overthere Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Saying waldo would rather a 20 year review is a strawman. as is waldo saying we are now at the other extreme from 20 years, which is no review, and is obviously not the case. Everybody had their turn at the microphone and then some. See above. A couple of years should be plenty for an established technology. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Shady 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? Yes, a bigoted, prejudicial low-brow perspective based on strawmen of his own making. Yep. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) How is he prejudice if he watched it first before judging it? Edited January 16, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
TimG 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.True - waldo wants all pipelines stopped and the oil industry shut down. A 20 year review is not something he would support. A 1 year review followed by rejection of all proposals would satisfy him. Given the fact that environmental groups simply want to block the pipelines and have no interest in an review process that ends in approval I don't see the point it dragging the process to satisfy people who will never be satisfied. Or do you really want to argue that the people asking for longer reviews would actually accept a pipeline after said review? As people have mentioned - pipelines are well established technology and there is no excuse for reviews taking as long as they already do. Edited January 16, 2014 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 on simply one front: Harper Conservatives have changed the rules to allow Cabinet to overrule the findings of any NEB assessment/review? What kind of a stacked deck review process is that? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 17, 2014 Report Posted January 17, 2014 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. What I find works well is I just put the actual bigots (you know who I mean) on my ignore list. Quote
jacee Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Posted January 17, 2014 What I find works well is I just put the actual bigots (you know who I mean) on my ignore list. That ... and staying on topic helps too. Quote
jacee Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Posted January 17, 2014 Given the fact that environmental groups simply want to block the pipelines and have no interest in an review process that ends in approval I don't see the point it dragging the process to satisfy people who will never be satisfied. Or do you really want to argue that the people asking for longer reviews would actually accept a pipeline after said review? Would the people wanting short reviews accept a 'no pipeline' decision?As people have mentioned - pipelines are well established technology and there is no excuse for reviews taking as long as they already do.Well established LEAKING technology! People don't trust the sales pitch anymore . Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 17, 2014 Report Posted January 17, 2014 I just really enjoy kicking the crap outta bigots.I guess when you're exposed for not knowing what a strawman is, the best thing to do is pretend you didn't make a fool of yourself and say you kicked butt. It's sort of a junior high tactic, but it might convince the cheerleaders. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Argus Posted January 17, 2014 Report Posted January 17, 2014 Would the people wanting short reviews accept a 'no pipeline' decision? Well established LEAKING technology! People don't trust the sales pitch anymore . As with all things, there needs to be a prioritizing of needs. Canada NEEDS to get oil to market. That's a given. Regardless of the cries of 'green energy' the near and mid-term future require us to use fossil fuels to power both our cars and our economy. So we can either move it by pipeline or move it by rail. Both present dangers, but I believe it's fairly obvious rail is the more dangerous. So really, the only question about pipelines is where to put them and how to ensure, to the best of our ability, that threats to the environment are minimized. Pipeline discussions should focus on these subjects. 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 17, 2014 Report Posted January 17, 2014 I guess when you're exposed for not knowing what a strawman is, the best thing to do is pretend you didn't make a fool of yourself and say you kicked butt. It's sort of a junior high tactic, but it might convince the cheerleaders. Shady has cheerleaders? 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
TimG Posted January 17, 2014 Report Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) Would the people wanting short reviews accept a 'no pipeline' decision?Well since there is absolutely no rational reason to oppose pipeline development it is highly unlikely that a fair review process would make such a decision. But you are implicitly confirming that there is no point dragging the process out because the people opposed pipelines are not going to change their mind because of a longer process. It is simply a delaying tactic that should be rejected. Well established LEAKING technology!Pipe's leak. They get fixed and cleaned up. Get over it. That is not a reason to block a pipeline. Edited January 17, 2014 by TimG Quote
