Mulcair blames Harper for East-West divisions

[Rick]

Pardon me for a few moments while I catch my breath thru my mouth & go scan a few pics of kiddyporn while I do the breathing thing.

There are some things, not many I grant you, that should never be said even if done in jest.

Your statement, which I'm sure was done in jest (or at least I hope it was) is one of them.

That's just plain wrong on so many levels...and has no place here.

[Argus]

That seems to be exactly what he wants to do, what with his radical idea of companies cleaning up after themselves.

Do you really think that's all Mulcair wants to do about the oil sands? Remember, his party hates the oil sands so much they flew to Washington to beg them not to allow the keystone pipeline to go through. And he's very openly pitting east against west, blaming the oil sands for the economic mess in central Canada.

One of his own people has said that Mulciar's policies would put some of the oilsands out of operation.

Like Mulcair, Byers argues that Ottawa should eliminate federal subsidies for the oilpatch, fully enforce federal regulations like the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act, and implement a cap-and-trade system.

"At the current price of oil . . . it's difficult to see a lot of this production making sense right now" under such a scenario, Byers said in an interview.

Mulcair's oil sands crackdown would put companies out of business

Edited June 4, 2012 by Argus

[jacee]

you sir... are a tarsands adversary!

you sir... are a radical undermining Canada!

you sir... are an enemy of Canada!

Warning!

The following news may offend some who think Harper is sincere about his "radical" enemies" with foreign funding ...

Hypocrisy alert!

HARPER CONSORTS WITH FOREIGN FUNDED RADICALS!

OTTAWA — While the Conservatives accuse some Canadian environmental groups of using foreign money to attack domestic interests, the government's new hunting and fishing advisory panel includes organizations influenced and funded by sources outside Canada.

A handful of the organizations on the government's new committee also are current or past recipients of funding from Tides Canada, a charitable agency that supports environmental and social causes — but which has been attacked by Conservative parliamentarians for accepting foreign donations and distributing it to groups lobbying against Canadian interests.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced this week his government is creating a hunting and fishing advisory panel that will

help craft government policy on environmental protection and wildlife management.

[jacee]

Do you really think that's all Mulcair wants to do about the oil sands? Remember, his party hates the oil sands so much they flew to Washington to beg them not to allow the keystone pipeline to go through. And he's very openly pitting east against west, blaming the oil sands for the economic mess in central Canada.

One of his own people has said that Mulciar's policies would put some of the oilsands out of operation.

Like Mulcair, Byers argues that Ottawa should eliminate federal subsidies for the oilpatch, fully enforce federal regulations like the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act, and implement a cap-and-trade system.

"At the current price of oil . . . it's difficult to see a lot of this production making sense right now" under such a scenario, Byers said in an interview.

Mulcair's oil sands crackdown would put companies out of business

I should think it's obvious that a slowdown in oil sands development is needed, and no doubt some companies wwithout solid footing will founder, but they may have anyway.

The pipeline 'delays' give some time for rethinking, rebalancing to minimize environmental and economic strain from the oil sands.

Some more food for thought:

Canada cruising for a major oil spill crisis in the Arctic, academic warns

It appears that the main problem with oil sands development is not Mulcair.

Edited June 5, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

Or the finance minister that slags Ontario.

A finance minister FROM Ontario who criticizes the current government of Ontario.

[TimG]

And I'm surprised that Harper's defenders--since they are self-evidently folks of high principle--have not taken Harper on for these comments, with which only mouth-breathers and moral cowards could conceivably agree.

These are inflammatory words that indicate an disagreement with people who have particular ideologies. They are not words that seek to divide people based on their region.

Muclair with his 'alberta oil costs ontario jobs' rhetoric is seeking to divide the country against itself.

Edited June 4, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Do you really think that's all Mulcair wants to do about the oil sands? Remember, his party hates the oil sands so much they flew to Washington to beg them not to allow the keystone pipeline to go through. And he's very openly pitting east against west, blaming the oil sands for the economic mess in central Canada.

That's quite the mischaracterization of things. There was plenty of opposition to the Keystone pipeline for numerous reasons and the mess in Central Canada is being blamed on the high dollar. It's not just Mulcair that has said this, but it is common knowledge to anyone that has had any ties to the automotive industry in SW ON.

One of his own people has said that Mulciar's policies would put some of the oilsands out of operation.

I don't see that in the quote/article you provided. Regardless, if cleaning up after themselves and not accepting government handouts will put the oilsands out of business, then they don't have a very good business model, do they?

[Topaz]

These are inflammatory words that indicate an disagreement with people who have particular ideologies. They are not words that seek to divide people based on their region.

Muclair with his 'alberta oil costs ontario jobs' rhetoric is seeking to divide the country against itself.

