Accountability Now

Redcuing emissions would come from STOPPING the development. You have shown nothing here....as usual.

Show me where he says he supports expansion in any shape or form.

I have posted the word STOP development from multiple sources. What else do you need? EDIT: If they truly wanted to have responsible development instead of stopping altogether than why have they not said that? Why did they not meet with industry execs? They would have all the audience they need....but no.

Wow...you didn't even comment on the part where EVEN Jacee admits that Neil Young came into this naive and uninformed. I thought for sure you were going to bash her with your normal waldoisms with my personal favorite being bluster.

This is about slamming hypocrites. I have no problem with people who are trying to protect the environment. The TRUE people...not these phonies. The true people stand behind what they believe in. Watch the videos that Neil Young or David Suzuki or the First Nations when they discuss the oil sands. All they talk about are death and stealing from the land. BUT WAIT....now they get in on the financial action? All those very serious things don't matter as much as money. That's called hypocrisy Jacee. Plain and simple.

I guess the title of the article is too much for you so here is a Neil Young quote Of course, you don't have to believe me....you can go right to the Honor the Treaties website and see this one: Nope...my LOL was directed right at Neil for being a hypocrite and for you defending him.

Yes...I have seen your challenges. It has been pointed out by two other MLW members how quickly you pull out the race card if you don't like what you are hearing. As for challenges, you seem to respond to posts you want but then totally avoid the ones you don't. You never did respond to Bogues or myself regarding the so called rascist allegation over taking money versus the environment. You never did respond to my Globe and Mail article regarding Neil Young's backpedal on oil sands development if the treaties are honored. And I posted it twice....the second one specifically at your request. You ask people to discuss issues respectfully yet you have no idea on how to do it yourself. I made a statement about native groups saying that they claim to push the environmental issues but once the money comes in, then these issues don't rank as high as money. And low and behold, on the very Neil Young thread we are discussing this on....it turns out this is the very case with the Athabasca Chipewyan group. In addition to that group you have many other native people in Alberta that are benefiting immensely from these 'dangerous' oil sands. I am all for responsibly developing the oilsands waldo is suggesting but you can't sit and bash the oil sands when you're not getting the money and then say well...its ok to develop (rapidly or responsibly) as long as we get our share. Skirted? Not even close....I outright told you that my issue here has NOTHING to do with whether they deserve it or not. Why would we talk about it if it has NOTHING to do with it. Unlike you I actually respond to the posts. As for starting a new thread....go ahead if you want. I'll participate. Having said that, I have already been through this with you on the First Nation Patience Waning Thread and other native threads. If you have something new to bring up then go for it. I trust others will be happy to participate too.

Clearly you just can't read....period. Rapid expansion and responsibile expansion....are both expansion. Neil Young and his entourage came in wanting it shut down. Remember...we don't need oil. But what's that Neil...you do fly private jets to your shows. But that's ok....I'll get other people to stop using it to offset my sins! Lol.

Lol....this is your best one yet. So comparing it to Hiroshima really means they just want to reduce emmisions or be reponsible/sustainable???? Their stance on the oil sands has never been about developing it, rather its been about shutting it down. As per the CTV article titled: Neil Young: Alberta will look like the moon unless oilsands development stopped: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/neil-young-alberta-will-look-like-the-moon-unless-oilsands-development-stopped-1.1642675#ixzz2rd4b1ie7 Where in that sentiment do you find the desire to develop?

Fabrication? I didn't write the article. Ezra Levant didn't write the article. Kelly Cryderman did. The article is as real as it comes especially with that quote from Neil saying "treaties must be honoured if tar sands expansion is to take place"

It only took you three posts to resort back to your go to catch phrase of bluster. Im guessing your buds in produce must love that one. I'm not saying the guy is out buying shares in Suncor but the fact is that at the start of his tour he's paints the pictures of the oil sands by comparing them to Hiroshima and absolutely slamming their exsistence AND now he says and I quote: IF he were dead set against the tar sands and IF he felt they were as big of an evil as he made them out to be, then there would be no IF before the tar sands expansion. Under no circumstance should the oil sands be developed IF you actually believe that strongly against them. He also went on to admit that he does use a private jet for some shows. What? This admission after the whole whoop da la about his 'green car'? Sure....he might not like the oil sands but he apparently is ok enough with their development as long as the First Natons treaties are honored. And of course....what have I said from the start? First with Hudson Jones: Then with Jacee: And of course with waldingo once the "Not on an 'anti-tar sands crusasde" article came out: Haven't 'slip-slided away' from anything. I have responded to your BS and continue to do so. If you would have read earlier, I agreed to change it to vast majority of First Nations....rather than ALL because there are some groups who understand oi//gas development and have never said anything as they were involved from the beginning. Its the have nots that cry foul, using the environment as their flagship position in life when in reality....they will trade it in if the price is right. I'll repost something from above (that of course you didn't touch) which reflects the comments of this VERY group being discussed in this thread. How so appropriate! The bottomline is that you can't sit and bash the oil/gas industry but then be ok with it once they pay you. That is pure hypocrisy. But again....hypocrisy is something that is quite natural to you so I can see how you would have troubles seeing this as a problem.

