Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Sigh. What I said what that your characterization of the term toxic sludge was inaccurate. As it was. Get past it.

I was getting past it by trying to get you to focus on the OP. You're the one obsessed with this big bad toxic animal that is going to destroy the earth some day.

Funny, I heat my home without fossil fuels and know people who drive cars without them.

Sounds good anonymous internet forum guy. Even if you are being truthful, you would be in the VAST minority in this country. So I would definitely say I'm not too concerned about what you are doing.

There is an enormous battle being waged between people who are making enormous fortunes from mining and selling this toxic material and people who want to move towards safer and more sustainable alternatives.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! That is a good one. No...there is no enormous war. Just the small battle that people like you are fighting to make yourselves feel good about yourself. The rest of the world drives their cars to their heated/air conditioned homes and worries more about things like their family. But what ever gets you to sleep at night.

For someone who claims to have no interest in the fight, you sure seem to be helping one side.

Its not that I have no interest in the fight, its that my OP was positioned to not take a side. I was curious more about what could happen as a result of this issue, not what I think should happen. Of course your only argument was to battle the partisan side and go after ol' Harper. I guess that earns you a fail on this assignment.

I find your analysis trite and superficial. Before Northern Gateway was effectively killed by Trudeau's tanker ban, it was subject to 18 First Nation lawsuits. It would have been in court forever.

Thats ok. I find all your arguments to be that way. The reality is that the price tag just wasn't right for the FN at that point. The lawsuits were all a part of negotiations which they could leverage the government. You don't actually believe they weren't going to take the money...do you???

Trudeau made few specific environmental commitments - a lot of it was quite general. He certainly campaigned on higher environmental standards than Harper but unless you deliberately poured oil on all the lakes and set fire to the forests, I'm not sure how he could possibly have had lower standards.

Yes...we lived in cesspools and barely stayed alive under Harper. I can finally breath now that Trudeau is running things. Lol. You really do suffer from HDS.

First, he hasn't approved anything - he's just weighed in on the debate. Second, this will only "twerk the heads" of people who made up their minds about him without paying attention to what he actually said.

First....making public support for an idea is a lot closer to an approval than staying out of the argument.

Second...if you would actually read the articles posted you would have read that the heads this will 'twerk' are those in Quebec, most notably the Montreal area who currently have large liberal support. This support may be swayed back to the NDP or Bloc come next election should Trudeau remain consistent on this. But then again....why read anything that pertains to the OP....lets keep talking about your dictionary definitions shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, never made the claim you keep repeating. Again, put up the statement where I made the claim. Is there a problem for you here in doing that?

Sure you did...well....you did in your normal waldoism put a question phrasing to it....did he say, didn't he say it, i think he said....oh...is he too much of a coward to say it style. Here it is for you to ponder:

Surely you're not suggesting oil companies have carte blanche - surely.

At that point I had said NOTHING about oil companies. It your claim OR its you suggesting that I'm claiming it. Either way....deflection in the grandest. Of course you bury yourself in the next part....ouch....just wait.....here it is..........

no - this is you finally unable to worm your way out from the fact I've been addressing the OP from the onset. What you refuse to address is the local authorities challenge to your premise on pipeline safety. Again, it's easy to say, as you did, that pipelines are the safest mode of transport. You/oil companies don't get a free-ride on that premise... if local authorities have concerns around safety, the onus is on you/oil companies to attempt to avail those raised concerns... not to simply dismiss/ignore them.

Yup....I certainly like how you put in you/oil companies in your reply....nice work waldo...just proving my point above. Is it my claim that oil companies have carte blanche? Is it my claim that Coderre is not entitled to his opinion? Nope...thats all you pal. Not sure why you even try anymore...just constant fails.