There was one srticle that said there's some truth to it and another that said there wasn't. What is keeping our $$$ high? lets just see who keeps this rehtoric going, if its not true, its not true and not worth talking about it, but the environment is.

[Argus]

That's quite the mischaracterization of things. There was plenty of opposition to the Keystone pipeline for numerous reasons

Not from Canadians.

and the mess in Central Canada is being blamed on the high dollar. It's not just Mulcair that has said this

Yes, it's other NDP types, as well as those trying to make excuses for the incompetence of the Ontario and Quebec governments.

The high dollar has many sources, most especially the American economy lowering their dollar (likewise Europe)

I don't see that in the quote/article you provided. Regardless, if cleaning up after themselves and not accepting government handouts will put the oilsands out of business, then they don't have a very good business model, do they?

I suppose its hard to see when you don't bother to read the article, and when, like Mulcair, you're okay with destroying industries in the name of extreme environmentalism, regardless of how many tens of thousands of jobs that costs.

[Argus]

There was one srticle that said there's some truth to it and another that said there wasn't. What is keeping our $$$ high? lets just see who keeps this rehtoric going, if its not true, its not true and not worth talking about it, but the environment is.

Gee, the fact the Americans and European economies are in the toilet, maybe? The fact that the Chinese have deliberately kept their currency low, and that the Americans have decided to emulate them? You think, maybe?

[cybercoma]

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you engage in hyperbole. Calling corporate accountability "extreme environmentalism" does nothing for your argument.

[Fletch 27]

Ummmmmmm you may have forgotten the challenges of the EU and US to this exact account! Again, research, it shall save ur soul... And sanity...

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you engage in hyperbole. Calling corporate accountability "extreme environmentalism" does nothing for your argument.

[jacee]

Cybercoma said ...

Regardless, if cleaning up after themselves and not accepting government handouts will put the oilsands out of business, then they don't have a very good business model, do they

... when, like Mulcair, you're okay with destroying industries in the name of extreme environmentalism,...

Operating without taxpayer handouts and cleaning up after themselves is "extreme environmentalism"?

As I see it, those are basic civic responsibilities.

If private sector oil sands development can't post a profit sustainably and independently, then it needs rethinking.

Edited June 5, 2012 by jacee

[Tilter]

There are some things, not many I grant you, that should never be said even if done in jest.

Your statement, which I'm sure was done in jest (or at least I hope it was) is one of them.

That's just plain wrong on so many levels...and has no place here.

Well, he did call the "Righ" mouthbreathers & "moral cowards" (whatever the hell that would be) so I had to act the part for him.

Has it ever occurred to the lefties that they call the right "THE RIGHT" not the wrong? Also--- left is self explanatory--- as in left in the dust

Yes, the KP thing was very much in jest, and I erred.

[Tilter]

What was that, ten or fifteen years ago?

Mulcair seems to want to build a wall around Alberta TODAY, only to lock them and their oil in.

That would never do for the Quebeckers--- they couldn't get their welfare checks over the wall. :lol: r

Edited June 5, 2012 by Tilter

[Fletch 27]

How foul... I suggest in the future you use the term "dolphin porn" or "whale porn".... The left will be left wondering weather to hate you or love you.... And they will not understand why...... "let the dolphins protest" !!!!

Well, he did call the "Righ" mouthbreathers & "moral cowards" (whatever the hell that would be) so I had to act the part for him.

Has it ever occurred to the lefties that they call the right "THE RIGHT" not the wrong? Also--- left is self explanatory--- as in left in the dust

Yes, the KP thing was very much in jest, and I erred.

[waldo]

Pardon me for a few moments while I catch my breath thru my mouth & go scan a few pics of kiddyporn while I do the breathing thing.

How foul... I suggest in the future you use the term "dolphin porn" or "whale porn".... The left will be left wondering weather to hate you or love you.... And they will not understand why...... "let the dolphins protest" !!!!

you either stand with the Harper Conservative government... or you stand with the dolphin/whale calf pornographers!!!

[bleeding heart]

It's a well known fact that Harper ( the lowlife) has from years has fomented resentment between the eastern provinces & the west-- as a matter of fact he is even the cause of rivalry between Edmonton & Calgary and many have been known to say that the resentment between Brampton & Bramalea is a Harperist plot to divide the left/right vote in the area, forcing everyone there to vote for the Christian Democrat Party. Fortunately, he is not persuasive enuf a person to cause a complete split & so the CDP candidate wasn't elected.

It is also known that he has been lobbying for an east west split since 1932, many years before he was born--- that's how disgusting he is.

