ReeferMadness

What happened on 9/11 was a conspiracy - that is not in doubt. The only question is - which conspiracy is right. Is it the theory advanced by the government - that a bunch of mad Arabs, funded and organized by somebody living in a primitive camp in Afghanistan pulled this off? Is it one of the various other theories floated by various and sundry? Or is it something else entirely? I would submit the following: Governments around the world (the US government included) have been known to lie to their citizens so it isn't logical to just accept their version of events The US government was under huge pressure following the incident to explain what happened. It's quite possible that even if no Americans were involved in any way, bin Laden was a convenient fall guy Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot and it would burn off very quickly. So it was actually other materials inside the tower that were responsible for the heat of the inferno. If towers can collapse after a fire burns for a couple of hours, perhaps someone should be reviewing building standards There were a lot of odd things that happened on 9/11 but that doesn't necessarily mean an inside job If it were an inside job, it's extremely unlikely that the people in charge would have informed George Bush. Maybe all we can hope for is a deathbed confession from Cheney

So, what do you make of this? (scroll to the bottom and it purportedly shows the size of a 757 matched up against the damaged Pentagon wall).

And the Kalamazoo River disaster proved that the industry cannot deal with a dilbit spill. Period. The industry is incredibly ecologically destructive on so many levels, it needs to go away. And now we see how economically destructive that seesawing oil prices are as well. I know that is hard news for people who are deeply invested (economically, emotionally and ideologically) in fossil fuels but it's a fact. I can suggest some good 12 step programs for people who have trouble dealing with it. So your argument is that by not refining in Alberta, it's easier for the industry to play a shell game with the emissions. I can't understand how May could fail to be swayed by that logic. :rolleyes: Your argument is nonsensical. By your "logic", we are already self sufficient so the pipeline is unnecessary.

So, I assume that you mean that when Enbridge spent a billion dollars and 6+ years cleaning up their mess in the Kalamazoo River, it was only because they are "gobsmackingly stupid"? Maybe if they had someone with your superior intellect to advise them, they wouldn't have needed to spend roughly $40,000 for every barrel spilled to dredge the river.

She didn't say that. She was responding to the refrain (repeated ad nauseum) that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. She points out that it is safer (for human safety and the environment) to transport bitumen by rail than dilbit in a pipeline. If you're going to respond to a point, respond to the point made, not your own politically and ideologically motivated interpretation. Clearly Ms May accepts climate science and understands that all fossil fuels should be shut down. Until they are, however, there are different ways to exploit the resource. It's simply undeniable that the Alberta government has chosen a way that maximizes industry profit instead of maximizing value to the province or its workers. The pain that laid off Alberta workers today are feeling is a direct consequence of that gross mismanagement. The claim by you and others that people who accept climate science somehow have no right to an opinion on how bitumen is exploited is just one more way that you wish to silence people who won't bow to the alter of unregulated capitalism. The existing refineries in eastern Canada couldn't process all of Energy East capacity. And I've not read one indication that any of the refineries along the way will be upgrading their facilities to process dilbit. In fact, the Valero refinery in Montreal (Canada's second largest refinery) publicly distanced itself from Energy East, saying it has "no firm interest" and has already made significant sourcing commitments. The fact is that most, if not all, of the dilbit that would go into Energy East would be exported.

I think her position is much the same as mine. We need to get off of oil for the sake of our future. But if we're going to produce oil, then let's produce oil, not bitumen.

Today, in the Huffington Post, Canada's most reasonable and logical parliamentarian systematically dismantles the arguments in favor of pipelines that are intended to carry diluted bitumen. In response to the claim that pipelines are the safest way to transport bitumen, May points out that diluting the bitumen (making dilbit) and shipping it through a pipeline is actually less safe than transporting raw bitumen in railway cars. In response to the idea that we need to get dilbit to tidewater to save jobs: In response to the myth that pipelines are intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oil And finally, a response to the untrue claim that the International Energy Agency says that demand for fossil fuels will keep increasing Conclusions: 1. We need more parliamentarians like Elizabeth May 2. We don't need Energy East or any of the pipelines that propose to ship dilbit.

Maryland becomes the latest jurisdiction to indicate it is considering investigating the behavior of Exxon publicly denying climate change while privately preparing for it.

That's the best idea I've heard yet for the butterball. Scrap it.

Ranked ballots are a voting mechanism, not a system. Some PR systems (like STV) use ranked ballots and still produce proportional results. It's comments like this that make me leery of going to a referendum. It seems like most people don't really understand voting systems at all.

Is this all of Canada or is it a combination of hot housing markets and massive over-investment in oil sands? The devil is always in the details when you look at averages.

Proportional representation is back in the news after former Harper chief of staff Guy Giorno came out in favor of PR. Clearly, he would never have been allowed to say this while working for Harper. But he acknowledged that proportional representation is about what's good for Canadians, not what is good for parties or politicians.

You don't know what pork barreling is, do you? This isn't a case of the Canadian government directing work, it's a case of the Canadian government paying an entrance fee so that Canadian companies can bid on much larger pieces of work.

Another case of he said-she said. If events are as Kesha claims, she should file a criminal complaint.

I guess it's because what's on sale isn't worth buying - at any price.

.... or Eurofighter or Gripen or Rafale

That doesn't mean Canada is going to buy the butterball. It's more likely that the reason Canada paid to stay in the program is this:

In fairness, many of the American military boondoggles (nuclear powered airplanes, star wars space lasers) weren't provisioning failures at all - they were pork barrel projects designed to funnel money into the hands of supporters. And in that, they were fabulous successes! :lol:

White supremacist and former KKK grand wizard David Duke (who is American) has told his listeners (this guy has a radio program!!) that failing to vote for Trump is 'treason to your heritage'. He encouraged his listeners to get out and volunteer for Trump saying This sounds like it might have come from the Onion and I wish I were making this up.

So, when you finally realize that Harper was fundamentally dishonest, I guess all you have left is the elimination of the penny. In only 9 years. :lol:

The science journal Nature just published a piece by Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics which says that we are simultaneously underestimating the costs of climate change and overestimating the costs of switching to renewable energy.

Well, if you accept the science in climate change, the idea of climate justice is really not hard at all. It means that there is no relationship between those who benefit from releasing GHG's and those who suffer the impacts. In fact, some of the regions of the earth that will be hardest hit by climate change and will likely lose most have released the lowest amounts. And unlike trade agreements that afford multi-national corporations preferential status when it comes to suing countries over (mostly imagined) losses due to laws, there is no mechanism for the billions of poor people who will suffer drought, displacement, flooding or other hardship to recoup their losses from wealthy countries, corporations and individuals who caused their suffering. Luckily for them, it seems like you have all the answers. So, please, tell us how climate refugees will, through "individual and private" movements get justice.

Thanks, Kimmy. I don't get upset over moderator actions but I do get confused. And when I try to explain myself or ask for an explanation, I don't usually get an answer. One thing I would like to know is what are warning points and is there a magic number I need to hit?

There are a lot of lyrics out there - I'm sure you can find whatever you want if you look hard enough. But you referred to "most pop artists" which is quite a different matter. Robin Thicke is not "most pop artists".

Misogynist lyrics are endemic to most pop artists? Really?