Accountability Now Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 "all" is a racist generalization. Maybe if you were more careful with your words you wouldn't look so much like a racist pig. . Ok. Would you prefer it if I said the vast majority instead of all? Quote
jacee Posted January 26, 2014 Author Report Posted January 26, 2014 Ok. Would you prefer it if I said the vast majority instead of all?Say whatever you like. I'm just telling you how not to look like a racist pig. Your choice.Say whatever you can prove by providing appropriate links. . Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 Say whatever you can prove by providing appropriate links. . I proved my point with the article....would you not agree? Quote
jacee Posted January 26, 2014 Author Report Posted January 26, 2014 Not nearly as important as the money! And you can prove that racist statement ... how? . Quote
jacee Posted January 26, 2014 Author Report Posted January 26, 2014 I proved my point with the article....would you not agree?What article? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) And you can prove that racist statement ... how? . Race card...poorly played. Edited January 26, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 And you can prove that racist statement ... how? . How is that a racist statement? Many people and organizations of all races are driven to a large extent by money. Throwing around the word "racist" every post only makes your argument weaker. I'd say it also dilutes the meaning of the term "racist", but that term has already largely lost all meaning since people throw it out every time anyone says something they don't like. Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 And you can prove that racist statement ... how? . Lol! How is that racist? Is that your fall back word? If the environment was more important then money then the project wouldn't go ahead. I don't need to prove reality. But thanks again for the personal attack. Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) What article?The Globe and Mail article stating that Neil Young is NOT against the oil sands. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/neil-young-concludes-anti-oilsands-concert-series-with-show-in-calgary/article16398977/?service=mobile They talked a big environmental game up to this point but now the environment is put on the back burner if they can agree on the money Edited January 26, 2014 by Accountability Now Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 Lol! How is that racist? Is that your fall back word? If the environment was more important then money then the project wouldn't go ahead. I don't need to prove reality. But thanks again for the personal attack. Stating that the money is more important than the environment does not, in my opinion make you a racist, but it does demonstrates a similar level of awareness. Quote
waldo Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 only you... and, of course, Ezrant, would take extreme liberties and extrapolate the interview into a wholesale, broad-sweeping acceptance by Mr. Young of unfettered tarsands expansion. More pointedly, to fabricate a position/statement implying that Mr. Young is "ok with development so long as treaties are honoured". Apparently, Mr. Young can't express a desire for tarsands emission reductions and sustainable development... while at the same time suggesting First Nation treaties must be honoured. Obviously he's not against it as he says so in the article. Also per the article, Allan Adam (chief of Athabasca Chipewyan) is NOT against it.....IF and only IF they get the treaties honored. Of course the Globe and Mail's Kelly Cryderman agrees with me too. Wow...looks like you're wrong and Ezra was right. OUCH!!!! Obviously they care more for the cash than the environment. Now who suggested that sentiment back in post 451. Oh...that was me. And of course who said their Googly prowress couldn't find anything on the original citation....oh...that was the waldingo. This one really hurts hey. Fresh off the STIC loss. as I said, only you (and the Ez) could/would extrapolate and fabricate that position/statement for Mr. Young from the article you keep referencing. Of course, fabrication is your forte! Only in your (and the Ezrant's) mind could/would you extend upon a Mr. Young statement that First Nation treaties must be honoured to imply/state that Mr. Young is for unfettered tarsands expansion. In your desperation, you (and the Ezrant) just want to wish away Young's other comments where he raises his concerns over emissions and the need for managed/sustainable development. and yes, my Googly prowess (certainly over you) remains intact/strong. The best you can do is Ezrant! That G&M article certainly doesn't speak to Mr. Young accepting unfettered tarsands expansion... certainly doesn't state Mr. Young recants his earlier raised concerns over tarsands emissions and managed/sustainable development. That G&M article doesn't state any of that no matter how hard you (and the Ezrant) fabricate! and again, your ever present need/want to project "your wins"! Clearly you validate yourself, your worth, through your anonymous board persona... ever imagining an increasing vanquish count. And, as before, this your latest STIC related nonsense/fabrication was profound. Only in your twisted reality, could you imagine "a win" when I disproved your definitive/absolute claims (a series of them)... only in your imaginary world could you make definitive/absolute