Accountability Now

Hey Cyber...aren't you NDP too? Got some good company there, hey?

I live in Alberta and I have yet to visit the oil sands. I have however visited numerous drilling rigs and have been apart of the environmental reclamiation and remediation process and I can tell you that the lands in those situations are almost always restored to the same if not better conditions. I can't see why the oil sands would be any different as it garners a world audience.

The 'they' in this conversation has always been in regards to Rock Stars which Neil Young is apart of and from that he clearly said THEY don't need oil. You are now interpreting (once again based on what he does not say) that 'everybody does not need oil". I'll simplify this for you....Neil Young = rock star. PMO says rock stars use oil. Neil Young says they don't need to. If that is Young's belief then I strongly question his understanding of all the uses of oil. I'll play along. Let's say one day sustainable energy is able to overcome fossil fuel energy for all attributes (cost, efficiency, etc) and that everyone goes green. At that point, what market will there be for Canada as an exporting green nation? You don't think the US will just take on those green technologies and cut Canada out? What edge would Canad have? What would Canada have to sell to world markets? At this point we have a marketable resource that we can sell and can help our economy. The beauty is that right now, that product is still proven to be the most efficient and cost effective energy product out there.

No...go back and read what YOU said. Neil Young's exact comment was "Of course, rock stars don't need oil". You then said that's not what Neil Young believes. Its tough to go back on that one now...but keep trying. Again....they subsidize the area gives the best return for its people. That's what governments should do. When the point comes where green energy gives the best return then they will subsidize that. In the mean time they give tax credits for people looking to make that transition. Not a very difficult concept.

I think its its like Bogues said...if the allergen affects people by just being in the same room (like peanuts do) then we may have to look at removing them. However, most other allergies (dairy, seafood, wheat, etc) are consumption allergies. Kids should be well educated on what they can and can't eat, thus removing the need to remove these foods.

That's interesting. So the PMO says "rock star" and you equate that to Neil Young. However Neil Young says 'rock star" and now he is left out of the equation. So which is it Bubber? Don't be a hypocrite now. Of course I am still fascinated by how you imply what the PMO says and what Neil Young says and then pass it off as obvious fact. Keep trying though... I'm desparately interpreting? ROTFL!!! That is all you are doing. No one, including the PMO's office, has said that we can't look at innovation. In fact I was the one that pointed out the Government of Canada offers tax breaks for such innovation. Its you that has been crying the hypocrite game when clearly there the only hypocracy is coming from you.

When it was one or two kids....yes that is pandering. The numbers are no longer low and the consquences are not just a sniffe or a cough...its death. I think you should consider what it would be like if your kid had a severe allergy and was foreced to face this every day. Until we figure out what is causing this increase in allergies, we will have to pander.

I was thinking the same thing but the quote above said she got sick when her teacher ate it.....thus implying that it was the smell, aroma or in other words...non consumption. Having said this, I don't know what level schools or public facilities will get to as these allergies are not stopping anytime soon!

Its not obvious, in fact its erroneous. He is reminding Young and everyone else that oil is currently a large part of daily living and a large part of our ecomony relies on oil. If you don't beleive this to be true then just watch our dollar drop everytime the price of oil drops. With that being said, he makes zero accusations (directly or implied) against innovation. Until we get something that replaces oil (both economically and environmentally) then we are all considered users. He flat out said they don't need oil (as per below). The rest of your statement again is YOUR interpretation of what he is saying.

We did have a thread on this. Remember...the one where you tried to claim that green ecomony was the same as green energy.

So you are now interpreting a underlying tone which of course would never be persuaded by your left leaning bias and calling that undertone unquestionable. Lol. That is funny. Answer this.....does Neil Young use oil or not? if the answer is yes then there is nothing incorrect about the statement made. Of course, as per Neil Young's response, he believe's they don't need oil. He clearly isn't aware of all the uses of oil.

Ouch....how disrespectul to suggest that Neil Young may actually use oil. Those jerks.

The quote I read seemed quite respectful of Young and didn't mention anything about innovation. That's why I'm wonder which quote Bubber is reffering to. The reality, as pointed out, Young uses oil in many other ways....not just his personalized vehicle (which is not safe to drive due to ignition fires)

Do you have a quote from the PMO's office to which you are referring to?

They don't discourage innovation. In fact there is a tax credit for it. Something our company has taken advantage of a few times. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/txcrdt/sred-rsde/menu-eng.html

Actually they will have most of their troubles selling it due to the safety issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LincVolt

I agree with you on the statistical level. If it's hot in Rhode Island then it's very likely Mass will be hot too. However, I still find it weird that 23 of the 50 states had their hottest record in the 30s.

It definitely seems this way. The green economy that others refer to largely consist of public transit, conservation and waste treatment....all jobs that we will have regardless of fossil fuel energy or green energy. Of the 2.7 million jobs in the US green economy market, only ~130,000 are from renewable energy. Compare that to the millions of jobs directly and indirectly related to oil/gas.

All projections. What did the AR5 report say about actuals?

Actually the IPCC has recently confirmed in their recent report their they have low confidence in the increases to extreme weather. So I guess you're on your own there.

ROTFL.....yes Cyber....Harper orchestrated a dollar at par which hurt the other exports. He also created the Energy crisis. It had nothing to do with the US or antyhing else happening in the world! You are too much! Did I forget to tell you that we sell oil in USD therefore having a strong dollar actually hurts us.

The Dot Com Bust was a speed bump compared to the Global Financial crisis. If you want proof then just look at the exchange rates from 1995 to 2010. The Dot Com bubble roughly started in 1997 and ended in 2000. The exchange before that time was about 1.3. The exchange at the peak of the bubble was 1.54 and at the end was 1.44 for a brief stint and stayed even higher for the next few years. The Dot Com bust saw the exchange rate come back to where it was before the bubble (if not a bit higher). It stayed around 1.4 until 2003 when the Energy crisis hit and the US dollar started to drop. Canada maintained a strong economy even though the exchange started to lose grip because the oil prices were high. The exchange dropped all the way down to par in 2008 which meant Canadian exports especially in manufacturing were hurting. The Energy crisis also ended meaning high oil prices could not carry the economy and our manufacturing in Ontario still suffered because the dollar was at par. Bottom line is that we are an exporting nation that depends highly on what is happening with our exporting partners (largely the US). Its extremely foolish to brag about a Liberal surplus and to criticize a Conservative deficit that really had nothing to do with either party.

Yes that is true too. I have said it before....all you need to do is look at the years those Liberal surpluses happened and compared them to the US (you know...our largest trading partner) and see that even they had surpluses for 4 years. Since 1940 they have had 12 years of surpluses...with four in a row starting in 1998....right around the same time the Liberal got their surplus going. Needless to say...it was good times for all!

Apparently you are the one that's not quite the genius as you don't quite understand the effects of the global financial crisis or you just choose to ignore it.

Actually it has all been found and accounted for. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/28/john-ivison-the-3-1-billion-conservative-boondoggle-that-never-was/ What ever will you have to complain about now? Perhaps that 10 billion in legal fees you claimed they spent? That was a good one too.