flops then I'm all over you.

Wow...three separate posts all with incoherant mish-mash. Let me summarize what you are saying here: 1. Do I know where Bragg Creek is? Considering I have friends that live there. Yes I know where it is. Nice attempt at making that your go to point but it didn't quite work much like most things you attempt on here. Do you always steer away from facts when arguing? 2. You feel that measuing the points at Bragg Creek verus points in Calgary make a difference. Hmm...take a look at this paper done shortly after the 2005 flood (http://www.ucalgary.ca/ensc/files/ensc/ENSC502%2005-06%20Living%20with%20Our%20Rivers%20BRBC%20Combined.pdf). Very specifically look at page 10 where it charts the flow rates at Bragg Creek, Above Calgary and at the Glenmore Dam. You will be VERY interested in reading the conclusion below the chart which says: "River Discharge does not increase significantly moving downstream" OUCH...so much for anything on the Bragg Creek smoking gun that you so desparately wanted. Seriously...LMFAO!! Do you want to post three more comments about Bragg Creek to try and derail this thread? I would say it was a nice try but it really wasn't. Like I said...take ANY POINT and it still is NOT double like you said. EPIC FAIL waldo.....EPIC!! 3. You have backed your claim by a statement made by a politician. You have not provided any citations, charts graphs or ANYTHING that objectively proves that this flood was DOUBLE the flowrate as per your claim. You just can't admit it. All that you can do is look at the data I have provided and pull out nuances in a horrible and pathetic way to divert from your poor statement. You can ignore the paper all you want however I have also provided data from Alberta Environment and it clearly shows the flow rates and their comparison from year to year. NO WHERE IS IT DOUBLE!!! 4. You commented a number of times about how desparate I am? Quite the contrary.....I was not the one to make a bold face lie about the numbers and now backpeddling and side stepping to try and avoid the truth. What's next waldo? Are you going to break out spell check and spend two more posts on that? YI honestly don't care about ANYTHING you say as you have yet to answer the question: IS THIS FLOOD DOUBLE WHAT THE WORST FLOOD OF 1932 WAS? I'll save you the time and embarrasment. Its not. Its right in line with it whcih clearly shows that your alarmist views on this being a global warming event are completely false. Good try though. Ok...that's about it. Now I don't want you to pout about this and threaten to leave MLW like you did in the From my Cold Dead Hands thread. (as per below). I'm not going to lie....I actually enjoyed this site while you were pouting. You must have been kicked off your other forum and decided to come back. That's a shame!

I have zero angle. You said this flood was double the worst flood in history. You were and continue to be wrong. So in classic waldo fasion you are now trying to dispatch yourself from the thread. Just say you were wrong and we can move on. No shame in that...is there?

Cyber....if you look at Calgary alone then you will see there were five major floods from 1902 to 1932. There was one more in 1953 and then two in 2005/2013. I certainly wouldn't say they are more frequent IN THIS CASE. The other key thing to note is that all of these floods vary in magnitude which is why they call them 5 year, 10 year, 100 year floods. It doesn't mean how frequent they happen, rather it refers to the possibility of them happneing in a given year. Other places may very well have an increased frequency.