claims based on multiple-layers of estimation/projection of GDP, on multiple-layers of estimation/projection/targets/commitments of R&D, versus the final-end actual R&D funding allotments made by government/business. Yes, through all those multiple-layers of estimation, projection, targets, commitments... you have no qualms in fabricating your definitive and absolute claims. Only in your purposeful distraction/deflection would you outright ignore the actual review/performance findings from the STIC (and the Conference Board of Canada... and the World Economic Forum... and a Canada Research Chair)... just because all those organizations/persons are highlighting Canada's (and Harper Conservative's) ever weakening innovation support and standing as compared to other developed countries. And, of course, you imagined your "win" through your multiple "do-overs" given the waldo's prowess in punting your progressively failed claims... and through it all you claimed victory against the backdrop of your plaintive cries of claiming to be deceived by a source and it's data presentation format... you claimed victory while scampering about for do-over data, multiple times... you claimed victory for your fabricated definitive/absolute claims through your whining wail of... 'correlation not causation'! . Quote
waldo Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 Stating that the money is more important than the environment does not, in my opinion make you a racist, but it does demonstrates a similar level of awareness. except what was done was to isolate, in totality, aboriginal peoples... an "all" characterization aimed to falsely project a universal, all encompassing and de-facto First Nation's acceptance of... unfettered and unqualified tarsands expansion. The intent of that "all" characterization, of course, was a purposeful demeaning of First Nation's peoples to state/imply that contracted money received by "some #" of aboriginal companies, overrides and negates, in totality, in perpetuity, all First Nation's environmental concerns. Quite obviously, there are many, many non-aboriginal companies receiving tarsand related monies... I don't read that being highlighted and compared to... I don't read like all-encompassing and broad-sweeping characterization of non-aboriginals being made in that regard. Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 as I said, only you (and the Ez) could/would extrapolate and fabricate that position/statement for Mr. Young from the article you keep referencing. Of course, fabrication is your forte! Only in your (and the Ezrant's) mind could/would you extend upon a Mr. Young statement that First Nation treaties must be honoured to imply/state that Mr. Young is for unfettered tarsands expansion. In your desperation, you (and the Ezrant) just want to wish away Young's other comments where he raises his concerns over emissions and the need for managed/sustainable development. . Yes. You said this before and we're wrong before. Can you say something new and refreshing that actually adds to the thread. I know that you feel absolutely ridiculous for stating that you googled everywhere and couldn't find this AND it took ol' AN about two minutes. That bothers you....I get it. and again, your ever present need/want to project "your wins"! Clearly you validate yourself, your worth, through your anonymous board persona... ever imagining an increasing vanquish count. And, as before, this your latest STIC related nonsense/fabrication was profound. Only in your twisted reality, could you imagine "a win" when I disproved your definitive/absolute claims (a series of them)... only in your imaginary world could you make definitive/absolute claims based on multiple-layers of estimation/projection of GDP, on multiple-layers of estimation/projection/targets/commitments of R&D, versus the final-end actual R&D funding allotments made by government/business. Yes, through all those multiple-layers of estimation, projection, targets, commitments... you have no qualms in fabricating your definitive and absolute claims. Only in your purposeful distraction/deflection would you outright ignore the actual review/performance findings from the STIC (and the Conference Board of Canada... and the World Economic Forum... and a Canada Research Chair)... just because all those organizations/persons are highlighting Canada's (and Harper Conservative's) ever weakening innovation support and standing as compared to other developed countries. And, of course, you imagined your "win" through your multiple "do-overs" given the waldo's prowess in punting your progressively failed claims... and through it all you claimed victory against the backdrop of your plaintive cries of claiming to be deceived by a source and it's data presentation format... you claimed victory while scampering about for do-over data, multiple times... you claimed victory for your fabricated definitive/absolute claims through your whining wail of... 'correlation not causation'! . It's honestly getting too easy with you. I mean first you shoot your mouth off about how the Calgary flood was twice as bad as the worst flood ever and 4x as bad as the 2005 flood. Then the numbers roll in and you couldn't have been more wrong. Next you spout off about the increase in hurricane intensity due to climate change and after showing you countless reasons why you were wrong I found evidence from your go to group (the IPCC) who outright said they have low confidence that global warming has caused any increase in frequency or intensity. This one really hurt you. Then of course my recent STIC lesson where I showed you a correlation over two data sets and your only response was that it wasn't absolute. Lol. That was a beauty. Have you found the definition of correlation yet? Or how about the definition for GERD intensity? And of course now we are here where you bumbled and stumbled around the internet and couldn't find proof that Neil Young is ok with development as long as the treaties were honored. And what do we have? Yet another schooling. It's like other MLW members have said....if this was a boxing match, then ref would have stopped it long ago. Someone pick waldo off the mat already!!! Quote
