Tories release first attack ad against Mulcair

[mentalfloss]

 

[Locutus]

I knew I had him at "little doggie".

Especially when you accurately point out the bias and limited objectivity in his posts.

Yep. A little flavor or at least shuffle his deck once in awhile. :lol:

Same old is old.

 

[CDNBear]

Same old is old.

Like gifs to obfuscate the factual observations made?

 

[captain morgan]

It's almost like you could set your watch to it..... Quite uncanny.

 

[taxslave]

Are you out of school yet? You must be very young and very new to politics to make such a funny statement seriously.

Harper is a Libertarian and proudly proclaims it. Harper wants to privatise Healthcare. Harper wants to deregulate everything. Harper wants the federal government to fade away and become the "Night Watchman" of extreme libertarianism. Harper wants business to operate without any oversight from government and he wants you to be a slave (a real slave) to the industrial machine.

All in his own words for the past thirty years. The very modern definition of extreme Right Wing.

Of course, he is not really Right Wing in the traditional sense. That position is held by the honourable philosophy of conservatism. The kind of philosophy of government that was followed by Clark and Stanfield in Canada and Ted Heath in England.

You can read about Heath who called Thatcherism " the ugly face of Capitalism." And that is what Harper is: the ugliest face of Capitalism that has appeared in the Western World anywhere. Bush was a liberal by comparison.

By the time you grow up and leave school, there may be a resurgence of genuine Right Wingers and you will be able to put Harper in true perspective.

But you are to be applauded for taking an interest in politics at such an early stage of life. It is refreshing when most of us are jaded by the apathy that has allowed this madman to hijack Canada.


No it does not. Canadians voted massively against Harper's extreme Right Wing vision. Or do you not know what 60+% of the vote for centrist and Left Wing Parties means?

Funny boy. Not bright or well informed but funny.

 

[beaker]

Read and learn Grasshopper:.. BTW - there are no unregulated abuses of our resources, they are all regulated.

Northern Gateway pipeline hearings sabotaged by Chicago-style politics

What next? Dead people?
“Some ‘intervenors’ were signed up without their knowledge”:

What exactly does a woman from Santos, Brazil, know or care about the Northern Gateway proposed pipeline project? It turns out, nothing at all.
In fact, even though Ines Gudic is listed to give an oral presentation to the panel reviewing the proposed Enbridge pipeline from Alberta to B.C., she says she knows nothing about it and never signed up to speak.
“I don’t know what you are talking about,” said the 53-year-old woman on Tuesday from her home.
“I have never heard of this pipeline and I did not apply to speak in Canada,” she said, in broken English.
That’s strange. On the federal government’s National Energy Board website, Gudic is one of a whopping 4,522 registrants who apparently applied online to make an oral application. Her name, mailing address, e-mail and phone number are included on the website.​

I think that as I suggested before, you have been misled by the government/corporate interests that want this project to go ahead. The mainstream media in Alberta is so biased about resource development that the Calgary paper could easily have "misinterpreted" the situation. You ought to go beyond major blow-ups of minor deviations from the norm in your local blogspot or newspaper and understand that according to the article over four thousand peple want to take the time to speak to the Hearing Panel about the cost/benefits of the pipeline. That is an impressive number.

Interesting, I too have rights as a world citizen and among those rights are to develop resources in accordance with the local laws of the nation/jurisdiction in which they are located.

Your rights don't trump anyone elses

Actually I think the world has matured to th point that we understand that we can't develop the resources of a given nation/jurisdiction if the harm from that development is above and beyond the ability and the intent to compensate or mitigate for that harm. In this case there is no such stated or implied, therefore the costs of the project are not being wholly considered.

Just for your consideration, rights come with responsibilities. One of those things that people usually learn from their parents at an early age.

Do you understand sarcasm at all?

... And yes, you can sit in on public hearings.

Get a grip

I have a pretty fair grip. and one thing that is evident to me is that sitting in on a hearing is different from participating. Such as presenting evidence, cross-examining, preparing final argument etc. When a conservative government forces on the hearing panel a time limit of five minutes for opposition hearing participants to make their case and expose the weakness in the other sides case, you can understand that the Hearings are not a responsible regulatory body. In which case the project is not being regulated. And so's you know, that ain't sarcasm.

