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
    Again....WTF did Harper even have to do with the argument to begin with? Nothing.....you brought him into the equation out of some deranged desire to combat your HDS. He can't hurt you anymore man!!!! The key note is that every news source which comments on the years says its happened before and either mentions 2003 and 2005/2007 (Of course, there were actually two events in 2003 but most sources count that as one) But for some reason you think that every news source is incompetent because you claim there could have been MORE than the two events and that this could have happened in 2003, 2005 AND 2007. Ummmmmm....nope. There were two years it happened and we know 2003 is set in stone. Its either 2005 or 2007. But keep dreaming lil' waldo. Of course if it is 2007, the point that you completely miss (and it doesn't surprise me) is that the shear size of the discharges in 2003 under the Liberal party watch. So by your claim you state that the 2007 event was all on its own even though you have zero facts to support it and no data to add to the equation. So lets say the 2005 event was in fact in 2007....then the discharge on that event was only 770 million litres. This is compared to a combined 18 billion litres in the two 2003 events which is 4.3% of the amount. Never took that into consideration....did ya? And this year....5 billion gallons. All said, there were three events conclusively signed off by Liberal governments for a total of 23 billion litres and one inconclusive event that could either be in 2005 or 2007 which would be 770 million litres. So all said, under a Liberal watch, the City of Montreal has dumped 30 x the amount of sewage into the river compared to a 'possible' Conservative event. Wow....that really must irk you.....probably to the point of deflection and avoidance of the question. Yup...know it now and knew it back when you tried to claim I didn't as well. Was actually there again this past summer visiting friends. But I'm surprised you brought that up as I was sure you'd want to hide behind the bluster of your whole Alberta Floods mess. Remember when you claimed that flood was DOUBLE the flow as the worst one ever. Oh man.....you really screwed up there? As is the case in the number of planned sewage dumps... its a numbers game....which you seem to always be on the losing end of. We could also look back to your failed attempt with the Brookings study where you dishonestly tried to claim the number of Green Energy jobs as the number of Green Economy jobs. Man...that one blew up in your face too. Just a pattern of dishonesty but again...I really don't expect anything different from you!
  2. Accountability Now
    If the person I am having this conversation wishes to look at this information and is able to show me that the map I provided is not correct and that the proximities are in fact significantly closer then they are more than welcome to do so. Unlike you I would have no problem accepting 'factual' information when presented it.
  3. Accountability Now
    Ok....lets play this silly buggars game of yours. Let's say there were four events which allows all the reported dates by the newspapers to be true (two in 2003 and one in 2005 and one in 2007). That would mean that three events happened under the Liberal watch and one under the Conservative watch. And to play even further.....lets say that the most recent one was the result of the Conservatives (even though McKenna signed off on it), then that would be two aside. So....how does it make sense to initiate a blasting claim against Harper for this issue when the Libs did equally (more is probably correct) damage than the Conservatives. Why would you go out of your way to bring Harper into a question about the City of Montreal when it has so little to do with their government and in particular a Conservative government. Your blowhard, all bark no bite has only bite you in the ass! But I guess you're used to this by now....what does this make it 10-0 for ol' AN. But who's keeping score!
  4. Accountability Now
    Looking at your map alone, the line rights close to the St. Lawrence from Montreal up to Levis....all spots that have manageable dredging locations SHOULD a spill occur. Having said that I agree that having a spill in that spot with the flow rates we are talking is not a good situation and therefore the river locations should be minimized. So...maybe we should take a closer look. I don't know if this is accurate, however this map comes from an anti Energy East site, so I can't see you having any issue with it. When you look at the route from a zoomed out position, yes it appears it runs right next to the river. However when you zoom in, most points on the line are 2km or more from the river except where it crosses. I'm quite sure that dilbit isn't that mobile on dry land....so wouldn't you think that would be far enough? With all this said, would you prefer tankers to haul dilbit directly on the St. Lawrence or a pipeline to transport it mostly kilometers away from the river. I know you don't want oil either way....but the reality is the tankers are happening now....so this becomes an either-or decision. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/first-oil-sands-bitumen-tanker-arrives-in-sorel-tracy-port-1.2774225 Called me on what? Canadians did do a study....and their results were broadcasted at a Canadian conference. Your're only retort at this point is that the oil companies (who were Canadian) biased. That I can can believe and agreed to not use their paper but that still left the paper from Environment Canada....which is the official environmental agency from.....CANADA....which would most likely make them CANADIAN.....which would certainly dispute your claim that no Canadians were studying this. Now...in an attempt to deflect from your obvious mistake, you are now claiming that the paper was not genuine because oil companies paid for it. Please show me proof in that paper or elsewhere that the results of that study were influenced due to the funding by said oil companies.