waldo Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 in keeping with the mods expressed desire to avoid 'thread drift' (aka your ongoing fabrications and purposeful distractions), this is now at least the third time I've suggested you resurrect an appropriate thread in regards extreme weather events; again, specifically: although, for the first time ever, it is certainly a positive step to have you finally link/quote actual IPCC statements, take it to an appropriate thread... make sure to put whatever you want to say/quote in proper context, clearly identifying what you believe I have stated/implied... clearly identifying what you believe your linked IPCC statements offer to counter my statements (or any inferences you have drawn). as much as you want to continue discussing other threads within this one, the STIC innovation related thread is the proper vehicle for you to continue to show your distracting fabrications and fail... for you to continue to avoid any actual discussion of the review/findings/recommendations from the STIC (from the Conference Board of Canada, from the World Economic Forum, from the Canada Research Chair). and to fuel yet another of your purposeful distractions (one you really should take to the appropriate thread), I find it fitting, for you, that your take-away from the 'Alberta floods' related thread, is to obviously ignore all your outright dishonesty/fabrications in that thread, to avoid providing your own interpreted attributions for past floods and that recent flood, for you to ignore all discussion speaking to Arctic/Polar Amplification and jet-stream changes... in favour of continuing to belabor a Mayor Nenshi quote (one he fairly provided in relation to what he was advised of by Calgary city personnel). now... we have 3 examples here of your ongoing and continued purposeful distractions within this thread. Will you take these distractions of yours to appropriate threads, or will you continue to mess with this thread... will you continue to ignore the MLW Board Admin/Mod requests? Which will it be, hey? Quote
waldo Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 Yes. You said this before and we're wrong before. Can you say something new and refreshing that actually adds to the thread. I know that you feel absolutely ridiculous for stating that you googled everywhere and couldn't find this AND it took ol' AN about two minutes. That bothers you....I get it. no - only you (and Ezrant) are fabricating that G&M article... fabricating to now claim that Mr. Young is for unfettered and unqualified tarsands expansion... fabricating to now claim that Mr. Young has recanted his raised concerns over emissions and the need for managed/sustainable development. You and the Ez! does this mean you're going to 'slip-slide away' from your gross over-simplification and the claims you've made concerning all First Nation's peoples? Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 now... we have 3 examples here of your ongoing and continued purposeful distractions within this thread. Will you take these distractions of yours to appropriate threads, or will you continue to mess with this thread... will you continue to ignore the MLW Board Admin/Mod requests? Which will it be, hey? I provided those past examples to show your continued dishonesty and lack of integrity when it comes to posting and not actually facing the facts presented. Those points are even better proven by this most recent lack of acknowledgement of said facts to this exact thread in having Neil Young himself state this is not an anti tar sands concert and that if development occurs then he just wants the treaties honoured. Of course you won't address that fact. Of course you continue to deflect. Of course you have no real response other than your normal go to catch phrases. Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 no - only you (and Ezrant) are fabricating that G&M article... fabricating to now claim that Mr. Young is for unfettered and unqualified tarsands expansion... fabricating to now claim that Mr. Young has recanted his raised concerns over emissions and the need for managed/sustainable development. You and the Ez! does this mean you're going to 'slip-slide away' from your gross over-simplification and the claims you've made concerning all First Nation's peoples? That was already dealt with Jacee above. Can you please try and keep up with the conversation? That is the second time I have ask you to do so. Don't do it for me...but for the integrity of the thread Quote
