mightycpc Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Just now, Jimmy McGill said: the only ones threatening extortion is Alberta and SK. Do what we want or no gas / higher has prices - thats your people threatening Canadians, not BC. The reference case - which is BCs constitutional right to ask for - is to determine the extent of control, if any, over goods exported across its border. Thats not extortion, thats the law. You just don't like it. Why are tanker traffic and pipelines ok now but not in the future. You want new rules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, mightycpc said: Why are tanker traffic and pipelines ok now but not in the future. You want new rules. no one is asking for new rules. Thats not how the constitution works. The reference case is seeking to clarify if BC has any rights under the law from an environmental protecton pov. You are the one wanting BC to not exercise its constitutional right to ask the courts a question. How do you justify that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 23 minutes ago, mightycpc said: Why are tanker traffic and pipelines ok now but not in the future. You want new rules. This is such a silly argument. Here is a different way of looking at the problem. The town you live in has a population of 10,000 people and has a 4 way stop sign on it's main intersection. A developer wants to build enough housing for 350,000 people. Is it your contention that a single 4 way stop intersection is going to be sufficient to handle the traffic increase or do you think a stop light should be put in, along with 2 lanes in each direction roads? Maybe add in some public transit? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, mightycpc said: Why are tanker traffic and pipelines ok now but not in the future. You want new rules. not totally...the tanker moratorium is being challenged , by northerners and F. Aqulini . here's my question to JT. is the southern half of BC's coast line more expendable than the northern half?. I get that the impact would be less on the existing pipeline route , since on the tanker route the outer coast of van isle isn't different in any way than the coast line from pt.hardy to 54.40 lat. I would like to hear the 2 differing opinions on both sections of coastline........because clearly somebody thinks there is. reading up on the imposed tanker ban and the concerns surrounding the north ,why wouldn't it apply to the outter coast line of van isle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted April 24, 2018 Author Share Posted April 24, 2018 54 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: no one is asking for new rules. Thats not how the constitution works. The reference case is seeking to clarify if BC has any rights under the law from an environmental protecton pov. You are the one wanting BC to not exercise its constitutional right to ask the courts a question. How do you justify that? Albertans and Sask are not True Canadians. These 2 provinces do not respect our Canadian Constitution. Sickening how the 2 little kids scream , stamp their feet and throw their food when they don't get their own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Gnarcore Posted April 24, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2018 http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/memo-to-alberta-get-a-grip/ Memo to Alberta: Get a grip Stephen Maher: Indignation over pipelines is over the top—B.C.’s concerns are valid and Ottawa has far from failed to back the oil sands. Sit down, Alberta. We need to talk. The other provinces are—I don’t know if worried is the right word—let’s say concerned. You don’t seem yourself. We get that you’ve been through a lot lately. Three years ago, the prime minister was an Albertan, your premier was a Progressive Conservative, there was no carbon tax and you had three pipelines in the works to connect your oil sands to the ocean. These days, the prime minister is a Quebecer, you somehow have an NDP premier, carbon is being taxed and it looks like only one of those pipelines might get built. We get that that’s a lot of change, and for sure changes like this take time to absorb, but your attitude doesn’t seem that healthy. Let’s start with the way you’re treating British Columbia. I know that you have your heart set on your pipeline, and your feelings are hurt that Premier John Horgan isn’t helping. But, guess what? He campaigned on an anti-pipeline platform and got elected. Your righteous indignation is over the top, and your premier shouldn’t be threatening to cut off wine imports, oil exports and demanding that Ottawa cut off transfer payments. I think that we should build the pipeline, because it’s costing us too much money not to build it, but the people who don’t want it aren’t evil. A lot of people are in British Columbia because they want to live in a beautiful place near the ocean. The pipeline will help Alberta, but the main impact for B.C. will be increased tanker traffic, and a non-zero chance of a catastrophic bitumen spill. Jason Kenney keeps inveighing against “radical environmentalists,” demanding that Justin Trudeau get tough and crack down on them. A former Alberta energy minister called on him to send in the army to deal with the “eco-terrorists.” There is a small number of dangerous tree-spiking types in British Columbia who might pose a real threat, and a much larger group of people oppose the pipeline because they want to protect nature for their grandchildren. They are acting in an honourable tradition of civil disobedience. You want to send in the army, maybe sic CSIS on them? Get a grip. One of the