Edited by Accountability Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you did...well....you did in your normal waldoism put a question phrasing to it....did he say, didn't he say it, i think he said....oh...is he too much of a coward to say it style. Here it is for you to ponder:

At that point I had said NOTHING about oil companies. It your claim OR its you suggesting that I'm claiming it. Either way....deflection in the grandest. Of course you bury yourself in the next part....ouch....just wait.....here it is..........

"coward"? You really need to rise above your extreme sensitivities and not take comments so personally. I already asked you how you presume to talk about "relations" without addressing positions that speak to... and influence those immediate and developed relations? Just what will you discuss? :lol: I mean, c'mon... you went all separatist defcon... surely you must have a basis/foundation to legitimize such extreme comments you relayed concerning... both... both... Quebec and Alberta separation! Surely you'll want to legitimize your relayed extremism by actually discussing the merits of positions held - surely... you know as you discuss, uhhh... relations leading up to your relayed separatist suggestions. Oh my!

.

Yup....I certainly like how you put in you/oil companies in your reply....nice work waldo...just proving my point above. Is it my claim that oil companies have carte blanche? Is it my claim that Coderre is not entitled to his opinion? Nope...thats all you pal. Not sure why you even try anymore...just constant fails.

nothing significant for you to highlight here. You laid down the premise concerning pipeline safety; that pipelines offer the safest transportation alternative. As I said, you/oil companies don't get a free-ride on that premise... as I said, if local authorities have concerns around safety, the onus is on you/oil companies to attempt to avail those raised concerns from local authorities... not to simply dismiss/ignore them. You know, as you try to discuss existing and developing relations based on positions and presumptions on safety being met.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you do some research on what happens to Quebec if Enbridge and Transcanada turn off all the pipelines currently bringing them oil.

The world will be a tiny bit less awash in surplus oil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was getting past it by trying to get you to focus on the OP. You're the one obsessed with this big bad toxic animal that is going to destroy the earth some day.

Actually, you're trying to have a discussion about opposition to pipelines while somehow avoiding the reason that there is opposition to pipelines. Maybe next you could start a forum on the execution of Marie Antoinette and insist that nobody be allowed to discuss the plight of the peasants.

Sounds good anonymous internet forum guy. Even if you are being truthful, you would be in the VAST minority in this country. So I would definitely say I'm not too concerned about what you are doing.

Fossil fuels apologists insist that nobody could ever live without fossil fuels. When confronted with proof they're wrong, they turn away and change the subject.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! That is a good one. No...there is no enormous war. Just the small battle that people like you are fighting to make yourselves feel good about yourself. The rest of the world drives their cars to their heated/air conditioned homes and worries more about things like their family. But what ever gets you to sleep at night.

If climate change plays out the way scientists predict it will, creating tens of millions of rising see refugees and rampant water shortages, there might be real enormous wars. Glad you find it so amusing though. You go right on and crank up your butt warmer in your SUV and don't think about a thing.

Its not that I have no interest in the fight, its that my OP was positioned to not take a side. I was curious more about what could happen as a result of this issue, not what I think should happen. Of course your only argument was to battle the partisan side and go after ol' Harper. I guess that earns you a fail on this assignment.

You clearly have "taken a side", You're just not comfortable enough defending it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"coward"? You really need to rise above your extreme sensitivities and not take comments so personally. I already asked you how you presume to talk about "relations" without addressing positions that speak to... and influence those immediate and developed relations? Just what will you discuss? :lol: I mean, c'mon... you went all separatist defcon... surely you must have a basis/foundation to legitimize such extreme comments you relayed concerning... both... both... Quebec and Alberta separation! Surely you'll want to legitimize your relayed extremism by actually discussing the merits of positions held - surely... you know as you discuss, uhhh... relations leading up to your relayed separatist suggestions. Oh my!

.

nothing significant for you to highlight here. You laid down the premise concerning pipeline safety; that pipelines offer the safest transportation alternative. As I said, you/oil companies don't get a free-ride on that premise... as I said, if local authorities have concerns around safety, the onus is on you/oil companies to attempt to avail those raised concerns from local authorities... not to simply dismiss/ignore them. You know, as you try to discuss existing and developing relations based on positions and presumptions on safety being met.

