Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Keepitsimple

Members
  • Content Count

    5,774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Keepitsimple

  1. Nah, this is the sunny ways of Gerald Butts.

    I guess that means that Australia and Norway, the two countries with the highest standard of living (human development index), both of which have much larger energy exporting sectors as a percentage of their GDP, are putting all of their eggs in half a basket. We can't have Canada be like Australia or Norway, that will get in the way of the fourth industrial revolution.

    Please don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-Harper narrative. Yep.....Sunny Ways!

  2. Say it ain't so! Say it ain't so!

    Sunny Ways.......let's see where they end up on C51.

    OTTAWA—The Liberal government has taken up the former Conservative government’s legal fight against an apology and compensation for three Canadians tortured in the Middle East, despite voting in favour of the former detainees’ cause while they sat in opposition.

    As well, in aggressively defending the actions of CSIS and trying to prevent the release of thousands of unredacted documents that a judge is now poring over, the Liberals are going further than their Conservative predecessors did to protect CSIS sources.
    Lawyers for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government are seeking retroactive blanket anonymity for spies and their sources and have filed an appeal in a civil lawsuit launched by the three men with that goal in mind. A Conservative bill last year, C-44, which enacted source protection, was not made retroactive.


    Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/06/liberals-back-csis-in-torture-lawsuit.html

  3. In the end, Trudeau (so far) was the exact opposite. I considered him a joke. In the last week and a half of the campaign, it seems like myself and a lot of other Canadians came to understand that he was the best person of the choices presented (perhaps more than that even).

    I think it's clear to anyone who watches politics unfold - that Trudeau himself is a lightweight, pretty well completely devoid of leadership. He's a figurehead. But so was Ronald Reagan - and yet his administration flourished and he was called "The Great Communicator". What's important is the wizard(s) behind the curtain......and they have not been fully "outed" at this stage. Gerald Butts is one of course and his McGuinty/Wynne heritage makes his influence truly scary. But there must be two or three others that will be counted on to pave the way forward. Until we understand who they are, their agendas and motivations - we won't know if the Trudeau figurehead will become the "great communicator" or just another Mr. Dithers. It all depends on how positive, clear and decisive the wizards can be. Sunny Ways aside, we're not off to the best start.

  4. Actually, since there's no number for 2005 or 2006 there, it appears like he left it pretty much where it started.

    It's likely that a significant portion of the people working in government (I'll stand by my 50% estimate) were hired by the Conservatives.

    More accurately, they were hired by the Hiring Managers within the presumably non-partisan bureaucracy.

  5. I await you providing such an actual quote.

    .

    The quote was provided to you but you are too willfully blind to acknowledge it. This quote in Trudeau's own words - from January 22nd is clearly more supportive than your Liberal party position from the campaign:

    This one is optimistic - indeed, Sunny Ways

    “I am solidly in one camp on this one,” he said. “I am very much in the camp of both premiers, [Ontario’s Kathleen] Wynne and Notley, who demonstrated that Canada can and should work together on economic issues for all of us.”

    This one from the campaign - we don't know - could happen but might not.....no Sunny Ways there....

    The Energy East project is undergoing an environmental assessment, and it would be inappropriate to pre-judge the outcome of the review.
  6. no - I never said a thing about Infrastructure monies proper... that is your inference. I spoke generally, and asked you the question accordingly. Words matter, Simple! As I said, I asked you a general focused question; again: where does allocated unspent money go? Not sure why you're so hesitant to answer that. Perhaps if you answer that question, it might add credibility to your want to extend this to 'infrastructure monies'... or, perhaps you may wish to retreat and regroup. Your choice.

    .

    No need for further comment now that you've agreed that unspent infrastructure funds are not returned to general revenues.

  7. Do you have a quote/cite for your described vocal support "not to long ago"... it would be interesting to recognize how it might be different for the qualified support being offered "of late" - yes?

    .

    January 22nd, 2016 - seems pretty vocal, yes?:

    “I am solidly in one camp on this one,” he said. “I am very much in the camp of both premiers, [Ontario’s Kathleen] Wynne and Notley, who demonstrated that Canada can and should work together on economic issues for all of us.”

    Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/montreal-area-mayors-energy-east-criticisms-short-sighted-notley-says/article28339330/

  8. where does allocated unspent money go?

    .

    You implied that Federal unspent Infrastructure money goes back into general revenues, yes? I asked for a cite. You made the contention - please prove it. I'll settle for a statement that you "mis-spoke" - without paragraphs of Waldo-babble clouding the issue.hey?

    but of course! That was the grand Harper charade... cut spending throughout with allocated funding not spent returned to the federal treasury as lapsed funding. All in order to be able to spring forward with a grand 2015 election campaign announcement of a 2014-15 budget surplus

  9. but of course! That was the grand Harper charade... cut spending throughout with allocated funding not spent returned to the federal treasury as lapsed funding. All in order to be able to spring forward with a grand 2015 election campaign announcement of a 2014-15 budget surplus, one reflecting upon the Harper Conservatives “careful economic stewardship”... coming after the 6 consecutive deficits (rarely, if ever, acknowledged by Harper)!

