kingofsurrey Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: shouldn't that be "Trump face"? I know it was a dumb thing for JT to do, but he's getting ripped for this far more than someone actually working to hurt people like Trump does, its a little pathetic. Taking hits from that dumpster fire of a state named Florida.... Too funny.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bishopshodan Posted September 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 24, 2019 hehehe 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 One good thing to come from this story is I have seen quite a number of actual good discussions on what this means in terms of impact on people, and Trudeau's history and place in all of this. That lasted for about 48 hours, which might be a modern record. I think millennial voters will crucify him for it tho. Or not show up to vote. You just don't know with the U25s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Y'all done playing victim? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 hours ago, aGENT said: Honestly? Just as easily put out there by someone on the 'right' to lather up the frothing masses. As always, it's IMO best to simply ignore the 'Facebook meme' level of discourse and actually focus on what matters. People get far too wrapped up in face paint and head dress nonsense. It's what they use to distract us, keep us arguing amongst ourselves on nothing burgers while the establishment snicker at us and pull strings in their favour. Economy/jobs, environment, personal rights, food/farming, crime, infrastructure, health care etc = things that matter. Face paint and head dresses = distracting nonsense. Agreed. Problem is, too many people think you can't take care of the second thing on your list without destroying the first.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: Agreed. Problem is, too many people think you can't take care of the second thing on your list without destroying the first.... Which is horse #$%@. It's priorities. We just need to be FAR more intelligent about how we do it than at present. Damn near every cent of the reviled carbon tax should be going in to 'green' infrastructure, education, business cuts/incentives etc (hello green tech jobs!) as one example. A pipeline SHOULD be built (as it's safer and cheaper than moving it by rail etc) but again, a good chunk of taxes produced from doing so should be in adding value to Canada by creating jobs here (refine more here) and again, building green infrastructure to slowly transition our energy sector. I actually quite like the Green party's plans (as I understood them) in that regard. We desperately need real leadership and innovation here. Edited September 24, 2019 by aGENT 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, aGENT said: Which is horse #$%@. It's priorities. We just need to be FAR more intelligent about how we do it than at present. Damn near every cent of the reviled carbon tax should be going in to 'green' infrastructure, education, business cuts/incentives etc (hello green tech jobs!) as one example. A pipeline SHOULD be built (as it's safer and cheaper than moving it by rail etc) but again, a good chunk of taxes produced from doing so should be in adding value to Canada by creating jobs here (refine more here) and again, building green infrastructure to slowly transition our energy sector. I actually quite like the Green party's plans (as I understood them) in that regard. We desperately need real leadership and innovation here. Pretty much my thoughts on all points. Well said. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, aGENT said: Which is horse #$%@. It's priorities. We just need to be FAR more intelligent about how we do it than at present. Damn near every cent of the reviled carbon tax should be going in to 'green' infrastructure, education, business cuts/incentives etc (hello green tech jobs!) as one example. A pipeline SHOULD be built (as it's safer and cheaper than moving it by rail etc) but again, a good chunk of taxes produced from doing so should be in adding value to Canada by creating jobs here (refine more here) and again, building green infrastructure to slowly transition our energy sector. I actually quite like the Green party's plans (as I understood them) in that regard. We desperately need real leadership and innovation here. Building a new pipeline just delays that 'slow transition' to be even slower resulting in the inevitable which is an even more expensive transition when we're forced to do it rather than choosing to do it now. But hey, that's just our kids problem, not ours. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, inane said: Building a new pipeline just delays that 'slow transition' to be even slower resulting in the inevitable which is an even more expensive transition when we're forced to do it rather than choosing to do it now. But hey, that's just our kids problem, not ours. That's just close minded. So long as there's money to be made, oil will be coming out of the ground. We can either live in that reality and ship it the cleanest, safest way possible with some of the world's best and cleanest standards (including more refining here which further reduces pollution) while diverting tax revenue from it towards a green transition...or we can keep doing it wrong. Edited September 24, 2019 by aGENT 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, aGENT said: That's just close minded. So long as there's money to be made, oil will be coming out of the ground. We can either live in that reality and ship it the cleanest, safest way possible with some of the world's best and cleanest standards (including more refining here which further reduces