Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
First off, I'm not sure why you think me asking you if you were advocating something, is putting words in your mouth, but that's kind of irrelvant to the debat at hand, however it doesn't bode well for your "I don't get the defensiveness" comment, as you seem to be pretty defensive yourself.
But I digress. The defensiveness that people on the oil and gas side of the debate comes from the fact that people like you throw out statements like the one you made about the slowdown in oil and gas benefitting small businesses, without mentioning the fact that you recognise that this still means an overall downturn to the provincial economy (at least not untill you're called on it).
Finally, EnCana's "Childish response" is about as far from childish as can be. What EnCana was trying to do was make the point that yes this extra $2 billion that Eddie is drooling over is a good thing for the province, but it does come with some pretty major consequences, specifically companies like EnCana having to move their capital budgets out of the province to places where they can be more profitable.
Would it be childish for a hockey player to sign a contract for the same money in a state/province where the income tax was 10% less, or would it be a good business decision? And would it be childish for him to tell the other team that if they give him 10% more it would offset that loss to him?
|
You're clearly convinced that the oil co's are in the clear and right about this issue. I wish I could feel the same, about either side. But I don't. So be it. I will continue to be skeptical of spin from both sides. It's also clear neither of us will win over the other to their side, although I don't even really have a side, come to think of it. Unless being a skeptic of both sides is a side.