.

Well, since the absolute, no doubt fact of the matter is that we aren't going to stop using oil any time soon, and pipelines are the safest and most efficient way of moving it, no one wishing to see a pipeline built has to prove anything. We don't have to presume pipelines are safe, they have proven to be so, in so far as anything can be. So here in the real world the fight some of you make against them means that you are the ones fighting against safer transport, it's you who is holding back real progress, like getting oil off of the trains.

Now as i said earlier in this thread, you aren't arguing honestly about this, you are arguing against oil and using pipelines as another line of attack, .

It's striking to me how much your posting style, the deflections, the back handed insults, the drive by smears, purposefully taking things out of context, the all around intellectual dishonesty, the over use of punctuation in the same places, etc etc etc, reminds me of someone who was banned from just about every forum in the country and that i havent seen in 10 years or more. Im sure wherever old cagey is, he appreciates your style.

Edited by poochy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you do some research on what happens to Quebec if Enbridge and Transcanada turn off all the pipelines currently bringing them oil.

And if you do some research you will find that when Quebec needs a barrel of oil it imports it. When they need more electricity they just flip the switch on a hydro dam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you're trying to have a discussion about opposition to pipelines while somehow avoiding the reason that there is opposition to pipelines. Maybe next you could start a forum on the execution of Marie Antoinette and insist that nobody be allowed to discuss the plight of the peasants.

Fossil fuels apologists insist that nobody could ever live without fossil fuels. When confronted with proof they're wrong, they turn away and change the subject.

If climate change plays out the way scientists predict it will, creating tens of millions of rising see refugees and rampant water shortages, there might be real enormous wars. Glad you find it so amusing though. You go right on and crank up your butt warmer in your SUV and don't think about a thing.

You clearly have "taken a side", You're just not comfortable enough defending it.

It isn't the fault, of the "fossil fuel apologists" that you believe in a world that doesn't exist, in a 'communism would have worked if everyone got on board' sort of way, not only that, no one here is a fossil fuel apologist, we are realists, but again and as usual you can't argue the facts so you have a reflexive need to misrepresent someones argument so you can then attack them for it. Which, i'll admit, is fair play here.

Anyway, there is no proof that we are wrong, none, zero. Nothing moves oil more safely or efficiently than a pipeline, if you can prove otherwise, please do so, show us the math, ill start you out, 47 people died in Lac Megantic in one oil train accident, how many people have been killed by oil pipelines? The Exxon Valdez spilled almost 32 million gallons of oil, the spill in the kalamzoo river is as much as 1 million gallons, the Odyssey sank 800 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia, it spilled 4 times as much as the Valdez. So it's less risky to bring it to the refineries on the east coast by ship, safer to do it by train? There is no 100% safe/clean method, but since we are going to keep using it, and o yes we are, a pipeline is the safest way to do it.

The entire basis for your argument is an unreal point of view on just about everything, the world is not going to become what you wish it would be, therefore accept the truth, and stop arguing so dishonestly, or provide what should literally be mountains of evidence to support your argument, but let me guess, there's a catch, the oil companies have bought and paid for every scientist, every journalist, and every government official who disagrees with you, us too i suppose. Strange though, one might think all of those climate change scientists who clearly haven't been paid for would have produced some well known and easy to find work that proves you right. Then again most of them are probably honest enough to suggest we use less oil instead of dishonestly debating the merits of pipelines in hopes of curtailing the use of the substance they carry, that would just make them look silly.

Edited by poochy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be refreshing to have Canadians to work together to get oil from one side of the country to the other, without have a verbal war starting. Brad Wall shouldn't said what he said about the Mayor of Montreal, it doesn't do any good to the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be refreshing to have Canadians to work together to get oil from one side of the country to the other, without have a verbal war starting. Brad Wall shouldn't said what he said about the Mayor of Montreal, it doesn't do any good to the problem.

