eyeball Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver paints environmentalists and native groups as unpatriotic radicals bent on stopping the state from allowing corporations to wreck the environment, in so many words. "Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams."Joe Oliver Terry Milewski How can someone be unpatriotic if they never were patriotic to start with or are just more patriotic to something else? Lest anyone say I should get out of the country if I don't like it I say go get stuffed and get your stupid country off my planet. As an Earthling my claim to be where I am is based on a far more fundamental and prior reality than your's. As for Canada raping and pillaging our planet to oblivion...go find another one, an unoccupied one this time preferably. Edited January 10, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted January 10, 2012 Author Report Posted January 10, 2012 A little, thanks for asking. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
waldo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Oliver started the theme earlier this past summer... he's now beginning to ramp-up the Conservative rhetoric. here we have the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, the guy who eventually signs off on the National Energy Board's (NEB) review/recommendation, continually coming out publicly to support the project before the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's environmental review process is complete... ethics be damned! Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) You have a stronger claim on Earth than Canadians do on Canada? Nope sorry. Maybe in hippyland, where being born entitles one to 1/7 billionth of all the natural resources in the world, but not in reality. You see, in reality we have entered into a social contract whereby I can't find you and stick a knife in your neck while you are sleeping to take your 1/7 billionth of Earth. In exchange for that safety, you have given up any claims on Earth you may believe being born has entitled you to. Now run along to your next protest. Edited January 10, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
waldo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 You have a stronger claim on Earth than Canadians do on Canada? Nope sorry. Maybe in hippyland, where being born entitles one to 1/7 billionth of all the natural resources in the world, but not in reality.You see, in reality we have entered into a social contract whereby I can't find you and stick a knife in your neck while you are sleeping to take your 1/7 billionth of Earth. In exchange for that safety, you have given up any equal claims on Earth you may believe you are entitled to. Now run along to the next protest little hippy hippyland?... little hippy? Really? in any case, it's unclear who you're directly your reply to... if to myself, I'm presenting a broad open request for a translation of your post. Quote
jacee Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) .Translation: CPC guy says he'll stick a knife in the neck of anyone who protests the pipeline. It's quite clear really. That's just his usual sense of humour ... I think. Of course if protesters start dropping like flies ... Well, you heard it here first, right from the horse's hind. And as for Harper's hissy fit via Oliver puppet ... ppphhhtttt! He just figured out that he may not win this one. He has no strategy except dictating - yelling and calling people names. Too bad so sad, it's all goin' bad for him. Maybe he should have just worked for the US oil companies directly, instead of pulling this 'leader of a democracy' charade, sucking money out of taxpayers to fund his personal oil lobby aka PMO. Edited January 10, 2012 by jacee Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 hippyland?... little hippy? Really? in any case, it's unclear who you're directly your reply to... if to myself, I'm presenting a broad open request for a translation of your post. Did you say what I paraphrased in my first sentence? Nope. It is not directed to you, but to the OP clearly. Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Translation: CPC guy says he'll stick a knife in the neck of anyone who protests the pipeline. It's quite clear really. That's just his sense of humour ... I think. Of course if protesters start dropping like flies ... Nope I'm saying that Eyeball doesn't have a claim to the planet that is stronger than a Canadian's claim to their country as he claims he does. In Hippyland (aka the fantasy world of hippies), everyone who is born gets equal rights to our planet. In reality, rights to our planet are given to our governments in exchange for safety, the governments sell these rights to the highest bidder. A world in which everyone has the same claim on the planet would be a world in which this social contract with our governments did not exist. In other words, a world in which people could kill each other to take their share of the planet without government intervention. Pretty simple stuff really. I would think arts grads/students would have learned this by now. Edited January 10, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