That was already dealt with Jacee above. Can you please try and keep up with the conversation? That is the second time I have ask you to do so. Don't do it for me...but for the integrity of the thread

I provided those past examples to show your continued dishonesty and lack of integrity when it comes to posting and not actually facing the facts presented. Those points are even better proven by this most recent lack of acknowledgement of said facts to this exact thread in having Neil Young himself state this is not an anti tar sands concert and that if development occurs then he just wants the treaties honoured. Of course you won't address that fact. Of course you continue to deflect. Of course you have no real response other than your normal go to catch phrases.

Yes. You said this before and we're wrong before. Can you say something new and refreshing that actually adds to the thread. I know that you feel absolutely ridiculous for stating that you googled everywhere and couldn't find this AND it took ol' AN about two minutes. That bothers you....I get it. It's honestly getting too easy with you. I mean first you shoot your mouth off about how the Calgary flood was twice as bad as the worst flood ever and 4x as bad as the 2005 flood. Then the numbers roll in and you couldn't have been more wrong. Next you spout off about the increase in hurricane intensity due to climate change and after showing you countless reasons why you were wrong I found evidence from your go to group (the IPCC) who outright said they have low confidence that global warming has caused any increase in frequency or intensity. This one really hurt you. Then of course my recent STIC lesson where I showed you a correlation over two data sets and your only response was that it wasn't absolute. Lol. That was a beauty. Have you found the definition of correlation yet? Or how about the definition for GERD intensity? And of course now we are here where you bumbled and stumbled around the internet and couldn't find proof that Neil Young is ok with development as long as the treaties were honored. And what do we have? Yet another schooling. It's like other MLW members have said....if this was a boxing match, then ref would have stopped it long ago. Someone pick waldo off the mat already!!!

The Globe and Mail article stating that Neil Young is NOT against the oil sands. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/neil-young-concludes-anti-oilsands-concert-series-with-show-in-calgary/article16398977/?service=mobile They talked a big environmental game up to this point but now the environment is put on the back burner if they can agree on the money

Lol! How is that racist? Is that your fall back word? If the environment was more important then money then the project wouldn't go ahead. I don't need to prove reality. But thanks again for the personal attack.

I proved my point with the article....would you not agree?

Ok. Would you prefer it if I said the vast majority instead of all?

Not nearly as important as the money!

Thank you for the personal attack. All I said was all these groups cry a mean game about the environment but have no problem cashing in when the price is right. The article I posted proved me right. 1.8B in oil sands revenue proves me right. Again....show me one 'nation' that has walked away from oil sands money because they felt the environment was worth more. That's not racist....its reality. If they the issue is with honoring the treaties and getting the cash....then call it as such. Don't use the environment as your excuse.

Obviously he's not against it as he says so in the article. Also per the article, Allan Adam (chief of Athabasca Chipewyan) is NOT against it.....IF and only IF they get the treaties honored. Of course the Globe and Mail's Kelly Cryderman agrees with me too. Wow...looks like you're wrong and Ezra was right. OUCH!!!! Obviously they care more for the cash than the environment. Now who suggested that sentiment back in post 451. Oh...that was me. And of course who said their Googly prowress couldn't find anything on the original citation....oh...that was the waldingo. This one really hurts hey. Fresh off the STIC loss.

First off....its ok to expand your vocabulary past your current go to word of 'bluster'. Based on the past whoopings I've given you, perhaps a new word combo for you should be "I surrender". Now as for refusing to respond.....the article was my response. I requoted where you highlighted my comments: Every case is dead on. Show me one group that has turned down oil sands development regardless of the money being offered. The article I cited is further proof. The other native groups that are part of the 1.8B sector which includes Wood Buffalo (nearly comprises all of the Athabasca oil sands) and Lac La Biche (Cold Lake oil sands) don't say a peep about the oil sands. This recent group only piped up because now its their turn to cash in. My comment that "they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag".....was proved in the article as the Athabasca Chipewyan and Young agreed that the oil sands development can proceed IF the treaties are honored. Yup....nothing like selling out to big oil!

From the recent Globe and Mail article: "Chief Adam noted that his band must walk a fine line when it comes to oil sands development. He noted the First Nation receives compensated through impact benefit agreements for environmental effects in their traditional lands. Those dollars, he said, are used to provide programs for housing, for school, education everything that is needed for the First Nation. I guess the environment doesn't really rank as high on their list as it is made out to be!

I guess your Googly prowess is much like your other so called prowress...as in non-existent!

Hey Jacee...check out the article above! I guess this "nation" is just like the rest. Ready to trade in the environment for cash!!!