  5. Accountability Now
    That's the beauty of this....you have nothing to show that 2005 is incorrect either. You were the one that came barking down the hall with your TWO Harper events even though I never even came close to tying Trudeau into this one. YOU were the one to not once but twice broadcast your fallacy out as if it were some sort of shining moment for lil' waldo, with the whole time not knowing that you were full of crap. It wasn't until I asked you to verify your facts that you became church mouse quiet about the subject, scurrying away from the scene as quick as you could. You again scurried when I asked you again. You realized you finally have to face the heat when I called you out directly on it. So now...your ONLY argument is that you are saying I can't prove that 2007 is incorrect! LMFAO. You are the one that made the claim and YOU can't prove it is correct. So not only was your blowhard claim that Harper had TWO events under his belt shown to be incorrect, you now are also struggling to prove that the one which you thought was correct was an actual event. I gave you an option to retract your claim but nope....you pressed on in your HDS style trying to prove something that in the beginning wasn't even an issue....well an issue for anyone other than you that is. OR....how about they didn't criticize about a 2007 discharge.....wait for it....wait for it......because there wasn't one???? LOL. Is this seriously all that you have now? This is right up there with your other failed 'assumption' and 'interpretations'. Again....the Liberal site DOES say it happened in 2003 and 2005....not implied or interpreted....in straight bold print. So you can decide. Is the Liberal website wrong which would indicate that they used incorrect facts in an attempt to bash Mulclair in an election issue....OR is it right and your blowhard claim has ZERO legs to stand on? Well...which is it? Yup the big dog...all bark....no bite. You seen lil waldo, I didn't bring this fight to you....you brought it to yourself. The reality is that I couldn't care less if 2007 turns out to be the correct one because I wasn't the one shouting about TWO previous Harper events. All that barking, running up and down the living room, trying to have someone notice you.....all for not!! But again...I have to ask.....what is it with your HDS? Can you not have a common sense, logical conversation without resorting to Harper? Probably not I'm guessing only because a logical conversation would be one where you actually take a position on something and listen to what other people say. But you're not hear to converse, you are here to preach/bark....like the 'big dog' you are!
  6. Accountability Now
    I guess it depends on what larger body of water they will be crossing. The St. Lawrence varies in depth and goes depending on where you are. I'm not sure what the most recent crossings are but if in Montreal or Quebec then the water depth is around 8-10m and is frequently dredged to maintain the canal's ability to transport ships. https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/appl7en/technicalslseaway.html Here's a good one from Environment Canada breaking out the sections: https://www.ec.gc.ca/stl/default.asp?lang=En&n=59C4915D-1 Lets look at that quote again.... So them using the few studies so far and taking data/information from the one case study they have now makes you believe they dumped it on purpose? Really? I can't even begin to tell you how illogical that is to even assume that. I mean...seriously...tin foil hat illogical. Isn't it a good thing there is only one case study to look at? Wouldn't it even be better for Enbridge if there were NO case studies....ie no spills? But yet you think they deliberately did this? Well....I only responded to your rant simply to correct you on the fact that Canadian groups have done studies and that the link you provided contained said studies. So if you want to now escalate this up to conspiracy style, tin foil hat arguments then please continue that conversation with yourself and others crazy enough to believe you.
  7. Accountability Now
    I have already given you two CBC articles, one of which outlined not only the time of year but also the amount of sludge discharged in each. Now...here is a CTV article that backs this up: And of course lets not forget the most precious source, the one that you chose to completely gloss over, which of course was the information taking directly from your LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA website. Lets have another look...shall we: Both the years and amounts line up with the CBC and CTV article. The LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA would not propagate lies now...would they?
  8. Accountability Now
    So was the Environment Canada report bought and paid for by the oil company since it says the exact same? Huh? I simply pointed out that contrary to your whining and snivelling about 'no Canadian content, that in fact the very link you supplied from the NOAA was actually about a CANADIAN CONFERENCE which produced TWO Canadian reports on the very subject and were accessible in your link. Again, this certainly draws into question your comprehension or so called knowledge on the topic if you can't even read the very links that you claim are supporting your case. BTW....your straw man claim in your question above is very waldo-esque.....you may want to reconsider a debating strategy as you can see its not working out well for him.