waldo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 In Hippyland (aka the fantasy world of hippies)I would think arts grads/students would have learned this by now. do you interpret your posts as more forceful, more meaningful... when you continue to pepper them with liberal denigrating doses of "Hippyland, hippies and arts grads/students"? In reality, rights to our planet are given to our governments in exchange for safety, the governments sell these rights to the highest bidder. A world in which everyone has the same claim on the planet would be a world in which this social contract with our governments did not exist. as this is the forum for ethical issues, does your stated social contract allow provision for the government to influence the 'bid process' prior to 'the sale'? here we have the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, the guy who eventually signs off on the National Energy Board's (NEB) review/recommendation, continually coming out publicly to support the project before the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's environmental review process is complete... ethics be damned! Quote
cybercoma Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Typical Conservative rhetoric. When you're losing based on facts, just mischaracterize the opposition and villify them. You're concerned about oil polluting the watershed? People need jobs you f'ing radical! Edited January 10, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
jacee Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Nope I'm saying that Eyeball doesn't have a claim to the planet that is stronger than a Canadian's claim to their country as he claims he does. In Hippyland (aka the fantasy world of hippies), everyone who is born gets equal rights to our planet. In reality, rights to our planet are given to our governments in exchange for safety, the governments sell these rights to the highest bidder. A world in which everyone has the same claim on the planet would be a world in which this social contract with our governments did not exist. In other words, a world in which people could kill each other to take their share of the planet without government intervention. Pretty simple stuff really. I would think arts grads/students would have learned this by now. Nothing was "given", only placed in trust for us, a trust that can be revoked. Nobody gave away their right to existence, currently threatened by industrial environmental devastation. You misinterpret or underestimate the power of democracy in the hands of the people. 'Just sit quietly while we destroy your habitat.' Yeah, there's wisdom for ya! Not the kind of 'wisdom' we pay our representatives for though. Tell ya what ... You just sit quietly while we protest. K? What's to get all upset about? A bunch of artsie hippies gotcha scared? Edited January 10, 2012 by jacee Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 You're concerned about oil polluting the watershed? Damn straight I am. The Canadian Navy should be blockading the port of Montreal and the giant Irving refineries in New brunswick. Every day huge tankers from Venezuela and the Middle East go there with filthy crude oil that could wipe out coastlines and baby seals for generations. Greenpeace should be sabotaging the giant pipeline between Montreal and Sarnia that threatens all of Ontario with ecological Armageddon. I know that environmentalists organizations have these abominations high on their target lists for protests. Could you spare a few dollars to save the East Coast? Quote The government should do something.
Guest Manny Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 do you interpret your posts as more forceful, more meaningful... when you continue to pepper them with liberal denigrating doses of "Hippyland, hippies and arts grads/students"? No doubt he seeks to portray himself as a jar-headed troll, in contrast to hippies and art students. Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Nope I'm saying that Eyeball doesn't have a claim to the planet that is stronger than a Canadian's claim to their country as he claims he does. But Canadians have the right to due process, and real science. As in, proper environmental impact assessments. Not to hug a tree but to protect our resource investments. You know, for the sake of the FUTURE. Ever think about the future? In Hippyland (aka the fantasy world of hippies)... This is where we ignore the meaningless rhetoric. You may have a point but it's hard to figure out if couched in such diatribe. What do you mean, beyond the idea that people who care about environment are tree hugging art students, and should be thankful they're not shot in the neck in the middle of the night? Anything more substantial? Edited January 10, 2012 by Manny Quote
guyser Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver paints environmentalists and native groups as unpatriotic radicals Heres a rule that works, the one who characterizes the other as 'unpatriotic' is always the one who is unpatriotic . Quote
Shady Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Actually, in this case he's absolutely right. It may not be unpatriotic, but it's borderline. These environmentalist extremists participate in the regression of Canada. They seek a weaker Canada. Especially economically. What I find hilarious, and ironic, is these are the same people that pretend to be in favour of the so-called 99%, and bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs. All the while, killing said manufacturing jobs, and making the lives of the 99% more difficult and less prosperous. I think it must be some type of mental condition. Quote
guyser Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Actually, in this case he's absolutely right. Complete nonsense. One who opposes business or oil pipelines for the environment is only advocating for what they believe . In the end (if they were to get thier way) the result is a cleaner Canada. Edited January 10, 2012 by guyser Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 What I find hilarious, and ironic, is these are the same people that pretend to be in favour of the so-called 99%, and bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs. All the while, killing said manufacturing jobs, and making the lives of the 99% more difficult and less prosperous. I think it must be some type of mental condition. You are right that this is the conflict we're in. But it's not hard to understand when you consider, people want an ethical economy, not just stealing from Peter to give to Paul. That's part of the reason we're in this mess today. Too much gimme gimme gimme, not enough forethought and planning. Quote
