Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

Accountability Now

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,890

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Accountability Now

  1. Accountability Now
    Who signed off?
  2. Accountability Now
    As I've said before, its possible that Coderre said 2005 in one interview and 2007 in another interview. What is also just as likely is there was some confusion about the 2003-2007 duration that has often been quoted for the Mulclair time....especially since that part of the story was a main focus before the election. Like I have said, there was an obvious error made in that some thought the event was in 2005 and some thought it was 2007. I can understand how and why you would think its 2007 but what I can't for the life of me understand is how or why: 1. You would make the claim that Harper had TWO prior events when CLEARLY the one event was in 2003 and you admit another was in 2005. There is no way there were two events even if one event happened in 2007. Remember...you used the word PRIOR to this recent event so don't even try using that one as a last ditch effort. 2. You still persist on 2007 when the article that YOU quoted has now retracted its statement about the 2007 event and has confirmed it was in 2005. Clearly they did another check...clearly they contacted the City to make absolutely sure because making a mistake once is understandable but a second time is just poor journalism. I'm not charging them with lies....I'm charging you with that dishonor. I see that you steered clear away from your go to "where's your quote from Coderre" argument. EPIC FAIL! So tell me....could you not read or were you being dishonest? Those are the only two options. Who signed off on it?
  3. Accountability Now
    You're still avoiding it. You stated that two previous dumps occurred under the Harper watch. Is that correct or are you willing to retract that incorrect statement. Yup....and now one of YOUR sources has switched that statement and now states that the dump occurred in 2005...not 2007. I could keep going down the list of sources that you've provided and get them to correct their story but even then your blatant dishonest approach would deflect to some other off topic reason to not admit you are wrong....which you most clearly are. This is where you either CAN"T READ or are utterly and completely DISHONEST. Take a look at post 158 which has Coderre quoting this: EPIC FAIL!!!! Nah...I let it go the first time because I thought it might actually be true. When you spouted it a second time I thought I should look into it since you obviously didn't provide a link to support your unsubstantiated claim. It took me TWO seconds realize that lil' waldo was spouting his mouth off with total BS. My only 'mission' at that point was to show you how incorrect you are AGAIN. Like I said....I'm in double digits with you. Up until February 1st I would have agreed with you but the turning point was that fateful day. The day which Rene Bruemmer, the journalist for the Montreal Gazette article updated his piece....one of your GO TO pieces from saying 2007 to 2005. No other piece of journalism discusses this change. No other piece of journalism even mentions the years 2005 and 2007 in reference to similar sewage dumps. No other piece but this one from Montreal Gazette. I have provided you with something showing that the 2007 event DID NOT occur....yet you have NOTHING to show me that 2005 did not occur. Of course for your other tidbit about not having a direct Coderre quote....please reference EPIC FAIL above! I will wait for any sort of backing to show the 2005 event did not occur.
  4. Accountability Now
    Do you know why its perfect? Because it illustrates a teeter totter like image which is perfect for what equalization really is. For equalization to occur, there has to be some have provinces and some have nots. What happens if Alberta, Sask and possibly BC become have not provinces (ie if oil continues to suffer). Well then Ontario for sure will become a have and possibly Quebec. The teeter totter will shift and Quebec who is already a net recipient will no longer get any equalization. You can see the reality of the teeter totter in this article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-plunge-could-cost-ontario-billions-in-equalization-1.3204437 Yes...I agree with you. The amount of equalization that Alberta/Saskatchewan tax bases actually contribute to equalization is small. However, going back to the teeter totter example if these provinces shift to have nots then its inevitable that one or both of these provinces become haves, therefore losing out on billions in equalization payments. Not the end of the world for these provinces but still a pretty penny to have when budgeting. Yes...the image should include Manitoba and New Brunswick who are also going to benefit from the pipeline. Add in Ontario with the equalization payment and that makes five of the 10 provinces. I would say that justifies a 'national' issue. I would agree with your assessment on the characteristics of the separatists being the same, however I would certainly say the numbers and the severity of the the two are the same. People in Alberta joke around about the idea and then carry on with their lives never really intending it. The situation in Quebec is quite real and people who are separatists are taken very seriously. The few Alberta separatists has aren't taken serious at all. I guess that could change but even the current situation would require a huge issue to cause people here to take that seriously.
  5. Accountability Now

    Contrary to what a certain blowhard has been spouting, every sewage dump in the St. Lawrence has been on the Liberal watch...all by PMs from Quebec. Its tough being wrong especially when the facts directly contradict your lies!