waldo Posted January 27, 2014 Report Posted January 27, 2014 I provided those past examples to show your continued dishonesty and lack of integrity when it comes to posting and not actually facing the facts presented. those 'past examples' are a testament to your bluster, puffery, imagination, fabrication, dishonesty, your dream world and your outright lies. You've now been challenged multiple times to take your continued distractions to appropriate threads. And yet... you persist in continuing to distract this thread. only you... and, of course, Ezrant, would take extreme liberties and extrapolate the interview into a wholesale, broad-sweeping acceptance by Mr. Young of unfettered tarsands expansion. More pointedly, to fabricate a position/statement implying that Mr. Young is "ok with development so long as treaties are honoured". Apparently, Mr. Young can't express a desire for tarsands emission reductions and sustainable development... while at the same time suggesting First Nation treaties must be honoured. Those points are even better proven by this most recent lack of acknowledgement of said facts to this exact thread in having Neil Young himself state this is not an anti tar sands concert and that if development occurs then he just wants the treaties honoured. Of course you won't address that fact. Of course you continue to deflect. Of course you have no real response other than your normal go to catch phrases. yes, this, your latest fabrication shows exactly what you're about. Provide a Mr. Young quote that has him saying he recants his previous expressed concerns for the need to reduce tarsands emissions... provide a Mr. Young quote that has him saying he recants his previous expressed concerns for the need for responsible/sustainable tarsands development. You can't; of course you can't. So you make shit up. It's what you do... it's what you're about. You... and the Ezrant... 2 peas in the proverbial pod! and, per norm, we have you 'slip-sliding away' from my following post, as quoted below... your latest big-time fail where you apply the broadest of your sweeping brushes to tarnish/demean First Nation's peoples, at large, based on your over-simplification (aka your over-reach) to categorically state that First Nation's peoples don't care about the environment... because 'some number' of aboriginal companies (a number you can't even qualify) have contracted tarsands related work. except what was done was to isolate, in totality, aboriginal peoples... an "all" characterization aimed to falsely project a universal, all encompassing and de-facto First Nation's acceptance of... unfettered and unqualified tarsands expansion. The intent of that "all" characterization, of course, was a purposeful demeaning of First Nation's peoples to state/imply that contracted money received by "some #" of aboriginal companies, overrides and negates, in totality, in perpetuity, all First Nation's environmental concerns. Quite obviously, there are many, many non-aboriginal companies receiving tarsand related monies... I don't read that being highlighted and compared to... I don't read like all-encompassing and broad-sweeping characterization of non-aboriginals being made in that regard. . Quote
waldo Posted January 27, 2014 Report Posted January 27, 2014 That was already dealt with Jacee above. Can you please try and keep up with the conversation? That is the second time I have ask you to do so. Don't do it for me...but for the integrity of the thread dealt with? You pointing to your G&M article fabrication... that's you "dealing with it"? Quote
PIK Posted January 27, 2014 Report Posted January 27, 2014 Gotta love ezra, especially his last story on neil and what he really thinks of indians.I can see why the left hates ezra, because he does something that others don't, he actually checks the facts. Sure he might be wrong now and again,but otherwise he nails it. His story on how big envro tries to shut him down, when he nails them with facts. Like sending letters to everybody they could in alberta trying to find out what companies are backing him. As he say his average donation is $48 for ethical oil, but has the eco freaks freaked out. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Accountability Now Posted January 27, 2014 Report Posted January 27, 2014 those 'past examples' are a testament to your bluster, puffery, imagination, fabrication, dishonesty, your dream world and your outright lies. . It only took you three posts to resort back to your go to catch phrase of bluster. Im guessing your buds in produce must love that one. Provide a Mr. Young quote that has him saying he recants his previous expressed concerns for the need to reduce tarsands emissions... provide a Mr. Young quote that has him saying he recants his previous expressed concerns for the need for responsible/sustainable tarsands development. You can't; of course you can't. So you make shit up. It's what you do... it's what you're about. You... and the Ezrant... 