Actually I don't make anything up. This is the way that its done according to federal and provinical environmental groups like Alberta Environment. If you would have take the time to read the link (remember..lettters make words...words make sentences) you would have seen in blurb saying "Flood Frequency, BOW RIVER UPSTREAM OF THE ELBOW RIVER. Its hard reading sometimes, isn't it? Rubbin's in the past? Like when I schooled you on Green Energy versus Green Economy? Seriously? You can't win this one so you want to revert to one of your other defeats. Is that the best you have....to reach for personal attacks? Claim to be? Born, raised and still live here. Do you have a problem with that? I can point Alberta out on a map if you need me to. Boost my numbers? You are the one trying to show that this flood is the worst ever. I gave you 959 cms as the 2013 number and you are arguing that it should be 692? So what you are saying is this flood is even lower than the 1932 flood which resulted in a peak flow of 836cms. Wow...aruguing with you isn't even fun as you concede so easily. So lets just sum this up for the fine people looking to weigh in on this. Waldo starts the claim off by saying the 2013 flood was double the flow rate of the 1932 flood. Double of course meaning twice as much. (Waldo....let me know if you want me to slow down for you). So on the Elbow River the flow at Bragg Creek in 1932 was 836. So double (as Waldo says) would be 1672 cms. HMMMMMM??? Pick any point you want Waldo....its not even close to double. Lets look at the Bow. 1932 number was 1520 cms. Let's see....double would mean taking that number and adding the same number to it....that would make it 3,040. And what is the number for 2013? Oh....its 1740. Wow...so wrong but you must be used to that by now. Ah...there we have it. You're relying on media coverage from a mayor who has had 8 hours sleep in four days. And me....well I'm getting numbers directly from the source (Alberta Environment). Shame on you Waldo...for a guy who is all about citations, graphs and charts....you are now relying on hearsay from a mayor possibly starting to work on his claim for federal funding? You're right...let's not look at objective numbers...let's go with whatever he says. LMFAO!!! Math? You have provided a statement. I have provided the math. Math consists of number (1,2,3 etc). I know you really struggle here so I'll show you agian...Bow river 2005 was 791 cms. Bow river 2013 is 1740 cms. So you then take the larger number (1740) and divide by the smaller number (791) and this will give you an answer of 2.2 which some people would say is double...not quadruple (oh wait....you might not get that...it means four times). Seriously quit wasting forum thread time and admit that you screwed up believing in hearsay when the numbers just don't back your claim! At least I can respect that. . I have no problems answering this once you clearly admit that your accusation of this being twice as bad as the 1932 flood is completely false. If you aren't willing to do that then what's the point? .

So wrong on so many levels!!!! You have to compare each river on its own as per Alberta Environment. (http://alberta.ca/estimated-peak-river-flows.cfm). If you look at the projected flow rates for the Bow...it is projected to be at 1700 cms (even though revised projections are showing lower numbers). This is about 10% higher than the worst storm ever in 1932 which was 1520 cms. NOT DOUBLE! The Elbow river in 2013 is projected at 959 cms versus 836 cms in 1932. NOT DOUBLE!! Oh my!!!!! The sky must be falling! Double the flow rates in 1932???? Not even close! It was double the flowrate on the Bow from 2005...oh wait....that is comparing a 100 year storm versus a 14 year storm. So was your response an alarmist response? I guess this is what happens when you try to think for yourself rather than just citing graphs and charts.

Why are they not ordinary? Looking at this paper (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hayashi/geog515/lectures/515_0609.pdf), it says there were five major floods in Calgary between 1902 and 1932 with the flood in 1932 being the worst until now. There were no major floods from 1932 until 2005. So we get two in a span of seven years and that's weird? They had five in thirty years....was that global warming too? Or was that government conspiracies back then too? You have to remember there are two rivers merging as one. That complicates this even more.

100 year flood does not mean it happens every hundred years. It represents the statistical probability that it can happen in a given year. "A common misunderstanding exists that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4% chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood

Seriously? Now that is lame. I didn't vote for anyone in Attawapiskat nor did I vote for Harper. Both have unaccounted government money. What's not comparable?

So you don't even know who Spense or Attawipiskat is and you are calling my comparison silly?

So what you're saying is that since we didn't vote for Spense that we shouldn't care what happens to government money?

Jacee....you seem to be quite the freedom fighter for governments having unaccountable money losses. How about Teresa Spense in Attawapiskat? Are you just as outraged with that government as you are with Harper? Or is this where we see the hypocracy start?

Isn't that what I said? ie. using the popular vote is NOT a fair assessment.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most PM's usually have 40% of the vote (ie 60% opposition). A quick google search shows Wikipedia saying that Chretien had 41.24% in 93, 38.46% in 97, 40.85% in 2000, and Martin had 36.73% in 2004. So all these Liberal governments had approximately 60% of the voters opposing them too. Is it fair to say that using the popular vote as you mention above is not a fair assement of whether they should be our leader or not? I have to believe the only way we will see a popular vote higher than 50% is if it were a two party system. Or if Don Cherry ran for PM...kidding.

