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
    Hey...its not just by de facto statement....this is coming from the NRC. I note how you conveniently glossed over that. In regards to industry, no one should have carte blanche. The NEB should and does hold these companies to the highest standards in building and maintaining the pipelines. The fact is these pipelines are not 100% safe but are 99.999% which is good enough for me. Nah...that's just me showing how stupid your/Reefers anti-pipeline argument is. Having said that....you sure seem to be shying away from the fact that your two Liberal heroes....Trudeau and Wynne are supporting this pipeline. That really must bother you.
  2. Accountability Now
    When I find people that are willing to discuss the OP honestly, then I will show you.
  3. Accountability Now
    The only sensitivity I have is to people who are dishonest which you have proven to be once again. I never made the claim that oil companies have carte blanche....you did. You then attacked me on the basis that oil companies have carte blanche. The ol' strawman....a waldo trick of the trade. Yup....I already post the OP which discussed various inter-provincial concerns and I backed it up with another article from the Star with the following quotes highlighted: http://www.thestar.c...ject-hbert.html Not my words or opinion waldo. This is from Chantal Hebert with the Star....is this a basis to start from? Or would you like to deflect at this point? Your claim was that I said oil companies get 'carte blanche'. Arguing that pipelines are the safest way no way indicates that oil companies get carte blanche yet you poised your whole attack on that. So yes....your dishonesty is something that needs to be highlighted here. However, kudos to you on the backpedal. Since you have nightmares about oil companies, then please refer to the NRC webpage which outright states: I'm looking forward to your well worded letter to the NRC stating that they are in the pockets of big oil. Please don't leave out the part of them having carte blanche either.
  4. Accountability Now
    Its a non starter to talk about pipelines when the guy you are talking about doesn't believe we should be using oil in the first place. That's like asking someone who their favorite boxer is when they detest violence. But of course even the good folks in Montreal/Quebec aren't outright against pipelines. Just look at their current one from Portland that goes under the St. Lawrence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland%E2%80%93Montreal_Pipe_Line Of course, if you are still concerned about pipeline safety then I thought this fact from Natural Resources Canada would help you sleep at night: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/infrastructure/5893#h-3-2 Please insert 'crazy conspiracy theory' about how the NEB and NRC are the in the pockets of oil companies right here..... People can live without fossil fuels. People can also die without fossil fuels. The fact is that is we want to maintain our lifestyle then no we can't live without them. However, there is already a thread titled Fossil Fuel Free Future where you are free to woo people with your beliefs to your hearts content. That's a mighty big IF! So in the mean time should I go with the Escalade or the Navigator...because I like my SUVs the same way I like my oil....DOMESTIC. I have taken a side on the OP? What is it? Please outline what my side is on the dispute that this may cause the country....which is what this thread is about. I do have 'sides' on all your other issues but again....I discuss those in the appropriate threads. I suggest you do the same.
  5. Accountability Now
    Sure you did...well....you did in your normal waldoism put a question phrasing to it....did he say, didn't he say it, i think he said....oh...is he too much of a coward to say it style. Here it is for you to ponder: At that point I had said NOTHING about oil companies. It your claim OR its you suggesting that I'm claiming it. Either way....deflection in the grandest. Of course you bury yourself in the next part....ouch....just wait.....here it is.......... Yup....I certainly like how you put in you/oil companies in your reply....nice work waldo...just proving my point above. Is it my claim that oil companies have carte blanche? Is it my claim that Coderre is not entitled to his opinion? Nope...thats all you pal. Not sure why you even try anymore...just constant fails.
  6. Accountability Now
    I was getting past it by trying to get you to focus on the OP. You're the one obsessed with this big bad toxic animal that is going to destroy the earth some day. Sounds good anonymous internet forum guy. Even if you are being truthful, you would be in the VAST minority in this country. So I would definitely say I'm not too concerned about what you are doing. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! That is a good one. No...there is no enormous war. Just the small battle that people like you are fighting to make yourselves feel good about yourself. The rest of the world drives their cars to their heated/air conditioned homes and worries more about things like their family. But what ever gets you to sleep at night. Its not that I have no interest in the fight, its that my OP was positioned to not take a side. I was curious more about what could happen as a result of this issue, not what I think should happen. Of course your only argument was to battle the partisan side and go after ol' Harper. I guess that earns you a fail on this assignment. Thats ok. I find all your arguments to be that way. The reality is that the price tag just wasn't right for the FN at that point. The lawsuits were all a part of negotiations which they could leverage the government. You don't actually believe they weren't going to take the money...do you??? Yes...we lived in cesspools and barely stayed alive under Harper. I can finally breath now that Trudeau is running things. Lol. You really do suffer from HDS. First....making public support for an idea is a lot closer to an approval than staying out of the argument. Second...if you would actually read the articles posted you would have read that the heads this will 'twerk' are those in Quebec, most notably the Montreal area who currently have large liberal support. This support may be swayed back to the NDP or Bloc come next election should Trudeau remain consistent on this. But then again....why read anything that pertains to the OP....lets keep talking about your dictionary definitions shall we?
