Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[WestCoastRunner]

Why would you put aren't sure in with no?

Wasting time with your arguments make no sense. Provide us with value.

[Smallc]

Wasting time with your arguments make no sense. Provide us with value.

Explain to me why aren't sure and no are more similar than aren't sure and yes.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Smallc

[WestCoastRunner]

Explain to me why aren't sure and no re more similar than aren't sure and yes.

LOL what????

[Smallc]

Asking me to provide value when you've gone on and on about something that is inevitable (statistically you're right, but realistically you're quite wrong with proper precautions) while providing no real basis for your opposition given the precautions is a rather interesting approach.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why would you put aren't sure in with no?

OK, 34% say NO, 29% Not Sure. I wouldn't call that resounding support. What's interesting is that in the same poll 68% believe it will be built regardless of what the people think.

[Smallc]

LOL what????

On guard for the quoted a poll using no + aren't sure? Why? Aren't sure is no more similar to no than it is to yes . I pointed that out and you said that I was adding no value to the conversation...so now I'm asking you the same question being as I'm assuming you already know the answer.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Smallc

[Smallc]

OK, 34% say NO, 29% Not Sure. I wouldn't call that resounding support. What's interesting is that in the same poll 68% believe it will be built regardless of what the people think.

So let's turn it around. 37% said yes and 29% not sure. That's 66%. Sounds like the support isn't so bad after all.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Smallc

[WestCoastRunner]

Asking me to provide value when you've gone on and on about something that is inevitable (statistically you're right, but realistically you're quite wrong with proper precautions) while providing no real basis for your opposition given the precautions is a rather interesting approach.

I am simply being realistic. I understand that oil companies have a stranglehold on our economy and on our governments. It is quite obvious that transporting toxic bitumen throughout the bc coastline is detrimental to our environment and very risky. The more precautions we have, the better, but of course, we will never have 100% riskfree. Therein lies the concern! And it does not matter what you say. There are no 100% precautions, whatsoever.

[Smallc]

Then the risk should be no more acceptable for energy east...you're applying a double standard known as NIMBYism, and it's clouding your argument.

[On Guard for Thee]

So let's turn it around. 37% said yes and 29% not sure. That's 68%. Sounds like the support isn't so bad after all.

Well your math's a little faulty but it boils down to approx 2/3rd's haven't bought in.

[WestCoastRunner]

Then the risk should be no more acceptable for energy east...you're applying a double standard known as NIMBYism, and it's clouding your argument.

You have no understanding of our argument. I am not interested in arguing with you.

[Smallc]

Well your math's a little faulty but it boils down to approx 2/3rd's haven't bought in.

I hit the wrong button lol. Exactly 2/3 haven't said no and have bought in enough that they haven't said no.

[Smallc]

You have no understanding of our argument. I am not interested in arguing with you.

I understand the argument perfectly. You aren't able to support it properly because it makes no sense. bC is not any more particularly special than other provinces.

[WestCoastRunner]

I understand the argument perfectly. You aren't able to support it properly because it makes no sense. bC is not any more particularly special than other provinces.

We are on the coast of Canada. Of course we are different!

[On Guard for Thee]

Then the risk should be no more acceptable for energy east...you're applying a double standard known as NIMBYism, and it's clouding your argument.

You don't seem to get the reduced risk of "east" because that doesn't require tankers, (a potential Exxon Valdez every day) and if a pipeline bursts, valves can be shut off to contain the spill between pumping stations, not so with a ship.

[WestCoastRunner]

Do you have any comprehension of the tourism industry that BC has? An oil spill would wipe out the industry overnight!!!!

[Smallc]

We are on the coast of Canada. Of course we are different!

8 provinces and all 3 territories are on a coast...of which we have 3.

[Smallc]

Do you have any comprehension of the tourism industry that BC has? An oil spill would wipe out the industry overnight!!!!

No it wouldn't. Not even remotely close to being true. BC tourism isn't all about the coast.

[Smallc]

You don't seem to get the reduced risk of "east" because that doesn't require tankers, (a potential Exxon Valdez every day) and if a pipeline bursts, valves can be shut off to contain the spill between pumping stations, not so with a ship.

Tankers ply the worlds oceans every day. With the use of pilots and two tugs this is really no different.

[WestCoastRunner]

8 provinces and all 3 territories are on a coast...of which we have 3.

You really don't provide any value to this thread. Can you come up with more?

[Smallc]

You really don't provide any value to this thread. Can you come up with more?

Can you explain what you would consider to be of value? Perhaps you're simply not comprehending.

[WestCoastRunner]

Tankers ply the worlds oceans every day. With the use of pilots and two tugs this is really no different.

You don't live on the west coast. Save your arguments.

[Smallc]

Stick to the topic.

[WestCoastRunner]

Tankers ply the worlds oceans every day. With the use of pilots and two tugs this is really no different.

When we have the increase in numbers of tankers, let's not simplify it.

[WestCoastRunner]

Stick to the topic.

WTF??? I don't think I can be anymore loyal to this topic.