waldo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 What I find hilarious, and ironic... hilaronic! the ongoing Oliver comments... and Harper's latest shots... are in direct challenge to the independence of the supporting environmental process and the NEB board... and consequently can be seen as attempting to influence the NEB governing regulatory framework and, ultimately, the rule of law reflected within the NEB act. is this any different from the government attempting to intercede in an active court case? these Harper Conservative declarations, at minimum, are disrespectful to the supporting review process... and ultimately may be viewed as tainting the resulting NEB ruling - the process loses its integrity, its credibility. Is this the course of action a government should be taking if it truly desires the NEB hearing results to be accepted by... all... Canadians? Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 these Harper Conservative declarations, at minimum, are disrespectful to the supporting review process... and ultimately may be viewed as tainting the resulting NEB ruling - the process loses its integrity, its credibility. Is this the course of action a government should be taking if it truly desires the NEB hearing results to be accepted by... all... Canadians? is this intended as comedy?There is no decision possible that will be accepted by all Canadians. The NEB loses integrity and credibility when it takes nine years to cme to a decision. By that time, the decision is more or less pointless anyway, since at least one of the three parts of the NEB mandate will be terminally warped by the time 'required'. For early opponents of any project requiring NEB review, this unlimited time frame works perfectly. The Mackenzie Valley fiasco is an example. The NEB has three angles on projects: environmental impact, economic impact and is the project in the best interests of Canada. None of thoise questions should take nine years, two should be sufficient and apparently will be in this project. Quote The government should do something.
waldo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 is this intended as comedy?There is no decision possible that will be accepted by all Canadians. is your wholehearted acceptance of Harper Conservatives attempting to interfere and influence the ongoing process of an independent government agency... comedic relief? Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 is your wholehearted acceptance of Harper Conservatives attempting to interfere and influence the ongoing process of an independent government agency... comedic relief? I apologize for giving the impression I was laughing at you, when I was just laughing near you. Actually, I do see the role of govt as being involved in difficult decisions. In this case, their interference has been to set a reasonable time limit on how long the NEB has to do its work. They did so for two reasons: 1) they see the dependence of Canada on a single export market(USA) for a commodity that is crucial to the financial health of the country and 2) the track record in regard to time frames for regulatory reviews is that they take an inordinate amount of time. I see nothing wrong at all with the Canadian Government telling one of its agencies to put this project on the front burner and keep it there until complete. The decsion to proceed or not proceed is made by Cabinet in any case. The NEB- like all govt agencies with the exception of the courts- exist in an advisory capacity. Is that news to you? Is it disturbing? Quote The government should do something.
waldo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 I apologize for giving the impression I was laughing at you, when I was just laughing near you. Actually, I do see the role of govt as being involved in difficult decisions. In this case, their interference has been to set a reasonable time limit on how long the NEB has to do its work. They did so for two reasons: 1) they see the dependence of Canada on a single export market(USA) for a commodity that is crucial to the financial health of the country and 2) the track record in regard to time frames for regulatory reviews is that they take an inordinate amount of time. I see nothing wrong at all with the Canadian Government telling one of its agencies to put this project on the front burner and keep it there until complete. The decsion to proceed or not proceed is made by Cabinet in any case. The NEB- like all govt agencies with the exception of the courts- exist in an advisory capacity. Is that news to you? Is it disturbing? government advocating for approval of the project before/while the process is in motion goes well beyond your narrowed 'process improvement' threshold. Yes, quite clearly, quite obviously, Cabinet will make the final decision. However, if that Cabinet decision is seen to be aided/supported by a process subjugated by the government (most notably by it's cabinet ministers), the merit of that decision must... and will be weighed accordingly. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Oliver can kiss my hair everything too. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.