I agree...how long with this historical stupidity continue....sending bitumen to the USA...transporting and refining in the USA...and importing back into eastern Canada.

What is the problem ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since the absolute, no doubt fact of the matter is that we aren't going to stop using oil any time soon, and pipelines are the safest and most efficient way of moving it, no one wishing to see a pipeline built has to prove anything. We don't have to presume pipelines are safe, they have proven to be so, in so far as anything can be. So here in the real world the fight some of you make against them means that you are the ones fighting against safer transport, it's you who is holding back real progress, like getting oil off of the trains.

Now as i said earlier in this thread, you aren't arguing honestly about this, you are arguing against oil and using pipelines as another line of attack,

look, I get it... apparently, you understand that just by saying "pipelines are the safest transportation vehicle", everyone should just "get out of the way". Apparently, you interpret environmental assessments as an unnecessary inconvenience and that anyone raising concerns or even simply looking for clarification or asking questions in regards to a proposed development are not as you state, "arguing honestly"! Hey, here's a thought MLW member poochy: is there a difference/distinction between a pipeline and a proposed development... of that pipeline?

the rest of your post (not quoted) is needless personalization (fluff that I could care less about) - you should try to rise/discuss/argue above it.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again most of them are probably honest enough to suggest we use less oil instead of dishonestly debating the merits of pipelines in hopes of curtailing the use of the substance they carry, that would just make them look silly.

you keep disparaging MLW members by stating they're dishonest... notwithstanding there has been no reluctance by those you presume to disparage in directly... adamantly... stating that, as you say, "we use less oil". As in divest and move towards an ever diminishing reliance upon oil.

but really, if you want to speak about honesty, perhaps you can portray this Energy East proposal in a proper light. I read a lot of proponents (and TransCanada directly) touting this proposal as much more than simply a means for an oil company to export oil... why, it's really being positioned as an inward targeted means to offset all that oil being imported to meet Quebec/Ontario's current requirements. But MLW member 'poochy' - some don't believe that given the current capacity of refineries (being met quite well with off-shore Newfoundland oil) and the emphasis on new export terminals, just what part of the Energy East proposal will result in increased domestic refining and reduced reliance on imports... speaking honestly, hey? Since you're all about honesty, right?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Lorne Gunter sums up Quebec's position very nicely..

http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/01/23/no-oil-quebec-fine-no-equalization-payments

Coderre is a huge hypocrite.

you could read a highly biased long-known proponent of the oil industry (and denier of GW/AGW/CC) laying down his journalist's interpretation of the statements/position taken by Denis Coderre, the mayor of Montreal and president of the Montreal Metropolitan Community... or you could read Denis Coderre himself:

For three years now, the oil pipelines issue has mobilized the elected representatives and citizens of Greater Montréal. As President of the Montréal Metropolitan Community, I made known on several occasions our position of “zero tolerance” toward the environmental risks of transporting petroleum products by pipeline.

I have repeatedly said that when it comes to transporting oil, we need a perfect score, and we cannot make mistakes.

We are not against oil pipelines; we gave our agreement to the project inverting Enbridge’s Line 9B. But today, we are saying “no” to Energy East.

The project presented by TransCanada carries too many environmental risks for Greater Montréal.

Recall that the region of Montréal is a highly urbanized archipelago, comprising 4 million inhabitants. The environmental risks, in particular for the drinking water supply, are much larger than elsewhere.

The planned route of Energy East crosses several major rivers, including the Ottawa River, the rivière des Mille Îles, the rivière des Prairies and the rivière L’Assomption. In case of a leakage incident, the drinking water intakes of several Greater Montréal municipalities could be threatened.

I wish to emphasize that the cost of a major spill in the Metropolitan Montréal region could reach 10 billion dollars.

.

.

.

For all these reasons, in addition to the total lack of cooperation of the TransCanada company, this project did not obtain a passing grade in the areas of economic, social, environmental and public safety.

In the coming months, the Montréal Metropolitan Community will present this position at consultations that will be held by the Québec Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) and the National Energy Board (NEB).

We will, moreover, ask the federal government to amend the law to include, in its assessment of this project, an environmental impact study which will also take into account the production of GHGs at the source. We will also ask for a study of the impacts in the event of an accidental spill.

Our decision is the result of a public consultation across the whole Montréal Metropolitan Community, during which the vast majority (92%) of stakeholders were opposed to the project.

As responsible elected officials, our choice was clear.

{waldo: bolded emphasis added}

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you're trying to have a discussion about opposition to pipelines while somehow avoiding the reason that there is opposition to pipelines. Maybe next you could start a forum on the execution of Marie Antoinette and insist that nobody be allowed to discuss the plight of the peasants.

Its a non starter to talk about pipelines when the guy you are talking about doesn't believe we should be using oil in the first place. That's like asking someone who their favorite boxer is when they detest violence. But of course even the good folks in Montreal/Quebec aren't outright against pipelines. Just look at their current one from Portland that goes under the St. Lawrence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland%E2%80%93Montreal_Pipe_Line

Of course, if you are still concerned about pipeline safety then I thought this fact from Natural Resources Canada would help you sleep at night:

Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally friendly way of transporting oil over long distances.
In Canada, the NEB regulates over 73,000 kilometres of pipelines that move approximately 1.3 billion barrels of oil per year. According to the NEB, these pipelines spilled an average of about 1,084 barrels per year between 2011 and 2014. This means that 99.999% of the crude oil and petroleum product transported on federally regulated pipelines arrives safely.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/infrastructure/5893#h-3-2

Please insert 'crazy conspiracy theory' about how the NEB and NRC are the in the pockets of oil companies right here.....

Fossil fuels apologists insist that nobody could ever live without fossil fuels. When confronted with proof they're wrong, they turn away and change the subject.

People can live without fossil fuels. People can also die without fossil fuels. The fact is that is we want to maintain our lifestyle then no we can't live without them. However, there is already a thread titled Fossil Fuel Free Future where you are free to woo people with your beliefs to your hearts content.

If climate change plays out the way scientists predict it will, creating tens of millions of rising see refugees and rampant water shortages, there might be real enormous wars. Glad you find it so amusing though. You go right on and crank up your butt warmer in your SUV and don't think about a thing.

That's a mighty big IF! So in the mean time should I go with the Escalade or the Navigator...because I like my SUVs the same way I like my oil....DOMESTIC.

You clearly have "taken a side", You're just not comfortable enough defending it.

I have taken a side on the OP? What is it? Please outline what my side is on the dispute that this may cause the country....which is what this thread is about.

I do have 'sides' on all your other issues but again....I discuss those in the appropriate threads. I suggest you do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have 'sides' on all your other issues but again....I discuss those in the appropriate threads. I suggest you do the same.

is this latest post of yours, as you so perplex about others not aligning with your OP "discussing relations"... is it... discussing relations? When you charge your target with your presumptive, "doesn't believe we should be using oil in the first place", is that you "discussing relations"? When you, once again, play out your "pipelines are safe... are the safest", is that you "discussing relations"? When you selectively pull a quote from your linked reference, is that you "discussing relations"? When you emphasize "DOMESTIC" (your caps highlight), in the context of an export focused pipeline proposal, is that you "discussing relations"... or is that you being disingenuous?

but hey, good to read you can discuss your OP and your repeated emphasis that others should only discuss your claimed OP intent to "discuss relations", by not discussing relations! As I said, how do you presume to do so... without speaking to positions held/developed by proponents and opponents of the proposed development? How do you do that, hey!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"coward"? You really need to rise above your extreme sensitivities and not take comments so personally.