    1. Show previous comments  22 more
    2. On Guard for Thee

      On Guard for Thee

      Who is the blowhard you refer to?

    3. Accountability Now

      Accountability Now

      Not you.

    4. overthere

      overthere

      Were any beluga whales harmed in the tidal wave of turds rolling out of Montreal?

  6. Accountability Now
    you know...the one you've been avoiding from the start....about how you said that Harper had TWO similar dumps prior to the 2015 event. Man...that wasn't just a mistake...it was an epic fail which is why you scurried away from any request for a citation when I first asked. The big dog was whimpering that day..... Again...do you find sending an email hard? It took all of two minutes and coherent sentences. Ah....the last part is what you find hard. I get it now. You want a fact....how about you check out the correction on YOUR supplied link. The one that you boldly put forward but now actually states as fact that there was no dump in 2007. Yup...you certainly are entitled to your opinions waldo because the FACTS are working against you. BIG TIME! It would take so much effort to send an email....why would I go to such a painstaking, EXTREME step? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA. Again, the City of Montreal has already commented and corrected the matter. They explicitly stated the only dumps were in 2003, 2005 and 2015. I know it was in French but I thought you could still read numbers. Maybe not. Would you like that referenced article posted again....you know the once from the Liberal Party of Canada website...where they explicitly state 2003 and 2007. And your brilliant logic says well since they DIDN'T say 2007 that it could still happen. Keep in mind waldo, your really should have trusted the Liberal Party of Canada as they are in fact the EXPERTS on St. Lawrence river dumps in Montreal.....they have ALL THE EXPERIENCE.
  7. Accountability Now
    Extreme? It was a simple email. The article even had an email link to simplify it. Are emails complicated for you? Perhaps I have over estimated you. Truthfully...I do enjoy one upping you. I specifically enjoy watching you squirm and write long winded nonsense as you just have above not once addressing the fact that you were wrong about your stupid claim that Harper had two prior discharges. Anyone else on this site would have just acknowledged the mistake but not you...you kept digging and digging and digging!! This certainly was enjoyable lil' waldo The funniest part is you keep coming back to the Mulclair thing which stated so aptly as happening in 2003 and 2005 as per the Liberal website. If only you would have listened to them hey?! Let me save you a boat load of time and allow you to copy and paste this next line as you're bound to use it as your argument repeatedly: Bluster, fail, flip flop,deflect....your argument in five words
  8. Accountability Now
    Barely? Just eyeballing the graph, Quebec received about 4-5 billion more per year based on the five year average. That's barely? And the Atlantic provinces aren't opposing the national pipeline....just Montreal and its surrounding mayors. And yes...Quebec is the closest to revenue neutral....out of those who are net recipients. How in any way does that justify Montreal's position in having its hand out for another national program?
  9. Accountability Now
    All support is conditional until the project is approved. We have been through this, so if you really feel like running cycles on this then have at er'
  10. Accountability Now
    Which is why I explicitly said money from the 'Alberta' tax base. Money that is generated from within Alberta DOES contribute to the Federal coffers and that money ends up in the Equalization program. The fact is that tax bases from every province contribute....just some take more than they give. Do you mean like this one... We can also look at this in the per capita sense: In either scenario, Ontario/BC/Alberta give more than they receive and Quebec take more than it gives. The point that others and Brad Wall per se is making regarding equalization is that Quebec annually receives money (more than they give) based on a national/federal program yet when a national pipeline is discussed which will benefit Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and NB, Montreal's first comment is 'whats in it for Quebec'. That's the part that I disagree with....as does Quebec City mayor who agrees with these national projects. As stated in the article I posted, Ontario may lose its equalization program money if Alberta or other provinces start to lose their tax base. Hence it may be in their better interests to have this pipeline go through...hence the turn in support.
  11. Accountability Now