  7. Accountability Now
    Yes...you did. You said that all the research I needed was dictionary.com. Your over simplification was clearly noted: Facepalm....people want/need oil....simple as that. Its not a right...its a decision made by people every time the drive their cars, heat their homes or use other oil related products. I have no inherent love for oil. I make no money from it nor do I feel its the best thing in the world, however until something replaced the on demand power provided by oil, the majority of the planet will continue to want it. The conversation can only be pointed to how it gets shipped. Finally you have stated something that is thread-worthy. There will certainly be opposition by people who take a moral stand. First Nations have always and will always oppose such projects until they are included in the payout...then its a non-concern. Environmentalists are really a non issue too. Its Coderre and his group of mayors that I find intriguing. As per the last article I posted, these mayors represent half of the Liberal votes in Quebec and may cause Trudeau some grief if he stays the course. Horrible example....plain and simple! Its not just Quebec and Alberta though. Saskatchewan's premier has been the loudest voice so far. We also know that New Brunswick will have a say before this is over and of course Ontario approving it may drag them into it. The only ones free and clear will be BC the Territories and the other Atlantic provinces. You have to admit, Trudeau platformed on higher environmental standards and just came back from COP21 shouting the climate change mantra. Now approving this must twerk some peoples heads as its a different side for him....including the western Canadians who say he only cares about the east. I also have to hold judgement on Rachel Notley who has gone to bat for this even though she has given off a strong anti-oil message. Like I said, this is really intriguing and could really change how some of these politicians are viewed.
  8. Accountability Now
    An interesting article that sums this all up: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/23/energy-east-pipeline-far-from-a-nation-building-project-hbert.html As I said, how is this decision going to affect Trudeau since this is his Quebec base. It might cost him the next election if it gets bad enough. And of course, we run the risk of Quebec separation if they don't get their way. I have to admit, I have actually heard rumblings of Alberta/Sask separation (which I don't support) too but I think the chances of that are much less. And to top it off we have New Brunswick who fully supported Trudeau and wants the line built for its refineries. As the last line states and what I stated in the OP, this whole event is a UNITY minefield. The battle continues....
  9. Accountability Now
    I bought up vitamins to show you its not as simple as a definition.....although you so desperately wanted it to be. There are other factors involved. As I said from the start, toxicity is related to intended use. Mercury is one of the most toxic elements on our planet yet you still have it in LCD screens, Fluorescent Lights and even some batteries. Based solely on the 'definition' we shouldn't have it however it is used in common household items and even dental amalgams. The oil is going to come by train or pipe. The same oil just different ways. Go ahead and discuss this....just not in this thread. PS...your example of selling tobacco to kids is simply ridiculous. You honestly couldn't have picked a worse example. Comparing something that is actually used by most if not all of people for heating their homes, feeling their vehicles and providing products for daily living....VERSUS tobacco which is a declining drug used recreationally by adults and is illegal to sell to kids. Horrible comparison....but I have come to expect this from you. Now....would you like to comment on how you think that Quebec might proceed in light of this balanced support from the other provinces and Trudeau. Or perhaps you can comment on how Trudeau will be seen in the environmental circles now that he supports this pipeline.
  10. Accountability Now
    Coming from the Grand Deflector himself who likes to claim that this is about the oil companies.....riiiiiight!! Now....finally someone is tying it back to the OP. Well done. It only took 35 posts. I have never said whether Montreal and surrounding areas were right or wrong for expressing their concerns. They are allowed to express whatever position they want however it appears that those in Quebec are at odds with the other provinces and now Trudeau over their opinions. As stated in my OP, what is intriguing is the dynamic between the ROC and Quebec and how it will evolve especially since Trudeau has strong support in Montreal. Will they follow Trudeau and abandon their mayor's positions? Or will they abandon Trudeau and look elsewhere for Federal support for these Quebec issues? Or will this issue just fade away once the pipeline is approved/built and life will carry on as normal? All I know is that it certainly sparked a war of words in social media among common folk and our leaders.