Very true.

I disagree. Japan attacked the US with both being soverign countries. Israel attacked Hezbollah with the latter being a terrorist organization...or sorry what you would call a militant group. This attack seems more similar to the US entering Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. In both cases you have the host country (Syria and Pakistan) upset about the attack happening but not really saying why these terrorists were there in the first place. Unfortunately its not clean cut any more where countries are going to war but its still a matter of sides. If Syria is aligned with Hezbollah then that puts them on one side. Anyone fighting the war on terrorism is the other side. As such, Canada/US are forced to take Israel's side. Welcome to the new world order I guess.

You have to view the government like a public corporation. They need to expose themselves of all potential liabilities that may come so that their shareholders (ie taxpayers) are well informed when or if it does happen. With that said, having on their Statement does not mean they believe they will be paying it rather that they MIGHT have to pay it. If you read the rest of note 8 it says "This estimate includes projections based on historical rates and costs of settlements for similar claims. They know which claims are on the table from the schools and other land claims so they are projecting based on past costs. Why don't they just settle and pay it? Again...having this money noted is not them admitting that they owe it to anyone. It still requires a thorough process to ensure the proper due diligence is taken. If a claim is factual and money is owed then the government will be able to illustrate that to the taxpayers and justfy it. Sending money before that would not show such justification and would there be illegal and would most certainly cause outrage. Honestly...I don't. It would be nice to know exactly how much because that certainly would solve the problem quicker if we just gave the money. However, that would violate the court system that you so desparately love so much. You often claim that the "Courts will decide....." You have to remember that when things go to the Courts that it tends to cost LOTS. Lawyers, paralegals, judges...etc...they aren't cheap. As a business owner I know first hand what these costs are and MANY times I have settled for less knowing it would cost me MORE to fight it in court. This is why it would be great if both sides could come up with a realistic and fair agreement on these claims without lawyers but we know that won't happen. Of course...the problem that casues us to go to court is everyone thinks their side is right...even the people who defy logic!

I wouldn't say discussion because the goverment wouldn't (or should I say) partake in renegotiating something that was already settled and built on for years. Should France come back and say "oh wait....are are actually interested in setting Canada. Please give us back Quebec". Or better yet....should Alberta go into discussion with Saskatchewan to renegotiate the border since a bunch of oil is just on the Sask side?

It is very apparent that you don't understand the crap that you are spewing. If you would have actually read the line it says PROVISION FOR CLAIMS and litigation (i specifically highlighted the parts that you need to understand). First off, the money has not been spent rather budgeted for as a provision for future claims they believe they will have to pay in the future. In that, yes...there is litigation fees but the major portion is the claim itself. If you would have actually read note 8 you would see two key points: 1. Claims and pending and threatened litigation cases outstanding against AANDC are potential liabilities that may become actual liabilities when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. To the extent that the future event is likely to occur, and a reasonable estimate of the loss can be made, an estimated liability is accrued and an expense recorded in the financial statements. 2. AANDC has recorded a provision of $10,964,626,000 ($11,988,760,000 in 2011) as an estimate of the likely liability that will result from the above claims. This estimate includes projections based on historical rates and costs of settlement for similar claims. Exposure to liability in excess of the amount accrued is $151,460,000 ($157,505,000 in 2011) and an additional amount of $4,068,722,000 ($3,836,000,000 in 2011) is considered uncertain as the probability of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the future event confirming that a liability existed at the financial statements date cannot be determined. Jacee...you have proven my point once again. We have people like yourself that see these numbers and start spewing this stuff to anyone who will listen. These people then go on and turn it into an urban legend which then gets the natives resteless once again. This reminds me of the other urbran legend out there that says there is 2 Trilion dollars in the trust when in fact it is currently at 1.15 billion as per this same site. Please stop trying to help your cause and let the coherent professionals do their jobs. Its no wonder that the government drags its feet....