reasons that you are having so many problems getting pipelines built is that American environmentalists targeted the Keystone XL pipeline, warning that unlocking all the carbon in Alberta’s oil sands would be like exploding a “carbon bomb,” pushing us over the brink into global climate meltdown. I can see why you are frustrated, because this is three quarters nonsense. Before Andrew Weaver became leader of the B.C. Greens, when he was a University of Victoria climate scientist, he crunched the numbers and found that burning all of Alberta’s oil sands “would be almost undetectable” on a global scale. But, like it or not, the oil sands are a symbol for North American environmentalists. It is in your long-term best interest to change that, to remind policy makers that the lowest hanging fruit is coal, not oil. Calling for the army to beat up grannies protesting in Burnaby won’t help you convince reasonable environmentalists that you are not their biggest problem. If you were smart, you would try to bring the temperature down, not up. This perception of Albertans as angry polluters isn’t going to change overnight, especially if you keep getting angry when people object to your pollution. Your politicians use this kind of rhetoric because they want to feed a sense of grievance, fanning it like an ember that must be kept burning, because it is a vote-winner. But it is not based in reality. Take Andrew Scheer’s response to Justin Trudeau’s announcement that he will use the federal treasury to backstop the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Scheer has said that Trudeau, having failed to back the Energy East and Northern Gateway pipelines, and failed to engage on this file until too late, was forced to put up tax dollars at risk to get this pipeline built. Fair enough. I don’t expect Scheer to applaud Trudeau. But to pretend that Trudeau could snap his fingers and bring Horgan to heel is dumb. And Scheer was playing to your sense of grievance when he claimed that before Trudeau, “energy projects were built without taxpayer support.” He was swiftly fact-checked by Chris Turner, author of The Patch, which tells the story of the oil sands, an industrial undertaking that has been backed by the federal government from the beginning. In the early 20th century, the Geological Survey of Canada and the federal Department of Mines identified the potential and sought ways to develop it. In 1975, when Syncrude was struggling to make the first big project pay for itself, Jean Chretien convinced Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to buy a stake in it. In 1996, when he was prime minister, Chretien gave the oil sands another boost by giving it preferential tax treatment. With the single astonishingly ill-conceived exception of the National Energy Program, the federal government has always supported the development of the oil sands. And many of the workers came from points east, including tens of thousands of Atlantic Canadians and Quebecers. But every time we discuss pipelines, Albertans angrily denounce the equalization system that helps pay for hospitals and schools in the have-not provinces. You can give that a rest. There is one reason why Albertans pay more into equalization than people in any other province: you are rich, and rich people pay more taxes than poor people. A well-off taxpayer in Halifax pays just as much into the system as a well-off Calgarian. In 2015, Alberta’s median household income was $93,835, compared with $60,764 in my home province of Nova Scotia. Would you really want to trade places with Nova Scotians, who pay high taxes to educate their children for export to far-off oil fields? Thanks to your petroleum industry, which Canadians have helped you build, you are among the richest people in the world. You are not victims. You should count your blessings, stop feeling sorry for yourselves and quit yelling at people who disagree with you. Everyone will like you better. 1 2 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said: Albertans and Sask are not True Canadians. These 2 provinces do not respect our Canadian Constitution. Sickening how the 2 little kids scream , stamp their feet and throw their food when they don't get their own way. yah I really don't see why Saskatchewan is chiming in... other than they want to be able to sell all their oil to China and screw over BC on gas prices too. Thats one of the most ridiculous things about this situation, if BC concedes and lets the pipeline through its just going to hurt every BC citizen at the pump with higher prices. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post riffraff Posted April 25, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Gnarcore said: http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/memo-to-alberta-get-a-grip/ Memo to Alberta: Get a grip Stephen Maher: Indignation over pipelines is over the top—B.C.’s concerns are valid and Ottawa has far from failed to back the oil sands. Sit down, Alberta. We need to talk. The other provinces are—I don’t know if worried is the right word—let’s say concerned. You don’t seem yourself. We get that you’ve been through a lot lately. Three years ago, the prime minister was an Albertan, your premier was a Progressive Conservative, there was no carbon tax and you had three pipelines in the works to connect your oil sands to the ocean. These days, the prime minister is a Quebecer, you somehow have an NDP premier, carbon is being taxed and it looks like only one of those pipelines might get built. We get that that’s a lot of change, and for sure changes like this take time to absorb, but your attitude doesn’t seem