Your apology is accepted

I take it that is sarcasm. you are free to misinterpret what I said about your immaturity, but I will point out again that with such rights come responsibilities, and you should learn that now because it will save you time later.

Why would any group have a separate country if foreigners have the right to determine their course? Do you qualify that weird thinking? How about China or Russia telling us how to manage our resources? Hmmm ... Nigeria?

There are consultations with you, it is called voting, you lost, try again.

Are you aware that huge foreign interests have the right, are spending millions, to determine our future course? China being one of those? British interests are another, American, Norwegian? Look around you and see what you think of the relative levels of pressure exerted by these interests nd those of a handful of nickle and dime charities.

While voting is certainly one form of consultation, and rest assured, I will try again, the reason there is HEARING processes is so that governments can HEAR its peoples voices on matters of importance. In that light consultations take on a somewhat broader definition.​

 

[Cliffy]

Well said Beaker. Just so's you know, the captain is one of the corporate misrepresenters on these forums.

 

[captain morgan]

I think that as I suggested before, you have been misled by the government/corporate interests that want this project to go ahead. The mainstream media in Alberta is so biased about resource development that the Calgary paper could easily have "misinterpreted" the situation. You ought to go beyond major blow-ups of minor deviations from the norm in your local blogspot or newspaper and understand that according to the article over four thousand peple want to take the time to speak to the Hearing Panel about the cost/benefits of the pipeline. That is an impressive number.

You have chosen to believe that the MSM and gvt are misleading people. I, on the other hand, have chosen to believe that the various eco-lobbies have deliberately chosen to mislead the public via gross exaggerations and on occasion, outright lies/fraud.

And while you elect to dismiss the deliberate and wrongful inclusion of this Brazilian woman as unimportant, to me it reeks of the desperation of a movement that is grasping at such thin straws, it is forced to rely on such childish tactics rather than provide any semblence of tangible argument.

Actually I think the world has matured to th point that we understand that we can't develop the resources of a given nation/jurisdiction if the harm from that development is above and beyond the ability and the intent to compensate or mitigate for that harm. In this case there is no such stated or implied, therefore the costs of the project are not being wholly considered.

This comment is spoken at such a high, idealistic level, that is no longer has any basis in reality.

I have made this comment and asked this question to others to no avail, but I will put it to you in hopes of a response:

What exactly is the practical and functional definition of 'sustainable/responsible development'?

Without having this fundamental understanding in place, any proposed solutions on the issue has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Just for your consideration, rights come with responsibilities. One of those things that people usually learn from their parents at an early age.

Absolutely, however, your suggestions and declarations do not provide any evidence of your assuming any responsibilities other than your desire to prohibit other people from accessing the same rights (to a resource) that you have possibly taken for granted.

I have a pretty fair grip. and one thing that is evident to me is that sitting in on a hearing is different from participating. Such as presenting evidence, cross-examining, preparing final argument etc. When a conservative government forces on the hearing panel a time limit of five minutes for opposition hearing participants to make their case and expose the weakness in the other sides case, you can understand that the Hearings are not a responsible regulatory body. In which case the project is not being regulated. And so's you know, that ain't sarcasm.

You have the ability to participate on the panel discussions directly. In the event that you wish to take a more aggressive role, the option to provide factual research/evidence is only limited by your desire to do so.

It sounds much to me like you do not have the motivation to really put your money where your mouth is on this issue, but clearly, you demand that 'some else' do exactly that.

I take it that is sarcasm. you are free to misinterpret what I said about your immaturity, but I will point out again that with such rights come responsibilities, and you should learn that now because it will save you time later.

I really like the comment about maturity.

Read what I have presented and give some sober consideration, maybe look into a mirror too and ask yourself some hard questions... Get back to me once you've done this and we'll talk about maturity then.

Well said Beaker. Just so's you know, the captain is one of the corporate misrepresenters on these forums.

So says CC's resident anarchist that is fully dependent on suckling at the societal teat for subsistence... All the other anarchists must be both proud and envious at the same time.