    .

    Do you have a cite to support your contention that allocated, unspent Infrastructure money was returned to general revenues? That's what the topic is referring to.

  10. The federal government has been saying it wants to expedite $13.1 billion in existing national infrastructure cash allocated in 2014-15 by the previous Conservative government, but never spent.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/03/time-for-alberta-to-get-federal-payback-for-heavy-lifting-says-notley.html

    I suppose it's really easy to run a surplus when you don't spend or even plan to spend any of the money that you allocate. Looking back at things like this, it's harder and harder to say that I was right to support the party.

    Oh come on - we're talking about the Star here. They could have used the term "not yet spent" which would have been far more accurate. The money is allocated - it's there - all part of a huge but confusing infrastructure commitment over 10 years. You're being disingenous by suggesting a delay in infrastructure spending makes it easy to run a surplus.

  11. Yes, and pulling together will mean economic policy that is geared towards sustainable industries, not one-time gold-rush ventures.

    You're feeling pretty hip with your new-found "gold-rush" term. Pretty silly. What do you consider to be "sustainable" - that trendy, definition-elusive term? Canada's mining, logging, fishing and energy industries have built Canada into the best country in the world over two centuries - and you demean it as a "gold rush"? That's just naïve, teeny-bopper talk. Our policies should not be a pessimistic one that dictates we're not going to do resource projects until undefined this-and-that's are done. Policies should be optimistic in sending messages that it's critical that we do these projects - now how can we satisfy genuine stakeholders in a reasonably thorough - but perhaps not perfect manner.

  12. The reality is that Alberta and Saskatchewan, with their gold-rush mentality on shipping raw commodities as fast as possible, put Canada in this vulnerable state by artificially inflating the dollar and tilting the economy towards less skilled. more volatile economic pursuits. Meanwhile, Ontario, Quebec, BC and the other provinces, with their more diversified and sustainable economies, are now providing a stabilizing influence.

    What utter claptrap. You act as if each province should act like a country with it's own independent economy. What part of "country" do you not understand? To use your analogy, the fault lies with the rest of Canada fore not developing vibrant industries outside of resources to soften the blow. The obvious truth is that provinces bring different strengths to the table and Alberta - and lately, Saskatchewan ands Newfoundland have brought energy to the forefront. Like a sports team, the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole when we all pull together. We should be defending our resources - not alienating them. It should be less about the endless criticism coming from the squeaky wheels - and more about how we can all pull together and make this work.

    Your attitude is nothing short of disgusting....oh - and I'm from Quebec and have been in Ontario for years. I'm what they call - a Canadian.

  13. so you still won't admit your hyperbole in stating the industry was at a virtual standstill? You make these statements and you provide nothing to substantiate them... just as you're doing here. In the prior exchange I flush out actual data/stats (that you somehow can't seem to bother with) and confirm your hyperbole. Here's a thought: I'm sitting on examples of actual export data outside the U.S. and thinking... why can't MLW member Simple provide this? It may not be the export numbers you're clamoring for... but it's not "standstill", notwithstanding the over-supply and low price of oil impact on production.

    .

    What would you prefer - "slowed to a crawl"? OK then.......slowed to a crawl. I find it fascinating that in light of oil projects being cancelled or suspended, investment fleeing and 60,000 people being thrown out of work - that somehow - in the face of all that.....you call it hyperbole and imply that there is some vitality to the industry? Waldo, it's one thing to be a somewhat amusing, verbose contrarian, it's quite another to be completely blind to reality.

  14. Alberta needs more industry/jobs/markets.

    Refine & manufacture there.

    .

    Unless you've changed your tune on just about everything, you seem to know absolutely nothing about how a refinery works. Petroleum Gas, regular gasoline, Naptha, Kerosene, Diesel, Lubricating Oil, Fuel Oil and a myriad of residual products are produced at refineries - and they all have to be delivered to the markets that they service - by pipeline, rail, truck or water. Here's a primer - let me know your thoughts on refineries after you read it:

    Crude is pumped out of the ground into pipelines or tankers/barges for transport to a refinery. Once it arrives at the refinery, it's processed into thousands of products from the obvious gasoline and diesel to cosmetic products like conditioners and lotions. The refinery then releases the product after quality testing. At this point, there are a number of ways to move the product, but the most common and cheapest is pipeline. Products are pumped into the pipeline one after another (they don't mix in the pipeline, it's actually a pretty cool process) so that the pipeline never stops and product can flow out the "other end". There are dozens to hundreds of "other ends" to the pipeline, terminating at large storage terminals across the country. The pipeline operators open the valves and the products pump into the tanks where they are stored until needed, which typically isn't very long, only a few days.

    When a gasoline station needs a delivery, a tanker drives to the terminal, hooks up to hoses at the loading rack and the driver punches codes into a computer that load the correct fuels onto the truck. If a station is branded, such as Shell or Exxon, special additives are injected during loading which make the fuel unique to that brand. Up until then, gasoline is gasoline. The driver then delivers the product to your station.