  9. Accountability Now
    Do you mean the one that you suggested belongs in another thread to which I agreed only to have you belly ache and moan on this same topic a number of times, including the two non-factual claims that these similar dumps happened during the Harper administration? Like I said, you don't even listen to yourself....why should I listen to you? Yes...the grand googly is something that would have saved your bacon on this one but instead your bluster shines through like many times before. Lets read your quote shall we? You see that highlighted RED word.....REFERRING? That is what this said reporter believes Coderre means when he says before. This is much like the crappy assumptions you've made about inferring that I would criticize Coderre for Energy East. However, lets see what Coderre ACTUALLY said in a quoted sentence: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/denis-coderre-raw-sewage-st-lawrence-federal-1.3272048 So he ACTUALLY says the dumps were in 2003 and 2005....not implied, not guessed, not referring to.......STATED AS IN FACT. Of course what the other reporter was confused by was the fact that Thomas Mulclair was the environment minister from 2003-2007 which was an important period as he was there to approve two of the three discharges. oh waldo....you really look the part now!!! Like I said, you might want to brush up those googly skills before you continue your unwarranted bashing of Harper. The funny thing is that I never even brought up Trudeau when I commented about Coderre's planned dump. You responded with ferociousness to initiate a Harper take down but in the end you fell flat on your ass. Of course, lets not overlook the most important thing....you said Harper did it TWICE. Even if one would be so stupid to not confirm their facts, then I could understand the mistake of saying it happened once under Harper, however you did not. Tough break pal....all these are on your Liberal Party! Who cares....the Liberal Party and specifically Catherine McKenna, the Environment Minister, approved it. End of story. You wish hey? Haven't found a big enough rock to hide under yet????
  10. Accountability Now
    Yet in this case they are reporting on what they found at a Canadian conference. Lol
  11. Accountability Now
    Hey Reefer....you might want to actually read the link you offered because if you did you would see the following blurb:"While it's just one case study, the Enbridge oil spill can help us answer some of those questions. My NOAA colleague Robert Haddad and I recently presented a scientific paper on this case study at Environment Canada's Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program conference. In addition, the Canadian government and oil pipeline industry researchers Witt O'Brien's, Polaris, and Western Canada Marine Response Corporation [PDF] and SL Ross [PDF] have been studying dilbit behavior as background research related to several proposed dilbit pipeline projects in the United States and Canada. Those experiments, along with the Enbridge spill case study, currently make up the state of the science on dilbit behavior and ecological impacts." When you click on each of those links you will see technical reports on this very study from Environment Canada and Canadian Industry. http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/6A2D63E5-4137-440B-8BB3-E38ECED9B02F/1633_Dilbit%20Technical%20Report_e_v2%20FINAL-s.pdf http://www.transmountain.com/uploads/papers/1391734754-astudyoffateandbehaviourofdilutedbitumenoilsonmarinewater.pdf Perhaps they're more involved than you think?
  12. Accountability Now
    It wasn't off topic when you posted this blurb not ONCE but TWICE in order to establish some sort of argument or was it basically a cheap shot that reinforces your HDS. Or were you just continuing your blatant dishonesty? Here are the facts: And who was Prime Minister in the Spring and Fall of 2003....well none other than the Honourable Jean Cretien. Wait a second.....who was the Prime Minister in 2005? That would have been none other than the Honourable Paul Martin. BOTH of whom were the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada. What is it with these Prime Ministers from Quebec wanting to pollute the St. Lawerence. First these guys and now Trudeau? I guess it must be a Liberal tradition!!! Now in case you don't believe my CBC source, because I know you'll be grasping here, I thought I would back this up with confirmation from none other than the Liberal Party of Canada. Talk about your all time fails. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! No wonder you were scurrying away in complete avoidance. Man that was priceless. I guess I'm going on ignore now....hey???
  13. Accountability Now
    Another common misconception for the lower taxes (at least on the lower end of the 1%) is people forget to take into account the taxes paid by the company before it gets dividended out to the shareholder. The company will pay ~25% tax and then the profits from the company are paid by dividend to the shareholder where he/she will pay another ~10% (province depended) to take it out personally. Most will not take it out personally but will choose to reinvest or let their holding company retain it. In the end people say they only pay 10% tax, however that is not true as they ARE the company and in total they paid roughly the same as a person employed.
  14. Accountability Now
    So he made a fortune that way however he continues to make $$$ every year as reports show Microsoft at $30-35B in EBITA per year. That's a lot of earning income. Very true. Add to it the fact that to make money you have to want to make money. This comes with tough decisions at times and the ability to take big risks to get that reward. I know a number of multimillionaires and every single one of their stories starts with a second mortgage or line of credit that would scare the crap out of me. They had the courage to do it, so to them go the rewards. Yup....this is why they are all signing up for the Giving Pledge where they commit to giving over half of their money away to charities.
  15. Accountability Now
    waldo please provide a citation or citations outlining the dates and proof that the Harper Conservative government authorized this dumping. I have posted the requests for this citation below for your convenience: This request makes three times that I have asked which now makes it several. Remember, forum rules state that : If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).
  16. Accountability Now
    As always, your complete lack of comprehension and/or blatant dishonesty shows when you say stuff like this. I have never said or implied that he has given unconditional support. Your infantile sensitivities to this matter have clearly taken over to the point where you are now making this stuff up only for the shot at a feeble argument. Here is what I have said....and please take as much time/babbling/drivel that you need to explain how leaning their support equals unconditional Wait a second....are you saying that after months of protest and outrage over the safety of beluga whales that an export terminal SHOULD be built in Quebec? The hypocrisy is astounding. Quebec spoke and TransCanada listened and now you're saying that's a problem. Thats rich. As for the benefits to Eastern Canada which of course is not isolated to Quebec one can look at the Energy East website which has the numbers. http://www.energyeastpipeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Energy-East-Pipeline-Economic-Backgrounder.pdf Of course, if it didn't make sense to the East then why is Wynne now behind the project. Why is Gallant behind this project? If you're telling that there is no benefit to Quebec then that is up for discussion however you saying that there is nothing in it for Ontario and NB holds zero water otherwise these Liberal premiers would surely not present the support they have shown. I have not criticized Coderre for taking an environmental stance on this pipeline even though you insist/assume that I have. He has every right to evaluate the risk/benefit analysis. However, to say he takes ALL the risks is simply incorrect. This pipeline crosses the country and crosses other water bodies, not just his. All the risk is a pompous statement and needs to be adjusted. The same could be said about no direct gains. The Energy East numbers state that Quebec will get over 3000 FTE jobs (direct and indirect) per year during the project phase and 324 over the operational phase. It also states that Quebec is expected to make 2.1B in taxation over the course of the project. Even if you disagree with the the levels Energy East is suggesting, the numbers will not be 'no direct gains' Of course, having said all this I feel the best response so far has come from Quebec City mayor who DOES support the project and recently had these comments: SAAAAAAY WHAAAATTTT? Perhaps someone who gets it? Someone who understands that not everyone needs to have their hand greased in order to get stuff done? Wait did I just say hand greased in regards to Montreal with a reference to the corruption that City has seen. Ooops...my bad. You really have no clue how this works, do you? The highest standards does not mean perfection...never has, never will. The entire point of getting audited is to find areas of weakness and correct them. The fact that you are relying on this audit as though it was some sort of criminal discovery when it fact the resolutions that were found in this audit were already being worked on at the time. As per the article below: Our company had a safety audit last week and the very words out of the auditors mouth was that audits aren't meant to assign blame, they are meant for discovery. Striving for perfection is why companies take audits and that allows them to have the highest standards.
  17. Accountability Now
    An interesting take from Rick Mercer on this topic: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mercer-report-rant-energy-east-denis-coderre-1.3419646 Wow...again with the Equalization comment. I expected it out of Brad Wall but not Mercer.
  18. Accountability Now
    That is the part of this that I find intriguing. Lets just say that Energy East was determined to be the right move and Trudeau puts it through in light of Montreal's objection, it would certainly seal his fate in that area. An area that has a large Liberal strong hold. Say what you want about Harper, but any PM that is in office for 9 years is going to build a list of enemies just by making tough decisions like this one. Once a voter hates you for one thing, they typically hate you for life. This list grows as you are in office. This may be Trudeau's first tough decision but it won't be his last. Unfortunately for him it may make him more enemies than he wants.
