Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Is that what your online sources tell you? Just a personal judgement, having watched the cupie dolls long enough to determine there's nothing much more than air in their heads. Their stuff is designed to anger and outrage people with a similar level of intellectual development. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 The Tories believe whatever their masters in big business tell them to believe. What would their motivation be given big business can no longer shower them with money? Just cuz? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Of course, I didn't say there were no rules though. Just that we're moving that way. I have no doubt in my mind those pipes will be built eventually and in the not so distant future. Frankly, while I think there ought to be rules and regulations, very stringent ones, and that a pipeline company, or oil company should be entirely responsible for repairing any environmental damage they cause, it should not take years of study and hearings before these things get approved or not. I'm all for speeding things up. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Yes he's clarified that he meant the tar sands, not the town. Though the air in town smelled like "fuel" and burned his eyes and throat ... coming from operations 25+ miles away. I think his judgement was unduly harsh, based on what the people of the area say. Industrial towns tend to smell like industrial towns, and oil towns often have a certain aroma, whether they're in Alberta or Texas or, dare I say it, California. Of course, multi-millionaire rock stars don't buy their homes in such areas. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 You have any idea how much human life on this planet relies on air, soil, water and fragile ecosystems? For how long would setting your house on fire be a viable way of keeping your family warm? . I'm not too worried about the earth's health, and my house has insurance. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
overthere Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Those images would be more impactful if it was a lush forrest before. From what I gather not a lot of Alberta is forrest. ?? Most of Alberta is forest, but the area around FM was never a lush forest. I would describe 'lush forest' in Canada as something that supports lots of wildlife or has a viable logging industry. There are patches of trees in river valleys that are bigger, but the lack of moisture and thin acidic soil. People tried to homestead the Clearwater Valley in the 1930s but that venture was a flop. The farmland ends far south of FM. Farms end more or less around Lac La Biche and the forest all the way north to where the Canadian Shield starts and it gets even thinner there. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Accountability Now Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 This may be true for Albertans, but not true for the rest of Canada and the world. Paying 10% of Alberta's revenue is not worth the many negatives of the dirtiest oil around. There are of course federal corprate taxes from the businesses and individual income taxes that directly or indirectly earn their money in the oil sands. And of course if the East West line goes then we'll see the oil sands creating even more jobs in the East. But that doesn't count right? Or how about this little ditty from the study that your buddy waldo just posted from the STIC. In general, labour productivity levels and their growth in Canada vary significantly among industries. Figure 2-4 shows that the 2010 labour productivity level in the oil and gas extraction industry was about eight times higher than that of the overall business sector, and the utilities industry was more than three times higher than that of the overall business sector. http://www.stic-csti.ca/eic/site/stic-csti.nsf/vwapj/StateOfTheNation2012-may16-eng.pdf/$file/StateOfTheNation2012-may16-eng.pdf Eight times higher. that over all business. The next closest is Utilities which is only three times higher. If that isn't enough to convince you then perhaps this article titled: Alberta Oilsands: A Driving Force Behind Canada's Economy For Next http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/16/alberta-oilsands-a-driving-force-behind-canadas-economy_n_2146612.html Canadians need to get with the program and realize how vital Alberta's oilsands are to the economy, says a new report. Deloitte Canada's report, Gaining Ground in the Sands 2013, says the oilsands are crucial to Canada's prosperity and will drive the country's economy for the next 25 to 30 years. The report also calls for more national collaboration, more pipelines and dialogue that avoids "a climate of antagonism." Quote
overthere Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 There are of course federal corprate taxes from the businesses and individual income taxes that directly or indirectly earn their money in the oil sands. And of course if the East West line goes then we'll see the oil sands creating even more jobs in the East. But that doesn't count right? Or how about this little ditty from the study that your buddy waldo just posted from the STIC. Let's not forget the $10 biliion per year every year that goes in equalization payments from Alberta to other provinces, mostly Quebec. When the energy related jobs drop, so does that indirect money related from equalization as employment dies in Alberta. The only reason Albertans pay that money is because their incomes are on average higher than 'have not' provinces. When that equation changes, when the jobs die in AB, everybody in Canada will be affected and not in a positive way. Many jobs related directly to the energy sector are found outside Alberta too. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Frankly, while I think there ought to be rules and regulations, very stringent ones, and that a pipeline company, or oil company should be entirely responsible for repairing any environmental damage they cause, it should not take years of study and hearings before these things get approved or not. I'm all for speeding things up.And I agree with you. Quote