 

[mentalfloss]

No wonder the Cons are attacking. tsk tsk tsk

ThreeHundredEight.com: Three federal polls, 2.5 NDP leads


That abacus poll is Toronto Sun corrupted btw.

 

[captain morgan]

For your convenience, I am resubmitting post #9 that effectively deals with your inputs.

We've been through this so many times Flossy.... There's only one poll that counts, and Harper gets to determine when it gets taken.

Sheesh!

 

[beaker]

You have chosen to believe that the MSM and gvt are misleading people. I, on the other hand, have chosen to believe that the various eco-lobbies have deliberately chosen to mislead the public via gross exaggerations and on occasion, outright lies/fraud.

And while you elect to dismiss the deliberate and wrongful inclusion of this Brazilian woman as unimportant, to me it reeks of the desperation of a movement that is grasping at such thin straws, it is forced to rely on such childish tactics rather than provide any semblence of tangible argument.

While you elect to accept the mainstream medias pronouncement that there was a deliberate and wrongful inclusion of one person in this list of 4500 people who are willing to take the time to help us make a good decision on the pipeline project, rather than realize that this is a childish attempt to grasp at a really thin straw in an effort to discredit every other person on the list, I will expect that the opposition to the project will be doing everything they can to see that all aspects of the ecological/economical impacts will be brought forward.

This comment is spoken at such a high, idealistic level, that is no longer has any basis in reality.

I have made this comment and asked this question to others to no avail, but I will put it to you in hopes of a response:

What exactly is the practical and functional definition of 'sustainable/responsible development'?

Without having this fundamental understanding in place, any proposed solutions on the issue has no basis in reality whatsoever.

I'm not sure if this is funny or just twisted, So in your opinion an ideal has no basis in relity? Has nobody else offered you a definition, or suggested where you might find a definition of sustainable/responsible development? or have you just rejected them because you have elected to discount their basis in reality?

Well try this and feel free to let me know how it is unreal in your eyes. Sustainable development is that which allows for an equilibrium or net increase in the value of the planets resources. Or this, Sustainable development allows for intergenerational equity, across the species list.

Absolutely, however, your suggestions and declarations do not provide any evidence of your assuming any responsibilities other than your desire to prohibit other people from accessing the same rights (to a resource) that you have possibly taken for granted.

What suggestions and declarations would those be? I am dedicated to thorough examination of the issues around major resource use/abuse projects. I have no interest in prohibiting anyone from anything other than being lazy and greedy. Give me assurance that all costs will be considered, that all aspects impacted will be compensated in full or mitigated against, and I say, Fly at it. The pro-development people on the other hand already recognize that if such costs are included that their bottom lines will go negative or at the least become so marginal that they won't be able to justify them to shareholders.

You have the ability to participate on the panel discussions directly. In the event that you wish to take a more aggressive role, the option to provide factual research/evidence is only limited by your desire to do so.

It sounds much to me like you do not have the motivation to really put your money where your mouth is on this issue, but clearly, you demand that 'some else' do exactly that.

I am just curious, how much factual research/evidence do you think can be provided, say on a topic as big as the Tar sands oil pipelines, in the five minutes the Federal/Provincial Tories have allotted for individual presentation to the Hearing Panel? How many questions can be asked in cross-examination when the proponents "experts can talk about nothing for five minutes in their sleep? Our rights are being taken from us by the Conservatives. The country is being made poorer because the greedy want to make themselves richer.

I really like the comment about maturity.

Read what I have presented and give some sober consideration, maybe look into a mirror too and ask yourself some hard questions... Get back to me once you've done this and we'll talk about maturity then.

Ok, I read what you have presented, and once was enough. Your considerations of these matters strike me as being very shallow and possibly self-serving.

So says CC's resident anarchist that is fully dependent on suckling at the societal teat for subsistence... All the other anarchists must be both proud and envious at the same time.

Well said Beaker. Just so's you know, the captain is one of the corporate misrepresenters on these forums.

Thanks for the advice Cliffy, I have to admit I was starting to think along those lines.

 

[mentalfloss]

For your convenience, I am resubmitting post #9 that effectively deals with your inputs.

Is that the one where they polled people about privacy rights which got Toews to roll back his draconian legislation?