Almost all of these (especially the land claim ones) are in BC where it is clear to both sides that treaties were never signed. So yes....there is lots of room for discussion. All other treatied land should be treated as a done deal.

Just like further funds need to be allocated to the victims in Caledonia that have suffered long term damage. But you wouldn't back that notion now would you? Goverments on both sides (left and right) have continually chosen to not resolve claims becasue they feel its in the best interest of Canadians. How can you blame them? Among the few legitimate claims, you have crooks like the Papaschase who still claim this is their land even though your beloved Supreme Court has said its not. You also have anyone with a shred of native blood in them trying to get in on the native title. Hey...I'm 1/16th native and 15/16th white but I want native rights???? Its the govermentment's job to drag their feet and fully evaluate these people OR every idiot with a claim will be knocking. Proof in point is the hunger strikes. Spence does a fake hunger strike. Gets a meeting with PM and GG. Months later you have two more idiots trying the same thing. I feel bad for people who have legitimate claims but these people are sadly drowned out by the Spences, or De Beers blockaders, or Papaschase or any other idiots blocking roads. That's what natives don't get. If they unified and brought a coherent claim and left the idiots at home...then and only then will they get the attention they need. But....if they want the banana republic to keep ruling then so be it. It will only lead to more feet dragging.

These people have been compensated for the schools and an apology was made. Has justice not been served? I've been following your posts on the Caledonia thread. You clearly stand by the compensation paid to victims there. So how is this different.

I did read it and I can also read between the lines. Its called lip service. Saying what ever she can to save herself. Its the same way that Flanagan tried to explain context after what he said. Same way that Trudeau tries to explain the context of his remarks. I can't beleive you are that naive or stupid to believe she actually backs the new comments she makes. How do you go from saying this: ....to now saying she sides with the natives? Go ahead and believe it Jacee. I always knew your head was in the sand. She is defintely not my hero because my hero wouldn't be back peddling on this. My hero is a guy like that radio DJ in Red Deer that tore up his status card becasue he was ashamed of what natives are doing today. That takes balls and you certainly didn't see him make up some story after he said it.

So when they say cede and surrender ALL rights to the land, you still beleive that means they get to keep subsurface rights? Or is this that famous oral history that we keep hearing of? What ever is most convenient....right? I'm saying she is being a politician. Just like Trudeau now saying he does like Albertans even though he is quoted as saying otherwise. These people will give you any answer they can to stay elected. She is only sorry because she was caught not because of what she said. In the article she even states that she wants all Canadians to be treated the same regardless of race. This is the main focus point of people against aboriginal claims...is it not? Its evident that she is playing the typcial political role so go ahead and beleive the 'apology' if you want. The numbers will tell the tale. I don't know if it was purposely done, but Idle No More and this whole movement took a sharp decline once they noticed how pissed off Canadians were getting with them. The only way natives will get anything is if they fly under the radar and go after small victories. Canadians don't notice these sort of things becasue we are too busy working and living our lives to care about some small victory. But raise a bit more noise and people will hear and finally say enough. We will start voting people in that will stand up for Canadians (not English, French, Natives, Germans, etc...but Canadians as a single entity). I trust you will not agree wtih this so I encourage you to have the natives beat their drums louder, block more roads, and make more noise. It will help get our attention. And their hunting grounds....and their way of live...and their reason to live. What else was taken? Please feel free to add it to the Victim pie that natives like to use to make the courts feel sorry for them.

Aboriginal rights only include subsurface rights where the land claims have stated that. It is not inherent to Aborignal rights even though most native believe this and are fighting for it. For the most part treaties have extinguished such rights and the only compensation these natives get are compensation for impact on hunting lands. To circumvent these claims, the government has passed down mineral rights to provincial jurisdictions and even sold large chunks to private investors so that land claims can't exist. She recanted because she's trying to save her political career. It doesn't mean she actually thinks it inappropriate. She just has to say that to appease the image. Again....image Jacee. That's what this is all about. Everyone is always tyring to look good in the eyes of the public especially when it comes to those poor downtrodden natives who had their land taken from them years ago. Everyone loves a victim!