Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Claudius

Members
  • Content Count

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Claudius

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. Oh my god. An auditor general who doesn't agree with Dunn. Whatever am I to do? It's like you've found my Kryptonite or something. <snap> Oh wait! I almost forgot! Your rationale for completely abjectively dismissing Jim Roy's sourced and easy-to-understand report was based on the idea that he was bias against the government in question, because he was fired by the same government. Well an assumption of a logic like that would be that the reverse logic works just as well : Valentine was "bias" towards the government in question because he was hired by them. He said what the PC's p
  2. I didn't read past this.... LOL! Nonsense. Of course it's enough. It's not that it's "not enough", it's that it's not enough for a goal-post shifter. It's not that a Senior advisor on Royalties policy, the Auditor General and an entire review panel hired by Klein backing Jim up is not enough, it's that it's not enough for you. It never will be as I predicted and you keep proving. However it`s plenty for anyone honest. Now even Alberta Venture Magazine isn`t manistream enough for you. How convenient you think that you decide what's mainstream enough before you just move on to some other dis
  3. Blah blah blah. Didn't even bother to read it. Now or 1000 posts from now, Jim Roy, former Auditor General Fred Dunn and an entire review panel hired to specifically assess the situation, (who were also all fired with Jim Roy because they were telling Klien what he didn't want to hear), completely, inarguably silence your irrelevant nattering. That's enough for intelligent and honest adults. That you're not part of that demographic doesn't surprise me. I guess that's why your side lost the election. Intelligent Albertans prevailed. Keep on babbling and embarrassing yourself. Oh! Also thanks
  4. I say let him. No, actually I dare him. This is a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to save us all a lot of time and money by striking the law as unconstitutional as they did with manditory minimums, extended detentions and safe injection clinics.
  5. Oh, speaking of mainstream media, apparently it's not just Jim Roy but the Auditor General as well backing up his claim: http://albertaventure.com/2008/09/exile-in-the-oilpatch-albertas-oil-and-gas-royalty-mess/ I suppose Alberta Venture Magazine will now be religated by yourself as "not mainstream media" for no better reason that it's convenient for you. More interesting reading you can ignore... https://books.google.ca/books?id=MYesAAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PT7&lpg=RA1-PT7&dq=Jim+Roy+fired+royalties&source=bl&ots=BJSEzAckHD&sig=tfJTy-QRVlS15bQr9im9l8ldyT4&hl=en
  6. Blah blah blah blah. Your meek attempts to insult and your transparent bluffing only embarrass you further. I refer you to your own blustering pompous demand from earlier: I have done this. I have numerous links. I have the expert testimony. I have an entire essay of figures and data to prove the claim by the expert in question. Let's review what you have: Nothing. -You have no links proving the laughable claim that if something isn't reported by the mainstream media, (or more accurately that none show up on the first page of a Google search), then somehow that proves that something i
  7. He doesn't need to do the math to prove the math is wrong. LOL. I haven't seen something that stupid in print since I drove through Arkansas. Thank you for admitting that your claim his figures are incorrect has no rational basis at all.
  8. (sigh) The notion he was fired or that mainstream media hasn't run the story is 100% irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy actually. The guy presented his case using facts, figures and data. Facts, figures and data you didn't even bother to read. If you can find something wrong with those with those figures, showing that they don't add up the way he claims they do, then you would have a counter-point. Claiming those facts, figures and data don't add up because he's bias or because he was fired or because mainstream media hasn't run the story is about as relevant as claiming he's wrong because h
  9. Yeeeep. Someone's going to break. We pushed back against the taxes, and the oil companies do the same. We have to be braver. We have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but we have huge wait times in hospitals and roads that would embarrass Zimbabwe. That oil is worth more than just, "a job".
  10. Doesn't get more rational, adult or honest than that. Kudos.
  11. You just keep proving my point. Thanks. :-) You have a bias agenda too, most people do. The diffence is you were never a senior advisor on royalty policy and he has the (real) information to back his claims. No it sucks when someone demands you back up a claim with a link or website and then when you do they just start dancing around making up childish reasons to ignore it. You wanted a link. Now you want 4 or 5 from an organization you decide is "mainstream" media. Anyone can move goal posts. It's not hard. I suppose if "mainstream media" does pick up the story you'll just fall bac
  12. http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2015/05/04/we-wont-get-fooled-again
  13. Thanks for proving your claim "that on this site we need to back things up" is a load of BS. I give you the former senior advisor on Royalty policy with the Alberta Government telling you that the royalty calculations were wrong and you sit there babbling about how the source isn't good enough. It is. Period. You prove everything I said by rocking back and forth yelling, "Nah-uh. Is not! He must be lying even though I really haven't the foggiest notion one way or another" ....and that's precisely what I did with the $13 billion royalty miscalculation claim, and what did you do? You ignored
  14. But they are now, so..... And if you think Alberta hasn't been ready to show the PC's the curb for 10 years you're deluded. Not once you factor the PST. Now we're arguing in circles again because I pointed out the PST and you choose to ignore it because that's the only way your math adds up.
  15. lol!! No. On this site you need to try and argue things the other person never said, rather than what they did say. The excuses I've seen people post on this site are hilarious. Last time I was here I made a point involving infrastructure spending on a per capita basis and some nob tried to tell me, "Yeah but Ontario has more people!". lol. If a person doesn't 't know what per capita means or signifies then there'sreally no point talking to them is there? The last guy I spoke to on this thread thought he was making a super intelligent point by telling me, "You're just guessing". I literally c
×
×
  • Create New...