Or the glut of recent polls that are fuelling the attacks by the Cons so that they still have a chance at the next election?

We've already dealt with your baseless assumption that polls are meaningless or that the election vote is the only poll that matters.

We haves proofs.

Do yous?

 

[captain morgan]

While you elect to accept the mainstream medias pronouncement that there was a deliberate and wrongful inclusion of one person in this list of 4500 people who are willing to take the time to help us make a good decision on the pipeline project,

The words of the 4500 people take on much less significance when the eco-organizers issue a press release stating that there goal is to delay the process as long as possible.

I believe that this provides additional support that there is no tangible and substantive inputs available from a group that is simply nothing more than a shill for foreign gvt and corporate interests.

Congrats on that - you're an employee of a foreign entity - you're just not paid

So in your opinion an ideal has no basis in relity? Has nobody else offered you a definition, or suggested where you might find a definition of sustainable/responsible development?

Correct

Well try this and feel free to let me know how it is unreal in your eyes. Sustainable development is that which allows for an equilibrium or net increase in the value of the planets resources. Or this, Sustainable development allows for intergenerational equity, across the species list.

Did you even think about what you wrote?

Lemme ask you, how is it possible for their to be a net increase in the planets resources?.. You do understand that there is a finite amount of matter on the planet, right? Just because you alter it's form doesn't mean you haven't consumed (or returned) something.

... So, with this in mind, answer the question: what is your big plan and/or definition of sustainable development?

I am just curious, how much factual research/evidence do you think can be provided, say on a topic as big as the Tar sands oil pipelines, in the five minutes the Federal/Provincial Tories have allotted for individual presentation to the Hearing Panel? How many questions can be asked in cross-examination when the proponents "experts can talk about nothing for five minutes in their sleep? Our rights are being taken from us by the Conservatives. The country is being made poorer because the greedy want to make themselves richer.

Not my problem is it beaker... That said, if you are a true believer, you can easily justify the expenditure of money or sweat equity in researching the issue and providing FACTS... Do this and you can submit directly to Environment Canada as well as the panel and your problem is solved.

Hint: If you decide to employ terms like 'sustainable development' with these folks, they too will want a real definition that not based on fantasy

Ok, I read what you have presented, and once was enough. Your considerations of these matters strike me as being very shallow and possibly self-serving.

Lemme guess, but not like you, who doesn't have an agenda.

Is that the one where they polled people about privacy rights which got Toews to roll back his draconian legislation?

Or the glut of recent polls that are fuelling the attacks by the Cons so that they still have a chance at the next election?

We've already dealt with your baseless assumption that polls are meaningless or that the election vote is the only poll that matters.

We haves proofs.

Do yous?

And once again:

​

 

[Cabbagesandking]

You seem to have suggested, Captain, that a nation can develop resources withour considering the impact on other nations. On that, I think you are living in another century. There are all kinds of international treaties and laws now to reign in international anarchy.

The Law of the Sea is one such.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Did you even think about what you wrote?

Did you?

Lemme ask you, how is it possible for their to be a net increase in the planets resources?.. You do understand that there is a finite amount of matter on the planet, right? Just because you alter it's form doesn't mean you haven't consumed (or returned) something.

... So, with this in mind, answer the question: what is your big plan and/or definition of sustainable development?

Lemme ask you, how is it possible to constantly degrade and destroy the natural systems that make it possible for our kind of life to be present in the first place, without destroying ourselves. You do understand there is a finite number of species and biological systems that provide all the food, water and oxygen that allow about 7 billion people to survive. Just because you cut down a forest, strip mine several hundred square kms of wilderness or subsidize industrial fishing, doesn't mean you've made the world a better place to live.

So with this in mind, how can you talk about sustainability when you're advocating destroying the natural systems that make life possible in the first place?

 

[captain morgan]

You seem to have suggested, Captain, that a nation can develop resources withour considering the impact on other nations. On that, I think you are living in another century. There are all kinds of international treaties and laws now to reign in international anarchy.

The Law of the Sea is one such.

Law of the Sea?

Really?

 

[beaker]

The words of the 4500 people take on much less significance when the eco-organizers issue a press release stating that there goal is to delay the process as long as possible.

