NDP to American's don't buy our tar sands

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

So you would support Harper not going to Europe to contest the "dirty" oil label?

What about approaching the newly-created TPP as an Asian alternative for Albertan oil?

Politics will never end at the border, no matter which way you slice it.

Foreign policy by the current democratically-elected government, not politics. Not the same.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Foreign policy by the current democratically-elected government, not politics. Not the same.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The NDP representatives are not agents of the Gov't of Canada according to your definition of government.

Correct - they are the Loyal (or Not-So-Loyal) Opposition. But they aren't governing.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by wookster

Thats because environmental impacts are all they have to go on...I don't see how there can be any economic implications about going ahead with the Keystone project. it would not raise gasoline prices for Canadians at all, in fact it would help keep them in check by raising the supply of oil to refineries. Oil is a global commodity based on supply and demand, not so much regional. The bigger the supply in correlation to the demand, the cheaper the price, so I'm not sure how oil companies will be able to sell at a higher price because of this? If anything, prices should get slightly lower.

Make no mistake, oil companies here will still make their money but so will the governments...and that means more money for infrastructure, health care etc. for everyone. And I also think that the environment is important as well and everyone should be held accountable to helping to maintain and better it.

I find it difficult to believe that oil companies are lobbying so hard for a project that would drive down the price of their product. I can't remember an oil company, or any company for that matter, ever doing such a thing. The fact is that most Alberta oil from the oil sands is sent to the midwest refineries which are generally overstocked which in turn, reduces the price that suppliers get for their product. The thinking behind this project is that they will be able to send the product to a different market where they will be able to get higher prices. Generally, increases in commodity prices are passed on to the consumer. I find it a real stretch to think that this project will in any way, be a benefit for the average consumer.

Additionally, I don't think that any of the price per barrel increase would affect the slim amount of royalites that are paid by the companies anyway. Are royalties not set based on the amount of barrels, not the price per barrel? So to suggest that this project will increase the amount of royalties that the governement collects is incorrect. Hence, no 'more' money for infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

This project will create a few temporary jobs and will make the oil companies richer in the short and long term, I still fail to see where the great benefits to the general population will come in.

[Ozy_Flame]

EDIT: Nm . . . Wrong quote.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There is a difference between politics and policy. Or do I need an amusing picture to get that point across?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by zuluking

There is a difference between politics and policy. Or do I need an amusing picture to get that point across?

You don't think politicking is going on when Harper calls out Europe to change a label that could impact our oil industry?

That's laughable.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You don't think politicking is going on when Harper calls out Europe to change a label that could impact our oil industry?

That's laughable.

Explain the politicking then. He is looking out for Canadian industry abroad. Isn't that what you expect from your government's foreign policy? In fact, I'd appreciate an answer to that: what do you expect from foreign policy as it relates to the Canadian economy?

[burn_this_city]

Ozy can't seem to distinguish between internal politics and politics between nations.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Ozy can't seem to distinguish between internal politics and politics between nations.

And Government from political parties.

[Ozy_Flame]

Really? We're going to get this granular?

Here's an example . . . "Dirty" oil is a politicized term used by Europe and one that the government is campaigning to get rid of, acting on behalf of a governing body to influence another group's activities. Hence, politicking in defending Canada's oil interests is the government's interests.

Need a picture?

Foreign policy is tied to politics. Ridiculous to consider them separate.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Really? We're going to get this granular?

It's hardly a fine level of granularity, in fact it's very basic.

[Gozer]

How dare the NDP voice ecological concerns about extracting fossil fuels.

The nerve of these blowhards; pandering to Big Earth and potentially sacrificing profitability at the alter of intellectual consideration. It's a crime against Canada. The crime: treason.

We all* agree with the punishment for treason.

* if you disagree with the punishment for treason - keep it to yourself until you have a majority control of federal politics please.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Gozer

How dare the NDP voice ecological concerns about extracting fossil fuels.

The nerve of these blowhards; pandering to Big Earth and potentially sacrificing profitability at the alter of intellectual consideration. It's a crime against Canada. The crime: treason.

We all* agree with the punishment for treason.

* if you disagree with the punishment for treason - keep it to yourself until you have a majority control of federal politics please.

the economy... [/zombie voice]

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

The pipeline was delayed solely because of concerns expressed by Americans, correct? Why is the NDP only now going down to voice their view on the pipeline?

Possibly as a moderate and quasi-objective opinion in a town that spends millions of dollars per year on politicians.

Maybe they waited until now out of the foreign policy respect that some posters are accusing them of lacking.

I do recognize the move is party-to-mostly political; especially the timing. The NDP is going to DC now (instead of a week from now) because they expect it to make headlines and please their base. But it doesn't invalidate their claims, nor does it preclude the previous paragraphs from being true.

[killer_carlson]

europe talking about "dirty oil" these days is as see through as Gillis complaining about reffing to distract everyone from his moody goaltender.
\

Each time a bureaucrat in europe says "dirty oil" the immediate response should be:

how is the ____ economy these days?

(fill in the blank with: Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy)

[seattleflamer]

Short memories or cherry picking...

The opposition has always had meetings with US officials from Presidents to members of Congress.

IIRC, Preston Manning and Lucien Bouchard met with Clinton shortly before the 95 referundum to express their divergent views. I doubt anyone complaining about the NDP now would have minded Manning speaking on behalf of Canada even though he wasn't even the Leader of the Opposition or, of course, PM.

The NDP represents a substantial part of the Canadian electorate and expressing their views....that simple. Politics? Yup. Cheesy? Yup. Ineffective? Yup.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I do recognize the move is party-to-mostly political; especially the timing.

Ya think?

I'm waiting for the NDP to fly overseas and talk about the dangers of Quebec asbestos. Their ONLY reason for this is to score political points and they are demonizing Alberta to do it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Sabotage is your word (and a dramatically false one at that); protecting the environment is how others look at it. And the article clearly states that the NDP don't want to halt development, but rather want more time for an environmental impact assessment.

Read the article before saying stuff like that.

The bigger the output, the more money is invested into developed more environmentally friendly ways of extracting the oil.

A lot of new technology came into play the last few years all from money that the big, evil oil companies sunk into cleaning up their footprint.

The NDP seems to be step in step with the Obama administration. Delay, delay, delay.....and regulate, regulate, regulate....then turn around and wonder where all the jobs went.

I can't wait to see them get destroyed in Parliament.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Back in 2003, did you feel the same way about Stephen Harper going on the international stage to publicly oppose the Liberal government's decision to keep our troops out of the Iraq war?

Again, I don't agree with the NDP on this issue, but there is a precedent for what they're doing.

I actually agreed with the initial invasion, and felt the Liberals were cowards for backing out(thank God I was wrong on that one), but you damn right I never agreed with the opposition going behind the back of the RULING government to suck up to the US about a certain policy or decision. Especially a war.

Their job is to disagree and be a voice in the House of Commons.