    You can flip, flop, flail and show your repeated bluster all you want. THERE WAS NO 2007 event. The article that YOU posted has now come out and corrected itself and stated explicitly that the dump did not happen in 2007. More importantly, there were no TWO PRIOR EVENTS that you boldly trotted around here. Those are the FACTS pal. But I know what you're doing here. Constant cycles and deflection just so you don't have to step up and admit that you were WRONG!!! Your narcissistic prowess is showcasing itself once again and to be honest I am truly happy to sad to see it. I can't believe that someone can be so wrong, yet continue down a path just for the sake of not looking bad on an anonymous internet forum. I can't imagine what it must be like for you in real life. Did you ever wonder how an article that was originally posted in October was suddenly corrected On February 1st? I did contact the City and I contacted the journalist who wrote the piece. Here was the official response from the City: Yup....a simple email sorted this out but yet you continue to bluster your way into denial. But thats ok. I know you know..... All events point back to LIBERAL GOVERNMENTS.
  12. Accountability Now
    I agree with you. The amount that the 'Alberta' tax base actually gives to the Federal government to distribute within the equalization plan is very small compared to other provinces including Quebec. Ontario is the largest donor to the program and even though it is a have not province, it receives a smaller amount than it contributes and therefore makes it still a net contributor. Quebec on the other hand does contribute a lot on the aggregate amount however takes out far more and is noted as being the largest net recipient. The reality is that this pool of equalization money is only achieved if a given provinces tax base is lower than the average tax base of provinces across the country. So where the 'West vs Quebec' battle comes in is what would happen if Alberta and Sask had a significant drop in oil revenue which lowered their tax base which then brings down the average AND puts them into the have not status. I assume Newfoundland would join them too. So....how many have not provinces could you have? Certainly Ontario would quickly become a have province again....and I would guess that Quebec would or could too. As such, having the 'West' develop oil products typically puts these provinces into the have category allowing Quebec to continually be in the have not column. As a result, the WEST and oil development in the West is indirectly allowing Quebec to be an equalization recipient to the tune of billions. Here is a good article showing that Ontario is in direct threat of becoming a have province if the West falls. Could be the reason that Wynne now supports this pipeline! Perhaps Quebec is too far off to even worry about this...which is why they can reject the project and it doesn't matter. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-plunge-could-cost-ontario-billions-in-equalization-1.3204437
  13. Accountability Now
    waldo...I have taken time out of my well deserved holiday to bring to your attention a very educating and enlightening piece of journalism that will help....or should I say confirm the fact that ol' AN has been trying to explain to lil' waldo this whole time. One might say....this is the Silver Bullet. Grab a seat....ok? Remember when you quoted this article: Go back and check that article which was updated on February 1st. The article now says: But here is the best part....scroll down to the bottom of the article.....ready? ready? here it is.... As Ace Ventura once said: I have exorcised the demon!! As I said all along, the journalists were confusing the dates for the SAME event. To be fair, Coderre may have actually stated it and started this chain of incorrect journalism....so I could go on talking about your inability to read or other subtle insults but the reality is that anyone might have actually thought this happened in 2007 based on the articles out there. Of course, no one would have been made such a ridiculous claim and state this: Even if you believed the articles about 2007 then why.....WHY would you state TWO PRIOR OCCASIONS? TWO? Ummmmmm.....maybe one but actually as of today.....NONE. You were so boldly trotting that line out there even though no one (other than you) brought the Federal government into the Montreal sewage discussion. You brought it in and now you get the feel the complete wrath of the utter nonsense that your claim holds. So lets just recap here to make sure that you have your head wrapped around this: In 2003 and 2005 the City of Montreal dumped billions of gallons into the St. Lawrence. They again did this recently in Nov of 2015. EVERY event was under a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT!!! What makes it worse is that every event had a Prime Minister from QUEBEC. YIKES! Yup....a solid 10 and 0 versus the waldo.
  14. Accountability Now
