Accountability Now

You really are a little slow....aren't you. I have said twice now that the article was not chosen for the content. He is NOT 'my guy'. I used the article because it contained both employment figures on the same page. Unlike you, I don't have all day to troll the internet as such I trying to make it easier. I only used the numbers and nothing from the author's point of view. And yes I have heard of Cato, CEI....and I actually worked for a company owned by Enron....so yes...I know all about them. Are you kiddiing me with the Brookings study? You and I are directly comparing clean ENERGY versus fossil fuel ENERGY. The Brooking study is about Clean ECONOMY which includes all jobs from wastewater and water treatment, mass transit, environmental remediation, conservation...etc. All of those things would be around with or wiithout fossill fuels. Furthermore, those industries I named make up the bulk of the jobs for which they say gives the Clean Economy more jobs and more growth than fossil fuels so that doesn't help your point. And finally....I find it ironic that a lot of these clean economy jobs are driven from fossil fuel production any way. Environmental remediaton for example....lots of jobs and money in the remediation of oil field leases. Seriously...you have lost credibility by citing this. It is obvious that you are only stretching to avoid the disgrace of losing the arguement. In consolation, I have and will agree that clean energy can and maybe the way of the future but its simply not what drives the economy today. As such, it has somewhat of a limit to how far any goverment will push it.

You can make her EI exempt. I've had a couple of situations like this where we employed family and that's what we did. If you don't feel comfortable with the process you can call Grants International

Joseph Aldy helped craft the Recovery Act and is now harshly critical of the DOE Loan program stating that grants or tax breaks would be far more effective in the future. Are you telling me you wouldn't accept the opinion of someone in his informed position. Or is it that you only listen to people who 100% agree with you. So by your own admissions Solyndra was a failure yet you jump all over me when I state the very same thing. Classy! Wow...I even stated that I was only using that site to extract the number for jobs in each sector. However once again you ignore the content of the conversation. In that article he goes on to make various claims about how the 2.7M was embellished but I DID NOT bring that up because I specifically said I was not supporting his agenda. Other sites use the 9.2 M for the oil sector so as a worst case scenario I will assume they are somewhat accurate. Based on these numbers, it is a 3x (actually 3.4X to be precise) difference. Its obvious that you threw up this Enron stuff to create a diversion from the facts presented which subsequently proves that you agree to my point. If that is the best you have then I will consider it a victory.

OMG....did we actually agree on something?

Here is a good article referencing titled "Solyndra Stunk. The Green Stimulus Didn't."....pretty self explanitory. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/solyndra-stunk-the-green-stimulus-didnt/ First line from the article: The federal clean-energy loan guarantee program that gave you Solyndra wasn’t just a multibillion-dollar political debacle – it also didn’t create jobs, didn’t reduce carbon emissions and ran up financial risk for taxpayers. Furthermore, the article cites how the DOE Loan Guarantee program was a mistake: Aldy is particularly critical of the loan guarantees handed out to the now-bankrupt Solyndra, along with a handful of other firms. The guarantee program was slow moving and bureaucracy-intensive; it took 100 to 200 federal officials and contractors to decide who would receive the eight loan guarantees. It left taxpayers with a $500 million liability when Solyndra folded and no discernible benefits across the board. There were a lot of lessons learned from how and when to do this green stimulus. I tried to find a site that showed both job numbers and this is the best I could do in short time. I am only using this site for the job numbers....not the agenda he is pushing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2012/02/13/president-obamas-green-jobs-mirage/ Lets see....by Obama's statement there are 2.7 million people working in green energy today. Contrast that with 9.2 million people in oil. So roughly 3x the amount of people today. Other sites said that in the next few years they expect the solar industry to kick up 100,000 more jobs in the next few years. Still doesn't come close to the 9.2M. You have to concede to the fact that TODAY the oil industry in the US provides a greater job output than green energy. Is that substantiated enough for you? We don't even need to address Canada as we know what is driving the economy currently here. Your point however said....today and FUTURE potentials. Green energy might be able to take over as the leader. I won't argue it however I wouldn't bank on it either.

I love how you open your response with such grace. "Clearly you don't know what you're talking about!" What is that? My point is that the decision to go with a certain energy source is not just an apples to apples comparison. The government has to take in a number of factors including stability, effect on the economy and of course efficiency. You can paint it any way you want, Solyndra was a government backed pony that took a nose dive. Other green system may have prevailed but it doesn't look good when the US and the world are seeing one of the largest recessions since the depression. Backing oil (AT THIS TIME) secures jobs and provides the economy with what it needs right now. There will come a time when backing green technology will make sense but again...its not as simple as plotting oil versus green straight up.

Maybe the government is just tired of betting on a losing horse. (ie. Solyndra)

Yes I agree. I wasn't so much talking about Japan as an isolated case. I was thinking more in other world wide locations. The fact that nuclear power plants get a bad image from Fukishima is not indicitive of the whole story. But when you look at Japan alone then maybe it does make sense to have them considering its situation.

Yes...I have to agree that a lot of the fiasco with Native affairs has been nothing but political posturing. Once a party is in power, it ends up being a target for the non-powers at that time. It would be nice if they just dealt with the issue with politics aside but thats probably asking for way too much.

I agree. My point is that these plants aren't appropriate for any spot. Having it in an area that gets earthquakes daily and possible tsunamis should put it lower on this list of acceptable locations. Having said that, there are a ton of other locations that don't fall into that category.

I have heard some positive things about nuclear power both in the US and Canada. Its unfortunate with the Fukishima incident but then again....why would you ever build a power plant on a fault line? Again...all of these energy sources have their application in the right location.