that healthy. Let’s start with the way you’re treating British Columbia. I know that you have your heart set on your pipeline, and your feelings are hurt that Premier John Horgan isn’t helping. But, guess what? He campaigned on an anti-pipeline platform and got elected. Your righteous indignation is over the top, and your premier shouldn’t be threatening to cut off wine imports, oil exports and demanding that Ottawa cut off transfer payments. I think that we should build the pipeline, because it’s costing us too much money not to build it, but the people who don’t want it aren’t evil. A lot of people are in British Columbia because they want to live in a beautiful place near the ocean. The pipeline will help Alberta, but the main impact for B.C. will be increased tanker traffic, and a non-zero chance of a catastrophic bitumen spill. Jason Kenney keeps inveighing against “radical environmentalists,” demanding that Justin Trudeau get tough and crack down on them. A former Alberta energy minister called on him to send in the army to deal with the “eco-terrorists.” There is a small number of dangerous tree-spiking types in British Columbia who might pose a real threat, and a much larger group of people oppose the pipeline because they want to protect nature for their grandchildren. They are acting in an honourable tradition of civil disobedience. You want to send in the army, maybe sic CSIS on them? Get a grip. One of the reasons that you are having so many problems getting pipelines built is that American environmentalists targeted the Keystone XL pipeline, warning that unlocking all the carbon in Alberta’s oil sands would be like exploding a “carbon bomb,” pushing us over the brink into global climate meltdown. I can see why you are frustrated, because this is three quarters nonsense. Before Andrew Weaver became leader of the B.C. Greens, when he was a University of Victoria climate scientist, he crunched the numbers and found that burning all of Alberta’s oil sands “would be almost undetectable” on a global scale. But, like it or not, the oil sands are a symbol for North American environmentalists. It is in your long-term best interest to change that, to remind policy makers that the lowest hanging fruit is coal, not oil. Calling for the army to beat up grannies protesting in Burnaby won’t help you convince reasonable environmentalists that you are not their biggest problem. If you were smart, you would try to bring the temperature down, not up. This perception of Albertans as angry polluters isn’t going to change overnight, especially if you keep getting angry when people object to your pollution. Your politicians use this kind of rhetoric because they want to feed a sense of grievance, fanning it like an ember that must be kept burning, because it is a vote-winner. But it is not based in reality. Take Andrew Scheer’s response to Justin Trudeau’s announcement that he will use the federal treasury to backstop the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Scheer has said that Trudeau, having failed to back the Energy East and Northern Gateway pipelines, and failed to engage on this file until too late, was forced to put up tax dollars at risk to get this pipeline built. Fair enough. I don’t expect Scheer to applaud Trudeau. But to pretend that Trudeau could snap his fingers and bring Horgan to heel is dumb. And Scheer was playing to your sense of grievance when he claimed that before Trudeau, “energy projects were built without taxpayer support.” He was swiftly fact-checked by Chris Turner, author of The Patch, which tells the story of the oil sands, an industrial undertaking that has been backed by the federal government from the beginning. In the early 20th century, the Geological Survey of Canada and the federal Department of Mines identified the potential and sought ways to develop it. In 1975, when Syncrude was struggling to make the first big project pay for itself, Jean Chretien convinced Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to buy a stake in it. In 1996, when he was prime minister, Chretien gave the oil sands another boost by giving it preferential tax treatment. With the single astonishingly ill-conceived exception of the National Energy Program, the federal government has always supported the development of the oil sands. And many of the workers came from points east, including tens of thousands of Atlantic Canadians and Quebecers. But every time we discuss pipelines, Albertans angrily denounce the equalization system that helps pay for hospitals and schools in the have-not provinces. You can give that a rest. There is one reason why Albertans pay more into equalization than people in any other province: you are rich, and rich people pay more taxes than poor people. A well-off taxpayer in Halifax pays just as much into the system as a well-off Calgarian. In 2015, Alberta’s median household income was $93,835, compared with $60,764 in my home province of Nova Scotia. Would you really want to trade places with Nova Scotians, who pay high taxes to educate their children for export to far-off oil fields? Thanks to your petroleum industry, which Canadians have helped you build, you are among the richest people in the world. You are not victims. You should count your blessings, stop feeling sorry for yourselves and quit yelling at people who disagree with you. Everyone will like you better. But I wants ma jacked up turbo deezel and ma sleds n skeedooz to go with my vacation home im comox!!!!!!! damn you BC hippy commie freak tree huggers! 