I believe that this provides additional support that there is no tangible and substantive inputs available from a group that is simply nothing more than a shill for foreign gvt and corporate interests.

Congrats on that - you're an employee of a foreign entity - you're just not paid

I think your reasoning here is absurd. Delay is a time honoured tactic when fighting against a onesided battle. Otherwise why would political parties in power, such as say the Conservatives, delay an election as long as possible in the hopes of seeing a poll that suggests they might win. If as in this case you are fighting in a regulatory process that has been badly diminished by the government, where whatever amount of substantive and real world information is not even presentable, perhaps the best bet is to use every trick in the book, like the tories, to keep the process from reching a bad decision.

And no I'm not an employee, either paid or unpaid, in this battle. I'm not a registered intervenor. As I mentioned I am primarily interested in whether or not Canadians and all concerned world citizens have their rights to speech acknowledged and respected. How about you, how much are you paid?

Correct

Those were pretty much mutually exclusive options. Either no one has ever given you a definition for sustainable development or you have dismissed them as not fitting your view of the real world. Clue me in here, which one is Correct.

Did you even think about what you wrote?

Lemme ask you, how is it possible for their to be a net increase in the planets resources?.. You do understand that there is a finite amount of matter on the planet, right? Just because you alter it's form doesn't mean you haven't consumed (or returned) something.

... So, with this in mind, answer the question: what is your big plan and/or definition of sustainable development?

Okay, see this is why people here think you are just another propagandist for the industrial proponents of projects like this Tar sands oil pipeline. Anyone who would want, as opposed to being obliged, to be on here discussing the issues would also have an understanding that the very oil we are discussing is nothing of value to us except as stored solar energy. So Yes, we can improve the planets resource base. In a variety of ways. Improved forestry and Agricultural processes come to mind. And here's the kicker as far as the development proponents are concerned. Not spending our resources unwisely conserves them for future use, and we are spending them most unwisely.

Not my problem is it beaker... That said, if you are a true believer, you can easily justify the expenditure of money or sweat equity in researching the issue and providing FACTS... Do this and you can submit directly to Environment Canada as well as the panel and your problem is solved.

Hint: If you decide to employ terms like 'sustainable development' with these folks, they too will want a real definition that not based on fantasy

I would suggest that it is very much your concern unless you are someone who doesn't give a RATS a$$ for intergenerational equity. And if that's the case then I don't see much value in continuing the discussion. Please prove me wrong. Perhaps unlike you at least some of the people in the regulatory process have been familiear with the term sustainable development over the decades when it has been in the english lexicon.

Lemme guess, but not like you, who doesn't have an agenda.

Okay, we have established that you have an agenda and I don't. Where would you like to go from here.

 

[Goober]

You have chosen to believe that the MSM and gvt are misleading people. I, on the other hand, have chosen to believe that the various eco-lobbies have deliberately chosen to mislead the public via gross exaggerations and on occasion, outright lies/fraud.

Myself I believe they all have vested interests. And they all lie to some extent- Problem is in determining what they are lying about.

 

[skookumchuck]

"Canadians and all concerned world citizens"
That stands out Beaker. Your allegiance is apparently only that of convenience regarding Canada, which i assume is your birth country?
Is "One world government" your actual agenda? Good luck with selling that to countries none too thrilled with that, meaning the vast majority, some of which could be counted on to close your beak permanently given half a chance. How do you like Canada and western world freedom given that truth?
Would you defend that freedom in a military context or just with your beak?

 

[beaker]

"Canadians and all concerned world citizens"
That stands out Beaker. Your allegiance is apparently only that of convenience regarding Canada, which i assume is your birth country?
Is "One world government" your actual agenda? Good luck with selling that to countries none too thrilled with that, meaning the vast majority, some of which could be counted on to close your beak permanently given half a chance. How do you like Canada and western world freedom given that truth?
Would you defend that freedom in a military context or just with your beak?

I expect that an army sargeant going over my current military value would probably say that my beak was the best part of me. And that shouldn't be sold short. Hopefully before we get to a military context we will have the opportunity to talk. But help me with this, why is a respect for human free speach, or an understanding of the need for sustainable development an attack on freedom?