Your caricature is misplaced. I pointed out that calling those who disagree with energy policy "terrorists" and enemies of Canada and so on is, intrinsically and intentionally, extremely divisive; and also flat out false.

I also pointed out what everyone intuitively must know: that those who agree with Harper on these points is a shivering little sycophant. That's all. That's not even a controversial opinion. Anyone not a partisan sycophant would immediately agree with it.

And since you're intelligent, and presumably not a servile little moral and intellectual weakling, I take it as a given that you do agree, and misread my post, either through your own haste or through some lack of clarification on my part. If your misunderstanding was due to the latter explanation, then my apologies.

There's no conspiracy, Tilter (the bizarre implication of your caricature), and none was even suggested.

Why don't all you Harper haters find something real to bitch about?

I don't hate anyone.

The man is running the country in a manner respected by a lot of heads of state

What was I saying about sycophancy, about servility to power?

and doing it thru tough times.

Cue violins playing a remorseful dirge.

[Tilter]

What was I saying about sycophancy, about servility to power?

If that means you can't remember what you said, you suffer a severe amount of short term memory loss. You just posted it.

You were the one who said it---- How can anyone else explain your remarks to you?

Edited June 5, 2012 by Tilter

[eyeball]

Why don't all you Harper haters find something real to bitch about?

Harper's so-called budget bill will gut the Fisheries Act of it's ability to protect salmon habitat to make it easier to blaze Alberta's tar pipe through 600 fish bearing creeks and rivers. This man and what he is doing personifies just about everything that's wrong with both our governing and economic systems.

As much as people would like to believe otherwise the economy cannot behave towards our environment like a bull does in a China shop. You can have functional productive ecosystems without an economy but you cannot have it the other way around, not for very long.

How long he can get away with acting the same way in and towards Parliament is anyone's guess, but I expect the sycophants will keep merrily running along side their beloved bull no matter what.

Edited June 5, 2012 by eyeball

[bleeding heart]

If that means you can't remember what you said, you suffer a severe amount of short term memory loss. You just posted it.

You were the one who said it---- How can anyone else explain your remarks to you?

If you prefer masturbation to honest debate, there are other websites more suited to your needs.

[CPCFTW]

If you prefer masturbation to honest debate, there are other websites more suited to your needs.

What exactly did you want to debate? Your uncontroversial opinion that only a shivering little sycophant could argue against? You know, that uncontroversial position that you based on a mischaracterization of Harper's arguments? You'll have to excuse Tilter for not engaging in your idea of "honest debate".

[bleeding heart]

What exactly did you want to debate? Your uncontroversial opinion that only a shivering little sycophant could argue against?

Just so. Govern yourself accordingly.

You know, that uncontroversial position that you based on a mischaracterization of Harper's arguments?

Then explain to me Harper's poor little abused arguments, and explain how I have mischaracterized them.

You'll have to include his actual words in your argument, else someone might think your analysis a little...defensively partisan.

You'll have to excuse Tilter for not engaging in your idea of "honest debate".

Tilter is indulging in a pretence that my words don't mean what they plainly do.

That's by definition a dishonest method of discussion.

And since you have been following this discussion, you are fully aware of this.

So why your pretence, CPCFTW?

[CPCFTW]

Then explain to me Harper's poor little abused arguments, and explain how I have mischaracterized them.

You'll have to include his actual words in your argument, else someone might think your analysis a little...defensively partisan.

Oh gee that is a tough one. Well I suppose I could start by asking you to actually read the links provided by Waldo in the post that has caused this discussion. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of Harper's words in those links, but I did find reference to an affadavit signed by an oilsands critic quoting a PMO official, and a reference to "the feds" comments, and something oliver said.

Sorry, little defensively partisan old me couldn't find any of harpers own words in the links you claim prove that Harper thinks those who disagree with energy policy are terrorists and enemies of the state. I'm on a phone though, so I may have missed it.

[bleeding heart]

Sorry, little defensively partisan old me couldn't find any of harpers own words in the links you claim prove that Harper thinks those who disagree with energy policy are terrorists and enemies of the state. I'm on a phone though, so I may have missed it.

Perhaps the primary matter that you've missed is the irony of a poster called "CPCFTW" mocking the very notion that he might be a wee bit partisan.

The defensiveness goes without saying.

At any rate, the trajectory of this discussion will doubtless shortly head in the same direction you elsewhere like to take them: eventually, you will agree with me....but say that it doesn't matter, because "blacks and women" are priveleged over white males in the left imagination, or whatever other point you'ver plagiarized from this or that reactionary. Or perhaps you'll be inventive enough to ultimately answer with some other non sequiter, which isn't necessarily a terrific improvement. We'll see what happens, I guess.

Edited June 5, 2012 by bleeding heart