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 This is pretty funny - people in AB are losing their minds and threatening to pull donations and funding over the U of A giving David Suzuki and honorary degree.... so much for freedom of speech eh? David Turpin: Suzuki controversy shows U of A champions freedom of thought http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/david-turpin-suzuki-controversy-shows-u-of-a-champions-freedom-of-thought 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: This is pretty funny - people in AB are losing their minds and threatening to pull donations and funding over the U of A giving David Suzuki and honorary degree.... so much for freedom of speech eh? David Turpin: Suzuki controversy shows U of A champions freedom of thought http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/david-turpin-suzuki-controversy-shows-u-of-a-champions-freedom-of-thought Has Alberta become the least tolerant province in Canada ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Suzuki is irrelevant anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 It is the height of irony that people are believing what David Suzuki has to say, when he is one of the greatest environmental hypocrites of all time. The man has made a fortune manipulating people into giving him money by scaring them about the environmental apocalypse being upon us, while living a lavish one-percenter lifestyle with more than one house to his name and extensive air travel that makes the average person's "carbon footprint" seem insignificant by comparison. Do the anti-pipeline environmental activists know how to frame questions in ways that aren't loaded, or riddled with logical fallacies? Honestly, nobody is for dirty water, dirty air, or dirty food. Of course all these questions are framed in a manipulative way to guide the reader into accepting whatever the author is proposing. The problem is, what is proposed isn't necessarily valid or even helpful, and may actually be counterproductive in the real world. Research "energy poverty" and its effect on the poor, and even the middle class, as a result of mandating more expensive "green" energy, for instance. So much for the idea that implementing the enviro-agenda will result in "greater standards of living". Some people say religion is a fairy tale which was only invented to control people. The same people often don't see that the religion of environmentalism, particularly when fudged data is produced to support it, behaves in that exact manner, particularly when dealing with "heretics". (all borrowed with respect to original author) 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: It is the height of irony that people are believing what David Suzuki has to say, when he is one of the greatest environmental hypocrites of all time. The man has made a fortune manipulating people into giving him money by scaring them about the environmental apocalypse being upon us, while living a lavish one-percenter lifestyle with more than one house to his name and extensive air travel that makes the average person's "carbon footprint" seem insignificant by comparison. Do the anti-pipeline environmental activists know how to frame questions in ways that aren't loaded, or riddled with logical fallacies? Honestly, nobody is for dirty water, dirty air, or dirty food. Of course all these questions are framed in a manipulative way to guide the reader into accepting whatever the author is proposing. The problem is, what is proposed isn't necessarily valid or even helpful, and may actually be counterproductive in the real world. Research "energy poverty" and its effect on the poor, and even the middle class, as a result of mandating more expensive "green" energy, for instance. So much for the idea that implementing the enviro-agenda will result in "greater standards of living". Some people say religion is a fairy tale which was only invented to control people. The same people often don't see that the religion of environmentalism, particularly when fudged data is produced to support it, behaves in that exact manner, particularly when dealing with "heretics". (all borrowed with respect to original author) Good for you. So you're capable of seeing this from both sides. not a bc loc are ya rob. meh you'd probably not like it....we are all heretics out here. what a joke of an article. Who is the "author" all new lows lows when you're denigrating David Suzuki lolol.... again alberta showing its dollar stripes as a university lives in fear of losing donations from feet stomping consumers. Edited April 25, 2018 by riffraff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Alberta drivers....Amirite? https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/small-plane-lands-on-calgary-street/ar-AAwjzJK?li=AAggNb9 Quote A small plane carrying six people made an emergency landing on a Calgary street Wednesday morning. Police say the twin-engine plane was coming in from the south, heading for a landing at the Calgary airport, when the pilot radioed in that the aircraft was low on fuel. Sgt. Duane Lepchuk said the plane came down shortly before 6:00 a.m. on a two-lane stretch of 36th Street, about five kilometres south of the airport and not far from the Trans-Canada Highway. There were no injuries among the four passengers and two crew members. Seriously though, props to the pilot for pulling this off. This could easily have turned into another tragedy. And apologies for those who don't think this belongs in this thread. I didn't feel like starting a new one and I thought we could use a bit of levity in here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 10 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: It is the height of irony that