pollution) while diverting tax revenue from it towards a green transition...or we can keep doing it wrong. close minded lol while you present a black or white option. not going to bother getting into it, but further exacerbating the problem to theoretically get more money to solve the problem you're just making worse is LOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Gurn Posted September 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 24, 2019 I don't get bothered by Harper in face paint and headdress, but Harper dressed as a cowboy was way too wrong. Image result for Steven Harper Cowboy.url 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HerrDrFunk Posted September 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, gurn said: I don't get bothered by Harper in face paint and headdress, but Harper dressed as a cowboy was way too wrong. Image result for Steven Harper Cowboy.url 143 B · 0 downloads Was Harper trying to reach out to the LGBT community? Dude was more progressive than I thought. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, inane said: close minded lol while you present a black or white option. not going to bother getting into it, but further exacerbating the problem to theoretically get more money to solve the problem you're just making worse is LOL The oil's coming out regardless. Denying that is not living in reality. You can either do it safer and cleaner while diverting tax dollars towards green tech (which make no mistake, I don't see us doing on our current path either) or you can continue to do it poorly as we are now, or live in complete denial of reality as you wish to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, aGENT said: The oil's coming out regardless. Denying that is not living in reality. You can either do it safer and cleaner while diverting tax dollars towards green tech (which make no mistake, I don't see us doing on our current path either) or you can continue to do it poorly as we are now, or live in complete denial of reality as you wish to. the oil is coming out now and will continue to, yes. further expanding the oil coming out is the issue. i'm not saying ban all oil extraction tomorrow. but making the situation worse to solve that same situation is absolute garbage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 12 minutes ago, gurn said: I don't get bothered by Harper in face paint and headdress, but Harper dressed as a cowboy was way too wrong. Image result for Steven Harper Cowboy.url 143 B · 0 downloads As was this........... Never been so ashamed to be a Canadian 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, inane said: the oil is coming out now and will continue to, yes. further expanding the oil coming out is the issue. i'm not saying ban all oil extraction tomorrow. but making the situation worse to solve that same situation is absolute garbage. It's not intended to 'solve' the situation. Viable green tech is what will 'solve' the situation. You'd prefer we didn't divert tax funds from oil to help pay for that? As you said, the oil's coming out regardless. You can either insist we use some of the tax funding for it to help pay for a green transition, or you can carry on as is. Likewise, do you prefer shipping oil via far riskier rail and truck vs a pipeline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, aGENT said: It's not intended to 'solve' the situation. Viable green tech is what will 'solve' the situation. You'd prefer we didn't divert tax funds from oil to help pay for that? As you said, the oil's coming out regardless. You can either insist we use some of the tax funding for it to help pay for a green transition, or you can carry on as is. Likewise, do you prefer shipping oil via far riskier rail and truck vs a pipeline? how about instead of paying billions for the pipe we spend that on green tech innovation. other countries are way ahead of us on this, it's not that the solutions don't exist, we're just too cowardly to act because it will cost us more in the short term. sure, take some tax from the pipe but that's not the root issue--and your black or white thinking isn't gonna get us there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 12 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said: As was this........... Never been so ashamed to be a Canadian Sadly, he has a better singing voice than I do. More sadly I don't qualify as eye candy either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, inane said: how about instead of paying billions for the pipe we spend that on green tech innovation. other countries are way ahead of us on this, it's not that the solutions don't exist, we're just too cowardly to act because it will cost us more in the short term. sure, take some tax from the pipe but that's not the root issue--and your black or white thinking isn't gonna get us there. Why not do both? Ship oil, that's coming out regardless, cleaner and safer while diverting tax funds to green tech, while also giving more separate funding to green tech? Who said I didn't otherwise want to fund green tech? Who said it was the root issue? Speaking of black and white... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 33 minutes ago, aGENT said: Why not do both? Ship oil, that's coming out regardless, cleaner and safer while diverting tax funds to green tech, while also giving more separate funding to green tech? Who said I didn't otherwise want to fund green tech? Who said it was the root issue? Speaking of black and white... i guess you say 'cleaner and safer' i say that's part and parcel with expanded. they aren't going to build a new pipeline for the same amount as they are pumping today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now