PIK Posted January 17, 2014 Report Posted January 17, 2014 Well since there is absolutely no rational reason to oppose pipeline development it is highly unlikely that a fair review process would make such a decision. But you are implicitly confirming that there is no point dragging the process out because the people opposed pipelines are not going to change their mind because of a longer process. It is simply a delaying tactic that should be rejected. Pipe's leak. They get fixed and cleaned up. Get over it. That is not a reason to block a pipeline. How many people lost their lives over a leak, compared to how many due to rerailments. I was hoping by now the people of this country would have figured out by now the misinformation campaign that has been waged by out side influences. And I wonder how much of this outside money is coming from oil producing nations, to try and shut the oil sands down. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) ..... And I wonder how much of this outside money is coming from oil producing nations, to try and shut the oil sands down. Not buying that one bit...Canada had decades to build east-west-coast pipeline infrastructure and refining capacity but did not do so. About 70% of Canada's "oil" production leases are owned by foreign interests. That means it was mostly somebody else spending their capital to develop the resource. There is no shortage of excuses for why the pipelines haven't or won't be built. Edited January 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jacee Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Posted January 18, 2014 I've been wondering how the west would receive Neil. I'll bet he's still sold out ... neil-youngs-oil-sands-rants-get-dose-of-reality-from-western-canada/? Quote
Guest Posted January 18, 2014 Report Posted January 18, 2014 I'd go see him. I don't have to agree with his views to enjoy "Like A Hurricane" live one more time. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 18, 2014 Report Posted January 18, 2014 In a Calgary Sun poll, readers back Neil Young by almost a 2-1 margin. Take that, Oil barons! Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
jacee Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) In a Calgary Sun poll, readers back Neil Young by almost a 2-1 margin. Take that, Oil barons!That is VERY interesting! It appears that some defenders of the tar sands don't know what they're talking about. Rex Murphy, for example: http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2501131 As is blatantly obvious, there are hundreds and hundreds of other projects, in other parts of the world, equal or vastly larger in scope, Um ... NO Rex: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands The Athabasca deposit is the largest known reservoir of crude bitumen in the world Edited January 18, 2014 by jacee Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 18, 2014 Report Posted January 18, 2014 I've been wondering how the west would receive Neil. I'll bet he's still sold out ... neil-youngs-oil-sands-rants-get-dose-of-reality-from-western-canada/? It's not hard to find 15-20,000 people who don't know or care about his oil sands comments. Quote
jacee Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) It's not hard to find 15-20,000 people who don't know or care about his oil sands comments.Really?You think they don't know they're buying tickets for his "HONOUR THE TREATIES" tour? Edited January 18, 2014 by jacee Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 18, 2014 Report Posted January 18, 2014 Really? You think they don't know they're buying tickets for his "HONOUR THE TREATIES" tour? I'm sure some of them are buying tickets for that reason. The vast majority are fans of Neil Young and would go see him regardless of what he's chirping about Quote
jacee Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Posted January 18, 2014 I'm sure some of them are buying tickets for that reason. The vast majority are fans of Neil Young and would go see him regardless of what he's chirping aboutApparently you're right ... or there's a lot more people in Alberta opposed to the tar sands than some want to believe!/neil-youngs-honour-the-treaties-concert-in-calgary-now-sold-out/ . Quote
Argus Posted January 18, 2014 Report Posted January 18, 2014 Apparently you're right ... or there's a lot more people in Alberta opposed to the tar sands than some want to believe! /neil-youngs-honour-the-treaties-concert-in-calgary-now-sold-out/ . What does it matter? Nothing is going to stop oil sands development. Nothing is going to stop oil shipments. 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
Accountability Now Posted January 18, 2014 Report Posted January 18, 2014 Apparently you're right ... or there's a lot more people in Alberta opposed to the tar sands than some want to believe! /neil-youngs-honour-the-treaties-concert-in-calgary-now-sold-out/ . Not caring about the oil sands is not the same thing as opposing them. Quote
overthere Posted January 18, 2014 Report Posted January 18, 2014 There is no shortage of excuses for why the pipelines haven't or won't be built. The reason FOR building pipelines, extraction plants, refineries, upgraders, rail cars etc etc is singular and simple. Profits. Big pipelines weren't built before now because the existing lines served their markets. The oilsands plants increased the supply to meet increased demand. The pipelines are required to match up supply and demand. There's no magic or mystery. Corporations own the oil(once its out of the ground), the pipelines and all the equipment on both ends. If the deal is right, it all gets built and the corporate investment money flows. If the political climate is such that there is major delay, the money goes somewhere else in the world, because money is like rust- it never sleeps( Neil Young reference there.....). Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.