2 peas in the proverbial pod! I'm not saying the guy is out buying shares in Suncor but the fact is that at the start of his tour he's paints the pictures of the oil sands by comparing them to Hiroshima and absolutely slamming their exsistence AND now he says and I quote: Our tour across Canada is to bring awareness that the First Nations treaties must be honoured IF tar sands expansion is to take place,” said Mr. Young IF he were dead set against the tar sands and IF he felt they were as big of an evil as he made them out to be, then there would be no IF before the tar sands expansion. Under no circumstance should the oil sands be developed IF you actually believe that strongly against them. He also went on to admit that he does use a private jet for some shows. What? This admission after the whole whoop da la about his 'green car'? Sure....he might not like the oil sands but he apparently is ok enough with their development as long as the First Natons treaties are honored. And of course....what have I said from the start? First with Hudson Jones: I just think its hypocrtical and weak that they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag. Then with Jacee: I haven't even touched on the topic of whether they deserve the money or not. I'm speaking on their known hypocrisy to speak out about the 'environmental dangers' when they aren't getting enough but then to shut their traps when they do. And of course with waldingo once the "Not on an 'anti-tar sands crusasde" article came out: Ouch!!!!!! I guess they do have a price tag after all!!!! and, per norm, we have you 'slip-sliding away' from my following post, as quoted below... your latest big-time fail where you apply the broadest of your sweeping brushes to tarnish/demean First Nation's peoples, at large, based on your over-simplification (aka your over-reach) to categorically state that First Nation's peoples don't care about the environment... because 'some number' of aboriginal companies (a number you can't even qualify) have contracted tarsands related work. Haven't 'slip-slided away' from anything. I have responded to your BS and continue to do so. If you would have read earlier, I agreed to change it to vast majority of First Nations....rather than ALL because there are some groups who understand oi//gas development and have never said anything as they were involved from the beginning. Its the have nots that cry foul, using the environment as their flagship position in life when in reality....they will trade it in if the price is right. I'll repost something from above (that of course you didn't touch) which reflects the comments of this VERY group being discussed in this thread. How so appropriate! From the recent Globe and Mail article: "Chief Adam noted that his band must walk a fine line when it comes to oil sands development. He noted the First Nation receives compensated through impact benefit agreements for environmental effects in their traditional lands. Those dollars, he said, are used to provide programs for housing, for school, education everything that is needed for the First Nation. I guess the environment doesn't really rank as high on their list as it is made out to be! The bottomline is that you can't sit and bash the oil/gas industry but then be ok with it once they pay you. That is pure hypocrisy. But again....hypocrisy is something that is quite natural to you so I can see how you would have troubles seeing this as a problem. Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 27, 2014 Report Posted January 27, 2014 dealt with? You pointing to your G&M article fabrication... that's you "dealing with it"? Fabrication? I didn't write the article. Ezra Levant didn't write the article. Kelly Cryderman did. The article is as real as it comes especially with that quote from Neil saying "treaties must be honoured if tar sands expansion is to take place" Quote
waldo Posted January 27, 2014 Report Posted January 27, 2014 Fabrication? I didn't write the article. Ezra Levant didn't write the article. Kelly Cryderman did. The article is as real as it comes especially with that quote from Neil saying "treaties must be honoured if tar sands expansion is to take place" and the G&M article doesn't include any reference to your (and the Ezrant's) fabrication: - how does "if the tarsands development is to take place" negate a raised concern that the development must work to reduce emissions? - how does "if the tarsands development is to take place" negate a raised concern for that development to be responsible/sustainable? quit fabricating more of your (parrotted Ezrant) BS. and yes, you are slip-sliding away from your over-reach and demeaning of "all" First Nation's peoples environmental concerns. Yet another of your do-over backpedaling from "all" to "vast majority" means diddly squat. Quote
Accountability Now Posted January 27, 2014 Report Posted January 27, 2014 - how does "if the tarsands development is to take place" negate a raised concern that the development must work to reduce emissions? - how does "if the tarsands development is to take place" negate a raised concern for that development to be responsible/sustainable? Lol....this is your best one yet. So comparing it to Hiroshima really means they just want to reduce emmisions or be reponsible/sustainable???? Their stance on the oil sands has never been about developing it, rather its been about shutting it down. As per the CTV article titled: Neil Young: Alberta will look like the moon unless oilsands development stopped: “We can preserve what we have so we can say, ‘We did the right thing.’ If we don’t it’s just going to look like the moon in Alberta,” Young said. “It is like a war zone, a disaster area from war, what’s happened up there. It’s gone,” he added. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/neil-young-alberta-will-look-like-the-moon-unless-oilsands-development-stopped-1.1642675#ixzz2rd4b1ie7 Where in that sentiment do you find the desire to develop? Quote
waldo Posted January 27, 2014 Report Posted January 27, 2014 clearly, you read only what you want to read... only what your agenda calls for you to read (and parrot). is stopping rapid expansion any different from, alternatively, encouraging more responsible expansion? 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.