    Lil waldo and Reefer...its been fun but I'm off to Florida tomorrow for a couple weeks. Not sure how much time I'll have for your cycles so please do me a favor and discuss among yourselves!
  15. Accountability Now
    Sounds good!
  16. Accountability Now
    They probably didn't have the discussion as it wasn't needed. Again, when you can show that their water supply is in danger then please present the info.
  17. Accountability Now
    You mean the same mayors that were PISSED at Coderre for dumping in the St Lawrence but then coward once he puffed his chest? Ya....you can tell who the ring leader in that area is.
  18. Accountability Now
    And there it is....written proof that your comprehension horrible. I have clearly written on a number of times that the 2005 and 2007 events are in fact one and the same event. I have also shown that if the event were in EITHER 2005 OR 2007 that it was minimal as it was less than 5% of what the combined PROVEN LIBERAL dumps were. For shame lil' waldo....the info is all there for you to read, but you just can't... You know this is a funny one...I was browsing a CBC article that said this: So a DIRECT quote from Coderre referencing the 2003 and 2005 dump and Mulclair's involvement in both as like you said he was the Minister until at least Feb of 2006. Hmmm......why is he not referencing 2007 on that one? Just another puzzling piece aint it lil' waldo. That's right....the Conservatives did all the ground work and got most of the data need to MAKE A DECISION. On Nov 2, Environment Canada said they needed just one more week to allow the final data to come in so that they COULD MAKE A DECISION. Then guess what happened....Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine Mckenna did make a DECISION on behalf of the LIBERAL PARTY. It was a GOOOOOOOOOO..... So many waldo flops....not sure I can even count them any more
  19. Accountability Now
    I don't think he needs to hear it from me, he's heard enough from Nenshi, Notley, Brian Jean, Brad Wall, and even his provincial partner in Quebec City. I haven't seen any mayors/Premiers rushing in to back up Coderre....have you?
  20. Accountability Now
    I've provided more than enough data showing the same about 2005. Are you that obtuse that you can't see they are talking about the same event? Hey....like I said...its a numbers game. A game that you're losing...sorry...lost! You can keep saying your opinion all you want however the fact is that the plan was NOT approved under the Harper government. McKenna signed off on this....if she wasn't comfortable with signing off then she shouldn't have. If she didn't know if she should sign off then she shouldn't be in that position. The fact is that she did. This one is all YOURS buddy.
  21. Accountability Now
    The thing working against the clean up would be the thing working for the water treatment aspect. The river flows at 7,000 m3/sec and the oil flow would be ~16m3/sec (1.6 Million gallons/hr)...this is assuming a direct drop into the water which would be unlikely. The chances of getting concentrated doses of an oil product in the water intake would be small. Not to mention, this also assumes that the water in take locations are near the pipeline spots.
  22. Accountability Now
    My GAAAAAAWD. Why do you keep proving my point??? The media sources obviously are citing the same event. Some say its in 2005, some say its in 2007. Either way the volume is 30x the amount that the other three CLEARLY Liberal EVENTS. That is of course assuming the 2007 event is in fact in that year and not 2005.....but again....YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!! Keep cycling waldo....
  23. Accountability Now
    .
  24. Accountability Now
    There were only two possible years according to all media sources. If you don't challenge these then you run out of options meaning 2007 did not happen. So since you agree with that then we are in agreement. The two events happened in 2003 and 2005 You really could have saved yourself a lot of effort and shame by just admitting it from the start. I mean come on....is it that hard for you to admit you were wrong?
  25. Accountability Now
    I thought that dilbit sinks. Last time I checked, water sources aren't pulled off the bottom. Not to mention, you don't think that a water treatment plant which is designed to get rid of oils would be able to treat the residuals of this? Again...this was the first time it happened. It was a big learning curve for all involved. Do you not think that knowledge is being considered for placement of the line as well as protocol if a spill were to happen again? Why can't you? If the pipeline no longer makes sense then it gets shut down. If what you say is true (even though I disagree) and oil is not needed in the future then the pipeline is shut down and the new form takes over. From what I saw they work these on a 20 year cycle anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...