The only sensitivity I have is to people who are dishonest which you have proven to be once again. I never made the claim that oil companies have carte blanche....you did. You then attacked me on the basis that oil companies have carte blanche. The ol' strawman....a waldo trick of the trade.

I mean, c'mon... you went all separatist defcon... surely you must have a basis/foundation to legitimize such extreme comments you relayed concerning... both... both... Quebec and Alberta separation!

Yup....I already post the OP which discussed various inter-provincial concerns and I backed it up with another article from the Star with the following quotes highlighted:

In the pipeline project, the sovereigntist movement has found an issue that stands to test the limits of Quebec’s autonomy within the federation and — in the event of a Quebec-Ottawa collision — rekindle support for its independence project.
Add to this already explosive mix the concerns of the pro-pipeline government of New Brunswick, a province that gave Trudeau all of its seats last fall and whose Liberal premier is a close ally, and you have a unity minefield.

http://www.thestar.c...ject-hbert.html

Not my words or opinion waldo. This is from Chantal Hebert with the Star....is this a basis to start from? Or would you like to deflect at this point?

nothing significant for you to highlight here. You laid down the premise concerning pipeline safety; that pipelines offer the safest transportation alternative. As I said, you/oil companies don't get a free-ride on that premise...

Your claim was that I said oil companies get 'carte blanche'. Arguing that pipelines are the safest way no way indicates that oil companies get carte blanche yet you poised your whole attack on that. So yes....your dishonesty is something that needs to be highlighted here. However, kudos to you on the backpedal.

as I said, if local authorities have concerns around safety, the onus is on you/oil companies to attempt to avail those raised concerns from local authorities.

Since you have nightmares about oil companies, then please refer to the NRC webpage which outright states:

Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally friendly way of transporting oil over long distances.

I'm looking forward to your well worded letter to the NRC stating that they are in the pockets of big oil. Please don't leave out the part of them having carte blanche either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only sensitivity I have is to people who are dishonest which you have proven to be once again. I never made the claim that oil companies have carte blanche....you did. You then attacked me on the basis that oil companies have carte blanche. The ol' strawman....a waldo trick of the trade.

I never made the claim you're so down with! Nor did I say you made the claim... asking you a question is not stating you made the claim. But I'll ask again: in your premise stating, de facto, that "pipelines are safe... are the safest", does that suggest you believe oil companies should have carte blanche in regards their proposals?

now again... please discuss relations... without discussing the basis for those positions held/developed that form the basis for those relations. Oh wait... when you state "pipelines are safe... are the safest", is that you "discussing relations" or is that you taking/relaying a position? :lol:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never made the claim you're so down with! Nor did I say you made the claim... asking you a question is not stating you made the claim. But I'll ask again: in your premise stating, de facto, that "pipelines are safe... are the safest", does that suggest you believe oil companies should have carte blanche in regards their proposals?

now again... please discuss relations... without discussing the basis for those positions held/developed that form the basis for those relations. Oh wait... when you state "pipelines are safe... are the safest", is that you "discussing relations" or is that you taking/relaying a position? :lol:

.

But of course no one has suggested that they should have "carte blanche" you made that up, you imposed that alleged point of view on someone who didnt say it and doesn't hold it, so you could then use it against them in an argument. This is what you do, it's what you always do, some of us are here talking about things that matter to us, you are here to lie, cheat, and steal yourself into an argument, it's a sad joke really that those of us who actually care about the country have to suffer someone as dishonest as you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Stop the banter.

Maybe you can ask some people here to stop inventing other peoples arguments for them. Or maybe it's better to allow them to frustrate others until those others say something they shouldn't and get themselves suspended for it.

Edited by poochy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world will be a tiny bit less awash in surplus oil?

I would imagine there would indeed be no surplus oil in Quebec, though riots in the street might help keep people warm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...