people are believing what David Suzuki has to say, when he is one of the greatest environmental hypocrites of all time. Yah, your right. David Suzuki seems like a real loser.... David Suzuki has received numerous honours and awards. Among them, he received five Gemini Awards for his Canadian television efforts, and in 2002 he was awarded the John Drainie award for broadcasting excellence. Suzuki received a lifetime achievement award from the University of British Columbia in 2000. He has 24 honorary degrees from multiple universities in Canada, the United States and Australia. He received the Royal Bank Award in 1986 and in the same year was awarded the UNESCO Kalinga Prize for science writing. Suzuki was named an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1977 and became a Companion to the Order of Canada in 2006. In 2009, David Suzuki won the Right Livelihood Award, which is known as the "Alternative Nobel Prize," and recognizes outstanding vision and work for the planet and its people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Suzuki is a lot of things, but hypocrite doesn't really stand the smell test. He's been getting smeared by the alt-right media for years, led in particular by Erza Levant, the tool thats behind a lot of fake news. Here's an interesting take on the motives of guys like Levant: https://davidsuzuki.org/story/climate-science-deniers-credibility-tested/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 37 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Yah, your right. David Suzuki seems like a real loser.... David Suzuki has received numerous honours and awards. Among them, he received five Gemini Awards for his Canadian television efforts, and in 2002 he was awarded the John Drainie award for broadcasting excellence. Suzuki received a lifetime achievement award from the University of British Columbia in 2000. He has 24 honorary degrees from multiple universities in Canada, the United States and Australia. He received the Royal Bank Award in 1986 and in the same year was awarded the UNESCO Kalinga Prize for science writing. Suzuki was named an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1977 and became a Companion to the Order of Canada in 2006. In 2009, David Suzuki won the Right Livelihood Award, which is known as the "Alternative Nobel Prize," and recognizes outstanding vision and work for the planet and its people. Shocking that any reasonable person would attempt to slander David Suzuki. Is he perfect? No. has he done more than most to bring awareness to environmental issues? Yes. laughable propaganda. Sucking in sheep. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 David Suzuki is a hypocrite, he keeps breathing in that dirty air he keeps moaning about.? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 3 hours ago, riffraff said: Good for you. So you're capable of seeing this from both sides. not a bc loc are ya rob. meh you'd probably not like it....we are all heretics out here. what a joke of an article. Who is the "author" all new lows lows when you're denigrating David Suzuki lolol.... again alberta showing its dollar stripes as a university lives in fear of losing donations from feet stomping consumers. I am not from BC. David Suzuki owns five homes (documented, who knows what else he owns...they guy is very wealthy) including one he co-owns with an oil company (yes, let that sink in for a bit), flies in private (chartered jets) and has a resultant carbon footprint of the town I was born in. His larger Vancouver home alone is appraised at over $10 million. His other home in Vancouver is not much behind. Suzuki also owns a waterfront property on the Quadra Island area off the B.C. coast complete with boat dock and nice large boat. The property is apparently valued at over $4 million. Perhaps the most interesting home he owns is on a property on Nelson Island of which Suzuki is listed on a B.C. land title registry co-owing with Kootenay Oil Distributors. That isn't denigrating him, that is stating facts. I am not from Alberta and I only point to the seeming hypocrisy of Suzuki accepting an award from a University largely funded by public dollars raised on the backs of taxing the fossil fuel industry. You don't even acknowledge the green-poverty issue. This arrogance that comes into our western world of "we have it all, you can now develop in manner we didn't use as we don't like your impacts on the environment". Even as smug Canadians, we use more per capita fossil fuel energy that the vast majority of those on the planet. Forcing the rest of the world, and yes you in BC, to use conflict oil transported from Africa etc. versus allowing oil from the most stringent environmental standards jurisdiction in the world to support both Canadian and global energy needs is, again, hypocritical. Not being from BC or Alberta gives me a no "skin in the game" perspective. I see silliness on all sides of this "argument" but, in the end, this hurts Canada and BC is part of Canada so it also hurts BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 58 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Suzuki is a lot of things, but hypocrite doesn't really stand the smell test. He's been getting smeared by the alt-right media for years, led in particular by Erza Levant, the tool thats behind a lot of fake news. Here's an interesting take on the motives of guys like Levant: https://davidsuzuki.org/story/climate-science-deniers-credibility-tested/ Jimmy - you are a reasonable guy. How do you align with his home ownerships including one with an oil company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts