Ottawa launches Alberta counterterrorism unit

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You do realize they mostly get deployed to war zones right? Fort Mac ain't no war zone.

It seems to me whatever they are doing in the oilsands at the moment is working. Again, show me the evidence we need to spend more to protect the province and I'll be cool with. I'm sorry I require more justification than just "Trust us" before spending tax dollars. Remember spending more for something can only be offset two ways: Cuts elsewhere or tax increases. At a certain point you can't cut anymore, so obviously the end result will at some point be higher taxes, which I am against. Thats all I want here, is efficient spending of the tax dollars you and me and many others work hard to pay.

Have you ever been attacked by a tiger?
Do you own any rocks?
If so I'd like to buy that rock!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Haha oh man. You guys wanna live your lives always fearing the worst, then go for it. Sorry I'd rather live free and choose to base spending decisions on their merits and not on the "Worst case scenario". Bin Laden may not destory America in the literal sense, but the fear he drudged up with 9/11 was enough to go into two costly (and one endless) war that will bankrupt America. Sometimes you gotta stop fearing the boogey man and just live life.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Of course they don't, because we keep it that way.

It`s natural to despise us, but if we weren't here...

Again, as the one who argued against Colin Powell, and for Gay Rights.

You're welcome.

I saw it, and you are welcome.

Clean water as well? Who knows? I guess we'll see in 5 years.

I honestly have no clue what any of that has to do with the topic at hand.

I'm not pleased with the Conservatives either, and will probably vote Liberal if they can get their crap together, but this is still a good move.

Clean water? I don't get it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

No? You couldn't put toxic chemicals into the food? That doesn't concern you in any way?

If you can come up with 1 realistic scenario where doing something to a farm can have anywhere near the consequences that 1 person could potentially do in 1 day at the right O&G facility I will immediately concede this argument.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think I said in another thread this province would be worse off than the maritime provinces without the oil in this province, so I quite understand how important it is. But is it more important than farming? I mean they did survive for tens of thousands of years without oil, but good luck surviving tens of thousands of years without food. So why aren't we doing everything in our power to protect farms from attacks? Because it would be incredibly costly and wasteful to do so, especially when there is a lack of evidence anything has or will be done.

You know its funny, the people who "attack" O&G infrastructure are always called "environmentalists". Explain to me then, why would environmentalists risk possibly destroying ecosystems just to send a message to those O&G companies? I think the likelihood of any major incidents effecting the oilsands is somewhere around 1%, and as such that just doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment. In this case I'd rather save the money for any potential incidents rather than spend millions of taxpayer dollars on the "potential" something goes wrong.

My number one concern isn't bashing O&G companies, its ensuring our government isn't wasting the finite tax dollars they have. I don't hate profits or corporations are anything like that. I hate wasteful spending.

If you believe that the government decided to do this on a whim, then you are incredibly naive. Someone just woke up this morning and thought "hey, let's spin up a counter-terrorism organization for the oil and gas sector. gotta protect them corporate profits." And the RCMP said "sounds good, boss. we'll get the patrol cars out to the oil fields asap."

Really, you should let the gov't know that you've calculated the risk of major incidents affecting the oil sands at 1% and they should just save our hard-earned tax money. By the way, what formula did you use to come up with the calculation? On what information did you base it on?

I've always found sense in the adage: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." But that's a really old saying, so probably not worth thinking about.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You do realize they mostly get deployed to war zones right? Fort Mac ain't no war zone.

They are deployed all over the world. Millions upon millions of private contractors doing security work. The issues have happened almost everywhere they have been deployed.

It seems to me whatever they are doing in the oilsands at the moment is working. Again, show me the evidence we need to spend more to protect the province and I'll be cool with. I'm sorry I require more justification than just "Trust us" before spending tax dollars. Remember spending more for something can only be offset two ways: Cuts elsewhere or tax increases. At a certain point you can't cut anymore, so obviously the end result will at some point be higher taxes, which I am against. Thats all I want here, is efficient spending of the tax dollars you and me and many others work hard to pay.

How do you know if its working? For all we know threats are increasing and the RCMP needs extra resources to deal with them.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Haha oh man. You guys wanna live your lives always fearing the worst, then go for it. Sorry I'd rather live free and choose to base spending decisions on their merits and not on the "Worst case scenario". Bin Laden may not destory America in the literal sense, but the fear he drudged up with 9/11 was enough to go into two costly (and one endless) war that will bankrupt America. Sometimes you gotta stop fearing the boogey man and just live life.

Ahh, the "I don't have any logical reponse so I'm going to call the other guys fraidy-cats" method.

There's a big difference between living in fear and recongnizing when it's prudent to take some precautions.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I drive. Does that mean I'm living in fear? No it means I recognize that with a small bit of prevention I can significantly reduce the chance of catastrophic consequences.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

No? You couldn't put toxic chemicals into the food? That doesn't concern you in any way?

WTF?



Seriously? Do you even have a clue how a farm works? How the food gets processed and shipped? How it is inspected? Do you know what the CFIA is?

[Jebus]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Of course they don't, because we keep it that way.

It`s natural to despise us, but if we weren't here...