  11. Accountability Now
    No. I have clearly said that a certain number do. Some do it legally and other illegally with my expectation being that the latter of these two are charged and punished as they are law breakers. The former are using the tax system within its legal means to move their money to locations where they are taxed less. Heck...the big banks in Canada all have locations in the Caymans. What I am asking of you is to provide proof of how many Canadians are sending their money off shore ILLEGALLY. You have yet to show anything that comes up with a number. No its not. They are choosing it because ( and i'm only assuming) they realize that having that much money doesn't matter. They aren't trying to rule the world, for them having that much money is a game. They have far and above met their needs, wants and desires to the rest is useless to them. Here's a couple, with the first one focusing only on Canada: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/poor-getting-richer http://capx.co/the-rich-are-richer-and-the-poor-are-getting-richer/ If you don't want the rich to get richer....then stop buying Microsoft products from Bill Gates, or stop shopping at Wal Mart or perhaps any other product or store that these uber wealthy people generate their wealth from. The fact is that these people are getting richer because they provide products that are affordable to regular joes who soak them up. So I feel its hypocritical for people to complain about the rich when its you and me supporting them. Actually its exactly the same. People in control who are using their power and capabilities to hide money in unlawful manners which ultimately affect the money available for common folk. The transparency act just allowed people to see if their chiefs were doing it properly. If they were then no problem...just like if a wealthy businessman gets audited and shows that he's acting within the law. In both cases, unlawful activity should be punished.
  12. Accountability Now
    Sure....but I'll pick the amounts of each. I trust your precious dictionary will guide you through this one. Right...and that belongs in this thread how? The only nerve you've hit is the one where you won't actually address anything the OP is discussing. The rest of your enviro theories/fantasies belong elsewhere. So I suppose having 43 train cars spilling 350,000 gallons of fuel oil into Lake Wabamun or 73 train cars carrying Bakken crude exploding and killing 47 is much preferred? Like I said, there is no discussion to be had on whether we are going to continue to use oil or not...its what is the safest method. So yes....pipelines are the safest method. Of course...the OP is asking what effect this will have on interprovincial relationships. You have YET to come close to touching that topic. Your constant deflection is noted though.
  13. Accountability Now
    No kidding
  14. Accountability Now
    Hey...if you want to make said claims then go for it. Don't state that I made such claims and purport them in your standard deflection ways. That would be dishonest waldo....you're not dishonest...are you?
  15. Accountability Now
    Where have I stated ANYTHING about oil companies??? Where? I have stated that Brad Wall wants this to go forward and stirred the pot talking about equalization payments. I have stated Nenshi, Notley and Wynne support this but nowhere have I stated oil companies. The OP is about political relations among inter provincial entities.... Do I need to hold your hand on this? Now do you have something to offer or will it just be your standard deflections at this point?
  16. Accountability Now
    Why would I do research a scientific topic when I clearly posted this in Provincial politics. With that said, I don't need to research the items as I deal with sludge every day. Do you consider sewage to be toxic? Most municipalities do however Montreal felt it was ok to dump billions of litres of raw sewage right into the St.Lawrence. Victoria dumps all their raw sewage right into the ocean. The reality is that an item can be determined relatively toxic based on its intended use. Vitamins can be toxic....http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vitamin+Toxicity Gasoline is toxic....but you use that every day.....don't you. Municipal sludge is toxic but when treated properly and applied under the right conditions will go right on farmers fields. Hell...even water is toxic at high levels. The fact of the matter is that everything is determined in a risk/benefit analysis and the reality is that until we stop using oil we need to have ways to move the oil and pipelines are the safest way of moving this product. In fact, one of the main reasons for the catastrophe in Kalamazoo is that they never dealt with it before and didn't respond accordingly. Then why the hell are you commenting in a post made in PROVINCIAL POLITICS with the OP citing how this will impact interprovincial relations? Do you just come here to deflect? Aside from offering the latest news on Trudeau now agreeing to the project, you offer nothing on how this will impact relations. This post has nothing to do with the science or practicalities of pipelines, nor does it have anything to do with your biggest fear (HDS), rather it is about the rift it is causing between jurisdictions. Consequently how it will affect Trudeaus base in Quebec that clearly doesn't want this go forward. Of course....like you said you don't care so please leave the conversation for the people who do.
  17. Accountability Now
    No...a toxic sludge is a waste product, something that is not useful. Correct me if I'm wrong but you use the products in that substance you are calling 'toxic sludge". Of course you glossed over the major point...if this stuff is toxic sludge then that must make the Liberal Premier from Ontario an anti-environment type since she approves this going through their back yard. How do you think Trudeau is going to deal with his provincial cohort now approving this toxic sludge.