This article sums it up: http://www.chroniclejournal.com/content/news/local/2013/02/20/idle-no-more-right-movement-wrong-target

Report all you want. I have done nothing that constitutes a personal attack against you. I have only attacked your opinions and the lack of logic that your opinions pose.

Yup...that is the level of intelligence that i expected.

The key thing being missed here is that Feldheim uses a combination of solar AND wind energy. Most places in Canada don't see the wind power that Feldheim does (perhaps southern Alberta or the Windsor area do), therefore erecting large turbines at high costs (both capital and maintenance) don't make sense. The other key thing is that our electrical grid is not entirely predictable and doesn't have the ability to store energy. Energy sources such as tidal, hydro, solar and wind power do not have a switch that we can control where as burning of fossil fuels does provide that convenience. Therefore, we can never be entirely reliable on these sources. We can however use them to significantly reduce our need for coal or oil and possible replace the fossil fuels as a primary source of energy.

There is NOTHING personal about what I said. You said "Is it a problem for my commute?"....that is personal. I am simply pointing out that you aren't using facts to discuss the topic. It is a fact that your responses lack logic and will only circle away from the conversation rather than addressing that you have lost the debate. If you don't like people picking apart your illogical staements then perhaps you should reconsider your time spent on here.

Hmmm...so you are ok with everything the court says? The courts have told the Papaschase that their land claim is invalid. Do you whole heartedly side with the courts there too? Or how about when a murderer gets off due to a technicality? Are you still willing to live and die with the courts? What kind of an answer is that? Do the oilsands in Alberta pollute your backyard? Do the land claims in Ontario take away your rights? Seriously....another reason why you shouldn't have these discussions. The minute you are beat in an arguement you immediatley resort to illogical statements.

That's funny. I can tell when you're defeated. We weren't discussing how the courts would interpret, we were discussing the original objective wording. Like many orther native protesters, Cybercoma said that the Crown has broken the treaties. That was when I posed the question of which treaty. The fact is that the Crown has not broken the treaties but may have broken the courts interpretation of the treaties. As for De Beers...I was really hoping would would step out of your shell. Attiwapiskst accepted the De Beers deal with 85% approval. The people blockading feel they haven't been compensated enough. This is very black and white and does not need the courts interpretation to show the blockades are offside. If the mine would have lost money, would they be there to chip in? Now that the mine is making money they have their hand out. You have to agree this example is hypocritical and sets a poor example for FN.

No...please do....

"A" small sybmobic blocade? Its been numerous blockades over many years. Do you think its reasonable that the Attiwapiskat people are blockading the De Beer mine?

I agree but I think that the government should try to base its budget on sustainable revenues. Have an idea in mind for what you beleive is going to be achieved and then slice 20% off just to be sure. If you have a surplus at the end of the year then great. You will then have money to add to the wish list. However, banking on volatile oil revenues just doesn't seem to be the way to go even if you have a long term supply of it. I do beleive the Alberta goverment (in conjunction with the cities of Edmonton/Calgary) are doing a lot with infrastructure right now. Edmonton is on the verge of completing a ring road (Anthony Henday) which already has vastly improved transportation in the city. Calgary has just started their expansion with the Stony Trail. They have also come close to twinning the highway from Edmonton to Grande Prairie. Of course the largest travesty is that Highway 63 (Edmtonon to Fort Mac route) remains a single lane highway. I can also say that the City of Edmonton is vastly increasing its LRT (subway) system to reach out across the city via multiple train lines. Perhaps these expenditures have caused some of the deficit.

I'm not sure on this one. I believe that most MPs or the PM wouldn't accept cash until after their position in government is over. But I could be mistaken. The reality is that the PM makes $300K per year which is less than what Trudeau made in his best year speaking. If it was a money thing then why would he run for office unless he could do both. I would guess they sacrafice the money while they are in office for the hopes they can earn a pretty penny after they are done.

I've run out of anything remotely logical to say to you because you don't understand the language of logic. Remember...you are the person that said the entire RCMP AND Interpol are corrupt. You continually side step questions and will answer with conspiracy theory answers. I have given up on you being even close to a reasonable person and any hope for an informative debate. It is very obvious that your answers are circles which never really answer anything except the fact that you live in a cloud of conspiracy theories. How do you find the courage to make it out of your house in the morning? It must be a very scary world in your eyes with everyone out to get you.

Here is the obvious one which is reflective of the recent blockades: "They promise and engage that they will in all respects obey and abide by the law, and they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and also between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty's subjects, whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tracts, and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tracts, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tracts, or any part thereof, and that they will aid and assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so cede" The treaties also explicitly state that the natives would cede and give up all rights to the said land. Also, the natives are to be good loyal subjects to the Crown. Yet...they want sovereignty and to own their own land. Broken treaties on the natives part. Let me guess...some conspiracty theory will be your answer!

You are the one throwing bullshit comments about business deals and breaking contracts but you don't have the first clue about how to back it up. Save your long winded rants for Jacee. You want to talk about breaking business deals? How about those dipshits up in Attiwapiskst making a true business deal with De Beers. 85% of the band voted the deal in which gave millions to the band ( most of which funneled to Spence). But now they block the road because one guy didn't get his cut from the band? And how is that De Beers fault? They sure have their hands out now that the mine is doing well but if the mine had lost money? Would they be there to chip in? You guys speak of honor and what it is to be Canadian but who know nothing of it. Canadians are not victims. We are hard working people who look inwards to find solutions and not for handouts. The FN should become their own nation as they are nothing like Canadians! Jacee and Cyber can go live with them!