    Since you live in Ohio and that's one of my markets, I can tell you that the crude probably came from the Gulf of Mexico. If you're in the south, near Cincy, it's likely your fuel was refined in Kentucky or Louisiana, barged up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, then unloaded at the terminal. From Dayton north through Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo, your gas was probably refined in Wood River, Illinois and transported on the East Line pipeline to your local terminal. It really doesn't matter what brand of fuel you buy, they pretty much all follow the same routes.

  15. so, is this you accepting that your statement the "industry at a virtual standstill" is wholly inaccurate? Working through regulatory oversight is not "at a standstill". And I didn't deflect a thing; I corrected your hyperbole!

    .

    Not being able to get our product to Asia and Europe - while the US does.....while selling at a discount to our only customer is virtually a standstill, wouldn't you say? How long is your estimate for when we might be able to effectively move our product to other markets?

  16. in that you, in another thread, repeatedly posted to have me respond to one of your posts, I will do the same, in kind, here... you ignored it!

    as for your "anyone", your hyperbolic "virtual standstill" would actually mean something, if you could substantiate it. Would actually have some degree of merit if not for the fact that, for the year 2015 (and only to Sept of that year) Canada exported a record 3.248 million bpd of crude oil to the U.S.. And most certainly, significant amounts of that are NOT being transported by rail... as oil companies work to extend on existing pipeline capacity via reversals, refitting and re-purposing existing pipelines. Per the investment bank Peters & Co, close to 1.45 million barrels per day of new Canadian pipeline capacity was expected to come on line by the first quarter of 2015.

    of the pipelines profiled (even before recent days announcements): the KXL decision was not Canada's to make; Trans Mountain is currently before the NEB and Energy East was barely into the real substantive part of regulatory proceedings. As for Northern Gateway, I would suggest to you the lack of progress reflects upon, as much as anything, Harper Conservative positioning around such "fruitful undertakings" as reflected by "Ethical Oil", "enemies of the state", etc..

    .

    Thank you Waldo - but that says nothing to the current state of new pipeline projects that are at a stand-still. It's good to see we're optimizing our current delivery channels but even considering your misguided deflection, the "re-purposing" Energy East project is still in limbo.

  17. It is clearly an attempt to denigrate him. I would have expected you at least to realize that.

    Perhaps a very mild form - but genuinely open to interpretation in some cases.......but it pales against the derogatory names that were spewed out against Harper, or Chretien, or Martin. Let's have a bit thicker skin that to get upset over Trudeau Junior.

  18. What a stupid topic. There is no more "phobia" attached to Islam or Muslims than there is to the supposed LBG "Homophobia". Very, very few people have an irrational fear (that's what a phobia is) of Muslims or Gays. Attaching "phobia" to Islam, Muslims, or Gays serves as a hammer to silence anyone who dares to be "politically incorrect" by holding views that don't align with theirs - no matter your personal values or their personal values - or the political situation or cost. Ironically, those who spew "phobia" insults tend to be the most exclusionary - refusing to accept rational arguments as to why people might hold differing views.

  19. Because ours is sustainable.

    Google it and inform yourself.

    Facts are good.

    No point in imagining catastrophes that don't exist.

    When it comes to pipelines and climate change, your attitude is "better to be safe than sorry'......but when all the other G8 countries raise their retirement age - and Canada sees the writing on the wall, does the same but delays it for 10 years to let people plan - all of a sudden that credo goes out the window. Sure it's sustainable - but at what cost? As the cost goes up - and it's agreed that it will - other programs suffer - like Healthcare....and Healthcare itself is taking a bigger and bigger bite out of government revenues. Are you getting the picture? Apparently not. You'll always find "experts" to defend the status quo.......

  20. He didn't have to. OAS/GIS are sustainable.

    It was a badass move that backfired and will be repealed.

    But Harper can delay taking his if he wants to. Lol

    .

    You might want to ask yourself why most G8 countries have already raised their age of eligibility - not 10 years from now like Canada did.

  21. Pipelines are without a doubt safer for people and the environment. This is not controversial.

    Stopping pipelines does not mean less oil extraction or less use of fossil fuels. It just means the oil goes west by more dangerous rail, and comes in by tanker from the Arab world.

    Making a decision to delay pipelines is making a decision to put more people and environments and risk, and provide more funding to Islamic dictators, period. You cannot have it both ways.

    Exactly - and if you choose to completely decimate Canada's Oil industry (the "keep the oil in the ground crowd") by making it financially unfeasible to extract more oil - then you're just giving carte-blanche to the Arab World, Iran, Russia and of course our good friend the US - to pump more oil and deliver it by sea and rail. We're a pimple on the elephant. A sucker nation - that's us. Unbelievable.

  22. Because the enviros have been bought off by our competitors. The enviros think they are on to something to save the planet but far from it. We are cutting our own throats while everyone else is making money.

    There has to be some truth in that - because there is no rational reason for Canada to be singled out as a pariah. Keeping Canadian oil is such a tiny fraction of global production that keeping it in the ground makes no sense - other than using a pliant nation to advance their "cause" while everyone else keeps pumping oil..

    I don't expect too many posts on this topic because for the life of me, I can't see how anyone can rationally defend how Canada is being singled out!

×
×
  • Create New...