overthere Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 And I agree with you. The endless and now pointless Mackenzie Valley pipeline review process is an example of how not to do it. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Keep in mind, just because the process is flawed, doesn't mean there should be no review in place. There's a reason we began legislating environmental assessments. Quote
overthere Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Keep in mind, just because the process is flawed, doesn't mean there should be no review in place. There's a reason we began legislating environmental assessments. The Mackenzie Valley debacle was directly related to this government making NEB and other reviews take place within reasonable time frames. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
waldo Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 The Mackenzie Valley debacle was directly related to this government making NEB and other reviews take place within reasonable time frames. so... one extreme to the other, hey? Quote
waldo Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Frankly, while I think there ought to be rules and regulations, very stringent ones, and that a pipeline company, or oil company should be entirely responsible for repairing any environmental damage they cause then why are pipeline companies unwillinging to accept full liability risk & related cost assessments to better ensure against possible damages & impacts... to better ensure that the taxpayer is not on the hook for possible damages & impacts? Having industry/companies put up miniscule monies and having them subject to miniscule penalties, is not the starting point! Quote
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 then why are pipeline companies unwillinging to accept full liability risk & related cost assessments to better ensure against possible damages & impacts... to better ensure that the taxpayer is not on the hook for possible damages & impacts? Having industry/companies put up miniscule monies and having them subject to miniscule penalties, is not the starting point! Uhm, for the same reason the car companies try and blackmail the government out of tens or even hundreds of millions in order to build a plant they already want to build. Because if they can get money from the government, or if companies CAN push their responsibilities onto government, they'll certainly do so. The trick is not to let them. Require that they make good any damage they do. Clear and simple. No limits. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Shady Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Just a personal judgement, having watched the cupie dolls long enough to determine there's nothing much more than air in their heads.Their stuff is designed to anger and outrage people with a similar level of intellectual development. But you don't watch it. Anyways, try watching George Will when he's on, or reading his columns. Careful though, he's highly intellectual, you may have trouble understanding him if you're still consumed by your stereotypes. Quote
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) d Edited January 16, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 But you don't watch it. Anyways, try watching George Will when he's on, or reading his columns. Careful though, he's highly intellectual, you may have trouble understanding him if you're still consumed by your stereotypes. thread drift! You're welcome. Quote
Shady Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 dWell said! Lol.#intellectualDevelopment. Quote
Shady Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 thread drift! You're welcome. You're right, I apologize. I just really enjoy kicking the crap outta bigots. Quote
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) You're right, I apologize. I just really enjoy kicking the crap outta bigots. Bigots? You mean people who judge the content of a television network poorly are bigots now? is this some new, radical form of obnoxious tea party rhetoric? Hey, look! He has judgement! He's a bigot! How dare he judge something!! I bet he even reads books! So I suppose that makes you and your ilk people who lack judgement? Which, on the whole, isn't at odds with observable data. As for 'kicking the crap' out of anyone... I can't honestly remember that ever happening. I don't just mean against me, but against anyone. You really are an exceptionally poor debater who tends to resort to childish insults and priggish indignation fairly early on in any discussion. Edited January 16, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bleeding heart Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Shady, I think you have been misinformed of what a "troll" is...but ok....but now you're resorting to labeling Argus a "bigot" because of his perspective on....FOX news? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
BubberMiley Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 ...but now you're resorting to labeling Argus a "bigot" because of his perspective on....FOX news?It's a classic sign of having lost an argument, or of having no argument to start with. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
overthere Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 so... one extreme to the other, hey? I get it, you'd like to have a review process that takes 20 years. Then there are the appeals and lawsuits to follow. Building a pipeline is not rocket science, they've been in the ground and running throughout BC for over 60 years and counting.. There are 25000 km of pipeines in BC and over 100000 in AB. Approve it, deny it, but get on with it. A 20 year process is exactly the same as a denial without review. Which you well know. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) As has already been mentioned, there is a position between taking 20 years for a review and not doing a review at all. Saying waldo would rather a 20 year review is a strawman. Edited January 16, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
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.