  19. Accountability Now
    I am under that impression...and I'm glad you used that word 'initiative' as right on the NEB website is a large scale program recently conducted called the National Engagement Initiative. Here is a copy of the full report: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/glbl/ccct/ntnlnggmnt/2016rprt-eng.pdf From the news release we find these important notes (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1027249&crtr.tp1D=1) I highlighted Montreal just for you! Here were some quick facts on the tour: Lets see what the CEO and Chair of the NEB (Peter Watson) had to say after he personally toured across Canada to discuss pipeline safety: Initiative enough for you waldo?
  20. Accountability Now
    I chose to read into an article that is titled Trudeau supports Notley on Energy East pipeline? Notley wants this pipleline to go through and he supports her. Its what is known as the Transitive Relation in mathematics (you know...if A=B and B=C, then A=C). I'm certain I saw that on my nephews grade school test. Not that hard. Having said that, has he given a statement saying he supports Coderre on it NOT going through? waldo...i have clearly shown you the claim you made and you even made a half assed attempt to apologize saying you ASSUMED I would be critical based on past threads. ASSUME....you know where it makes an Ass out of you...and well it looks like you again on this one. For the last time, show me where I have criticized Coderre over his stance on Energy East otherwise please stop your belly aching and moaning about a topic that you even said should be on a different thread. All that trouble? There was only one post....post 91 where you actually said it. I responded accordingly by asking you to share a link to shed light on the topic you wanted to discuss however you ignored/failed to comprehend what a link was. Your only response to shout out that you've asked 'several' times and then proceeded to ask me for the SECOND time.....still with no link. I'll ask you for a second time....please provide a link as to what you want to discuss or to what point you are trying to make. If I have to ask more than twice then that will be 'several' attempts. And just to be clear.....I did not get response from you on my request for the following: As I said I will gladly read up on this as I am interested in the historical back drop to this story. Of course if you can't provide this citation then I fully expect you to retract your claim.
  21. Accountability Now
    Like I said, the NEB SHOULD and DOES hold these companies to the highest standards. Part of developing those standards are to have regular internal and external audits to point out the areas that one can improve. Very standard for an audit to come back with improvements. Of course, they only took a look at less than 5% of the cases of which they found issues with about 2% of the total. As per the Ottawa Citizen article: See waldo...not so hard. Examine your process, make it better, and strive to the best. You see something wrong with this? Perhaps your worldly experience of audits that you have endured will enlighten all of us.
  22. Accountability Now
    Actually it is. Trudeau has always tried to sit in the middle on this issue but has routinely enforced that he is NOT in favor of this stressing too many things need to work itself out.Now he is at a point saying he is 'solidly' in one camp which is supporting Notley and Wynne and their support of the project. Much like you, Trudeau won't give a straight answer however this is clearly MILES ahead of where he was before the election. And its not just Trudeau that provides the 'gotcha', its the coalition of left leaning Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick are all leaning their support towards the line. I guess those lefties sure love oil...hey? All this right after the parade at COP21. Ouch.... I'm ashamed of you waldo. Just a few posts back you properly suggested that this topic should be discussed in another thread. I politely agreed but now here you are bashing your own idea of keeping that in another thread. No wonder no one on this forum listens to your ideas...you don't even listen to your own! Fine...I'll address your off topic post....Coderre does not have final authority however he has 99% of the responsibility leading up to this and for something like this to NOT happen. The City of Montreal has allowed their infrastructure to crumble with zero contingency plans put into place. Hell...they are one of the few plants in North America that still only offering primary treatment. You know what this means waldo...they take out most of the solids and dump all the untreated bacteria into the St. Lawrence ALL the time. Their tertiary treatment expansion will only come online in 2018. Coderre and previous Montreal officials are certainly responsible for this. But...hey lets not blame Montreal for that either. The federal government does not intervene in the vast majority of decisions cities make. They get involved in the final decision when said cities are planning on dumping into federal/international waterways above the values that were already regulated. The alternative on this was to spend almost 1 billion dollars on a temporary solution OR dump it for free...like I said there were alternatives but they were costly. The feds weren't about to stuff a bill like that down Montreal's throat considering other cities in this country are dumping directly. Montreal/Quebec would cry foul and threaten separation once again. So it gets approved. As for the other two Harper incidents....please provide a citation showing the dates of said dumps as well as confirmation these dumps were planned/approved by the Harper government. Would gladly have a read on this. As previously requested, please provide proof of your claim that I criticized Dennis Coderre for taking his stand. Anytime now would be appreciated. Thanking you in advance. Several??? To me??? Well the definition of several is more than two but fewer than many. So lets count how many times you asked me about this. Let's see......there was post 92 where you asked the FIRST time. Here it is... And then there was...hmmm....geez....can't seem to find any other times that you asked. Well....that certainly doesn't make it plausible for it to be SEVERAL....to me....does it? Not another dishonest statement, is it waldo? With that said, what did I respond when you asked me the FIRST time....well...lets check it out: WHAAAAAAT? Me asking for a citation about about this? How dare I? So I will wait patiently for you to actually provide what was asked for...
  23. Accountability Now
    Yes....yes...that quoted blurb was an election platform that was a brilliant 'political' answer in that it really doesn't say anything as to what they support. Of course that was before the election, before Notley added a carbon tax limiting oil sands emissions, before Wynne showed her support....any chance that any of these factors may have pulled him away from the extremely vague, non-committal platform answer. This quote was again from the article titled : Trudeau supports Notley on Energy East pipeline I will say this outright and clearly so that you don't have to ramble on for multiple posts complaining about it....this does not mean he has rubber stamped it. He is saying that he is supporting this project to move forward under the proper environmental investigation and review. So again, he has his politicians hat on in that he can always come back and squash the project. But it is moving forward at this point. Oh...I've noted that and unlike you I haven't claimed that you have. You really haven't offered anything other than dishonest accusations and strawmen arguments. I'm starting to believe that you are a politician yourself. Your 'honest broker' comment was your deflection to me outright calling your BS with your faulty and presumptuous Dennis Coderre claim. I asked you CLEARLY to show where I criticized Dennis Coderre for his position. YET....all you can provide is your assumptions....yup....the waldo assumption that clearly had no legs. I even posted the three direct times that I stated the opposite and all you can return with is chirping about me being an honest broker??? I would love to comment further by I have to continue laughing uncontrollably at your fail! There actually were other alternatives which would have been costly but I agree....another thread. PS...see how that is done. Its not hard to remain on topic which is actually about the inter provincial issue and where it will lead with Quebec taking such a stand. Why would I comment on Harper for those two when I didn't comment on Trudeau for this one? I said Coderre didn't have an issue dumping sewage. The comment was directed at him alone. But yet your HDS/Must Protect Trudeau instincts kick in automatically? Wow.....you're on a roll.
  24. Accountability Now
    The strawman was clearly to show you how you play. Its sad that you didn't pick up on that even though I state I can do the waldo thing too. Tsk tsk.... I do deal with sludge, especially the type of sludge that was directly pumped in to the St. Lawrence by said Coderre. So lets get this straight....I provide three DIRECT, CLEAR and OBVIOUS statements saying that Coderre has the right to raise concerns but yet your ASSUMPTION based on past conversations trumps these DIRECT, CLEAR and OBVIOUS statements? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....I am seriously laughing by my computer right now. Is this your only come back? Horrible FAIL waldo....but based on 'past conversations', I have come to expect that out of you. However unlike you I actually gave you the chance to have an honest conversation by posting an OP that was completely unbiased but nope....you had to go off on your waldo ways. Throw a citation at what you are talking about and I'll have a read. I have provided cites on these. Trudeau and Wynne both support it. What more do you want me to cite? This really is a gotcha moment for anyone who is anti-pipeline, environmentalist types who were hoping that Trudeau would be their environmental knight in shining armour. It also is a gotcha moment for the next federal election as his support for this will clearly ruffle feathers within his Liberal strong hold of Montreal/Quebec. Again...I have already cited this.
  25. Accountability Now
    Please point exactly (either by quoting my post or indicating the post number) where I have criticized Denis Coderre at all for raising concerns. I showed that other politicians have criticized however I have on three different occasions posted directly to you stating the following: For a guy being so big on Freedom of Speech and the ability for Coderre to speak out, then why....WHY is not not allowed for others to speak out against what he is saying. Are you in fact saying that Coderre has carte blanche? See....I can do the waldo thing too. By the way...I didn't miss the fact that you COMPLETELY GLOSSED over the previous part about Trudeau and Wynne, so I'll give it the little bump it needs. Nothing to say on Trudeau and Wynne both backing this line?
×
×
  • Create New...