  18. Accountability Now
    So oil is now toxic sludge? I wonder if anyone told Wynne that before she approved of this pipeline? It would have been easy for Trudeau to cast off this pipeline had his Liberal cohort not done this...but she did. She must be anti-environmental hey???
  19. Accountability Now
    With Trudeau squashing Northern Gateway and the fate of Keystone in the hands of the next US President (or so it seems), the latest focus has been on Energy East which will see a revitalization of the pipeline that will carry oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the refineries in NB thus creating more domestic oil products. However, in the news as of late Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre and local Montreal area mayors have come out against the pipeline due to environmental concerns. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-mayor-denis-coderre-energy-east-opposition-1.3413117 This was met with huge criticism from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall who stirred the pot by bringing up the equalization money that Quebec receives: http://globalnews.ca/news/2469532/wall-criticizes-montreal-area-mayors-for-opposing-energy-east-pipeline/ Also Mayor Naheed Nenshi has come out and blasted Coderre for this too: http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/nenshi-slams-montreal-mayor-for-opposition-to-energy-east-pipeline-1.2746505 On a bright note it looks like Ontario Premier Wynne is getting on board with the pipeline and giving her blessing: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/montreal-area-mayors-energy-east-criticisms-short-sighted-notley-says/article28339330/ Obviously there is the discussion of whether the pipeline is needed or not, but what I find intriguing is the dynamic between Quebec and the ROC. Its almost like this situation is allowing everyone to air their dirty laundry. Definitely a tough call for Trudeau now....will this situation cause unity among the Provinces or will it the cause of a riff?
  20. Accountability Now
    LMAO!. No...no I did not. I specifically went after your link which discusses the 62 top wealth holders and noted that only ONE Canadian would even make that list. I also asked you to provide proof that any of these wealth holders have anything to do with illegal off shore accounts. And what have you provided....nothing. I also like how you completely ignore the fact that I have offered up the Giving Pledge, not once but twice, which is a growing movement among these TOP WEALTH HOLDERS to donate over half of their wealth to charity during their life or upon their death. And I missed the point? Just because I showed your point is wrong from both wealth holders and income earners does not mean I missed anything. Who is fighting for scraps? Canada has the one of the wealthiest middle classes in the world. I could also cite a number of articles showing that the poor are also getting richer although I don't think you would care to read them. I'm sure there are still poor people out there and there always will be but I will confidently say that these people are NOT poor just because Bill Gates is rich. Their situation in life has mostly to do with THEIR situation. I have also showed you an example of the Giving Pledge where these super rich people are giving away massive amounts of their wealth. Look at the list of people. http://givingpledge.org/ I think its fairly obvious. These people realize they don't need this money and are giving it back. So for the most part a mechanism to redistribute wealth is already in place. However for the other billionaires out there who want to take their money with them then I would suggest increasing the estate tax or making it more difficult to transfer your hoard down the family line without paying a tax on it. With all this said, the part I find most hypocritical about your stance on this is that you are so concerned about these super rich people hoarding money which should be taxed and should benefit the poor, yet you turn a blind eye to the fact that native chiefs are doing the same thing on a smaller scale. You show opposition to the First Nations Transparency Act yet you want mechanisms in place to stop trickle up in the rest of the world. Why is that? To me they are one in the same.
  21. Accountability Now
    Alright....lets recap: - you posted a link to an article discussing how 62 people in the world have more wealth than half the worlds population - in that article it states that all of these people are from outside of Canada but yet you CLEARLY above are concerned about THESE 62 people avoiding Canadian Income Tax even though they owe nothing to Canada - only one person (persons) in Canada are in the top 62 wealthiest people according to Forbes and that is the David Thompson family. So can you prove that this ONE super rich guy is using tax havens. Please provide that proof at your earliest convenience. - in this said link it states that massive amounts of money are in these tax havens which it doesn't state but does imply that these 62 people are using tax havens even though it (or you) offer ZERO proof of it and yet you still insist that you are ONLY talking about the super rich - you then posted a link to Argus talking about how the super rich in Canada are skipping out on taxes through tax havens even though it mentions no names or the number of 'super rich' that are actually doing it. Instead it simply illustrates how 'easy' it would be to do it. So in summary, you continue to talk about the super rich as the top 0.01% even though in Canada being in the top 0.01% only means you're making about 2.5million per year. I know that you are not saying that ALL of the people in Canada who make over 2.5M are using illegal tax havens and evading taxes.....are you? No.....you wouldn't brush a stroke that broad....would you? You have said you are talking ONLY about those 0.01% that break the law....well how many of the 0.01% do that? The only thing leading you to believe that is because 'they keep getting richer'. Is it possible they keep making good business decisions. They keep investing their money. They keep doing the things that made them rich in the first place? Noooooo....they are all crooks. Especially the ones that I noted in the Giving Pledge which has 3 of the top 5 richest people in the World to giving over half their wealth away. Such crooks. Of course its tough to comprehend what you are saying jacee because you don't even know what you are saying. How do you expect others to? Again...please show me verifiable facts of how many of the top 0.01% are actually using tax havens. So far the only link you provided are talking about the 62 richest people in the world (which is only 1 Canadian) and an article explaining how easy it is to use off shore accounts if you want.
  22. Accountability Now
    Really? You want to paint them all with that brush? Have you ever heard of the Giving Pledge? Some pretty big hoarders on that list jacee. Great come back jacee. How about you provide some reason as to why its ridiculous. You are OK with equality until I show you what equality actually means. Even at a flat rate tax I pay a heck of a lot more in taxes than the average joe even though I am getting the same services as everyone else. And you know what....I'm ok with that. But when people like you come shouting about equality and how I should be paying MORE taxes then I get a little peeved. Equality means equality jacee...so if I'm getting equal services then why should I pay way more in tax. If you don't agree with that then don't come shouting EQUALITY!!!! That's the point that you're missing. Most of the wealthy do pay whats owing. They pay according to the rules that the governments have laid out. It is not illegal to move your money off shore or to other countries as long as you do it legally. These people however will take advantage of the loop holes and what the rules say to minimize their tax according to said rules. This is why CRA is constantly revamping the rules to ensure tax fairness. Having said that, if taxes get too high in a certain jurisdiction then a company will restructure and have move the taxable income to a lower taxed area only paying a withholding tax of 5 or 10% in the first country. This alone is why governments need to ensure tax fairness so they can entice companies to have the final income declared here. Ultimately tax evasion is illegal however tax efficiency and loopholes are not. If Kevin O'Leary is breaking the law by evading taxes then he should be charged for it and at that point made illegible to run the country. But what evidence do you have that he is breaking the law? How do you know that he is not minimizing his taxes according to the current rules in place? Please provide any evidence that this true and I would gladly say he is not eligible to run. With that said, I certainly don't want him to run either but not based on the reasons you are suggesting. As for Paul Martin or Trudeau or Harper or any wealthy person in Canada. They have all minimized their taxes. There is nothing wrong with that as long as its done legally. And politicians should only come under scrutiny if they are breaking the law.
  23. Accountability Now
    I'm also curious as to what the net taxation income for the involved governments is with these companies based on the other taxes brought in by running these operations.
  24. Accountability Now
    I agree with taxation. By definition, I fall into the top 1% and I have had countless schemes brought forth to me where I could avoid paying taxes and I refuse them all mostly because I do feel its my duty to contribute to society. With that said, how much is enough. When I get taxed I pay a LOT more than the average person. When it comes to equitable taxation, shouldn't we all contribute the same? Or do you believe we we should all make the same net money and have some pay more in taxes. This was brought up in an other equitable tax thread so I suppose it doesn't belong here. The key thing to remember is that the equation for taxation is not always direct. When a jurisdiction lowers its taxes for various people or corporations its most often because that jurisdiction is now able to collect in other areas because that corporation is doing is operating there. Today's taxation is all about being competitive with other jurisdictions whether its a municipality, province or country. These corporations evaluate the full scope of doing business and will pick and choose the location that makes them the most profitable. As such each jurisdiction competes by lowering various taxes which draws them into their area which also brings taxation from income, property tax, and in some cases royalties. Yes....the give up some on the corporate tax side but in the end its to get more on the whole. We can't control how other countries are taxing but I do think our local jurisdictions (municipalities/provinces) would be helping themselves if they didn't keep cutting each others throats on taxes. You look back at Alberta in the 80s and 90s and their taxes were higher than Notley's today, however they were lower than Sask and BC. Those two started driving down their taxes in the 2000s which forced Alberta to lower again. If the provinces could agree to keep a base tax rate then they would be able to have these companies pay the higher rates with out risk of losing them....that is of course assuming they wouldn't move internationally (which most can and do)
  25. Accountability Now
    The Liberal Peso certainly helped the Cretien government back in the day as it was primed for all that Ontario manufacturing. However, I don't know if that will help them now. When the manufacturing jobs left they went to places that operate for less than the Liberal Peso and it doesn't look like it will return anytime soon as Mexico now outproduces us for NA vehicle production. I don't think those jobs are coming back anytime soon.
×
×
  • Create New...