Again, as the one who argued against Colin Powell, and for Gay Rights.

You're welcome.

I saw it, and you are welcome.

Clean water as well? Who knows? I guess we'll see in 5 years.

I find this post so confusing I am going to search some vintage netminder posts just so something makes sense again...

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Ahh, the "I don't have any logical reponse so I'm going to call the other guys fraidy-cats" method.

There's a big difference between living in fear and recongnizing when it's prudent to take some precautions.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I drive. Does that mean I'm living in fear? No it means I recognize that with a small bit of prevention I can significantly reduce the chance of catastrophic consequences.

Right, and as I've said, if they have proof and evidence that they'll show us that there's reason to spend more to protect, than cool I'd be for it. But if their stance is "Trust us, the threat is rising" then it becomes about do you trust the Harper government to spend wisely. I mentioned before, nearly $1 billion dollars wasted on G20 security. That shows me they like to overreact rather than analyze a situation on its merits.

The obvious question is: Do you spend money without knowing whether its worthwile? I would hope the answer is no.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I honestly have no clue what any of that has to do with the topic at hand.

I'm not pleased with the Conservatives either, and will probably vote Liberal if they can get their crap together, but this is still a good move.

Clean water? I don't get it.

The law in itself is great. Alone, I like the law.

But with the other non-environmental laws, and their policy of muscling scientists and media, it's just a rule to keep well informed people in their place.

It's an extra step to combat 'environmental terrorism' with newer harsher laws.

We're not even talking about Ludwigs, we are just talking about people who want to do docs on the sands.

And again as I mentioned, we don't really need. Can we say why? Can you tell me why we need this law.

It's a blackout law.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Azure

WTF?



Seriously? Do you even have a clue how a farm works? How the food gets processed and shipped? How it is inspected? Do you know what the CFIA is?

So never, not once, in the history of Canada since the CFIA, has there been any issues with food contamination or other issues? Thats like saying the SEC is there to protect American investors, so there must never be securities fraud.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right, and as I've said, if they have proof and evidence that they'll show us that there's reason to spend more to protect, than cool I'd be for it. But if their stance is "Trust us, the threat is rising" then it becomes about do you trust the Harper government to spend wisely. I mentioned before, nearly $1 billion dollars waster on G20 security. That shows me they like to overreact rather than analyze a situation on its merits.

The obvious question is: Do you spend money without knowing whether its worthwile? I would hope the answer is no.

Was the G20 security pricey?
Aboslutely.

But what criteria do you use to call it a waste?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So never, not once, in the history of Canada since the CFIA, has there been any issues with food contamination or other issues? Thats like saying the SEC is there to protect American investors, so there must never be securities fraud.

You know, farmers make a lot more off their food than I see as a tax payer. Why the hell should I be paying to inspect their product.
If they're so worried about their product being unsafe they should pay for it themselves. Why do "We, the taxpayers" have to foot the bill?

[moncton golden flames]

our government is labelling environmental groups and first nations as radicals and extremists, because these groups don't agree with what the government and it's pocket padding oil buddies want to do. this clears the way for the government to begin doing whatever it wants and steamroll all those who stand in their way. this may seem like a small step, but it is one step of many more to come. by the time some you realize what is happening, it will be too late. welcome to the beginning of a police state and the loss of your civil liberties and free speech.

the people in power create problems so that the lemmings will accept their solutions, and surrender their rights willingly. welcome to fascism people.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

No? You couldn't put toxic chemicals into the food? That doesn't concern you in any way?

its already in the food. people are just too dumb to know it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

our government is labelling environmental groups and first nations as radicals and extremists, because these groups don't agree with what the government and it's pocket padding oil buddies want to do. this clears the way for the government to begin doing whatever it wants and steamroll all those who stand in their way. this may seem like a small step, but it is one step of many more to come. by the time some you realize what is happening, it will be too late. welcome to the beginning of a police state and the loss of your civil liberties and free speech.

the people in power create problems so that the lemmings will accept their solutions, and surrender their rights willingly. welcome to fascism people.

Finally a reasonble, well thought out, and not at all alarmist point of view in this thread!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Jebus

I find this post so confusing I am going to search some vintage netminder posts just so something makes sense again...

Do it, I dare you!

This is all so funny. Let me be the clown till Harper gets 25 seats. It's dumb, but it will be fixed soon.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Was the G20 security pricey?
Aboslutely.

But what criteria do you use to call it a waste?

reading between lines here, but do you honestly think they spent that money wisely?

[Senator Clay Davis]

As an accountant, there are only two criteria to evaluate waste: Return on Investment, and Value. If we spend 10 times more than we are now, is the security going to be 10 times better? Whats the amount we can spend that is efficient without compromising the security? Again outside Weibo, I cannot tell you of any other incidents that can remotely be considered "terrorism". The people who hate O&G are mostly peaceful anti-war folk, so I don't see their threat as growing in any way.

I always look at government spending decisions as decisions that will effect mine and yours and everyone else's taxes. I don't like paying taxes, so I'd like to pay the minimum possible. And the best way to do that is maximize the efficiency of government spending.