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

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by fotze

Academics are 100% clear of any agenda other than the truth, nothing to gain from more studies for them. But you can't handle the troof.



It is a bizarre post since left wing nenshi-boy bigtime sounds pretty opposed to this move in this thread.

Not sure if serious.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Nothing illegal about the NDP doing this. Aggravating as hell, sure, but they can represent the Opposition to the Canadian government however they choose to do so.

And again, it's that word "sabotage" which I think you guys are making mountains out of mole-hills. Once again I will remind that the article says they want to an impact assessment first, not destroy the oil sands. Any speculation about them using it as a crux to shut down the entire oil industry is completely baseless, illogical, and conservative truth stretching.

The New Democrats do not want to put a permanent halt to oil-sands development but say the federal government and Alberta should take a timeout to determine how the oil can be extracted with the smallest amount of damage to the environment and to develop a plan to deal with climate change.

I'm sorry, but take a time out. A halt even temporarily is economic devestation, not only for this province, but literally for this country.

You can candy coat it all you want.

And while its not illegal, I think its a stupid dumbass move by a bunch of grandstanders.

I think it goes counter to Canadian interests at this present time.

I also don't see the NDP screaming for the open pit asbestos mine in Quebec? Or scream that the Pulp and Paper industry in Quebec get temprarily halted.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm sorry, but take a time out. A halt even temporarily is economic devestation, not only for this province, but literally for this country.

While I agree with you, I believe the visit is to talk about the delay of the Keystone pipeline specifically. The article is awkwardly worded.

“I am meeting with senators and congressmen. I am meeting with legislators who have an interest in hearing a different side of the story on Keystone, who have an interest in talking to Canadian legislators who represent a different point of view,” Ms. Leslie said.

I think their trip has a specific purpose, although the article has spun it to mention greater oil sands development.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

they can speak up and bitch all they want in the house of commons. But going internationally and cutting off the government basically at the knees is bunk.

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.

[Tinordi]

Being utterly reliant on one commodity is the key to economic growth and resilience.

The Alberta all eggs in one basket Advantage.

[V]

It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

[CaptainCrunch]

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 wasn't really happy about the Iraq thing either, I would have been fine with him raising holy hell in Commons.

If you read some of the really interesting back room stories about the start of the Iraq war though, it wasn't that Jean Chretien said no to the troops to Iraq that did a lot of damage to Canada U.S. relations at the time, it was how he handled it.

There was general back room fear about the fall out and reprocussions, and I believe Harper thought that the letter to the Wall Street might lesson those ripples,

But in my mind he shouldn't have bothered.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Huh?

As the opposition party they can go and bitch and complain all day long in the house of commons, thats their job. But they are not the government of Canada, they do not represent the government of Canada.

And going out and actually trying to actively sabatoge a sector of the Canadian economy is not what the opposition party does.

Or what these non federal gov't politicians do or this one promoting their own agendas in DC quite often over what the Feds say. They advocate their own interests speaking for their constituency despite what the flavor of the week is in Ottawa as well.

In you view, it sounds like we should all shut our mouths, shut down the provincial offices and get with the program till ~2015 since Canada is monolithic with one voice. Good luck with that...

The Alberta Office in Washington, D.C. promotes Alberta’s economic and policy interests in key areas, such as energy, environment and agriculture.




Priorities include reinforcing to key U.S. political and business decision-makers that Alberta:

• Has the commitment and capacity to be a secure, reliable and growing energy supplier
• Develops its world-scale energy resources in an environmentally responsible way
• Contributes to enhanced North American agricultural competitiveness
• Is a desirable place in which to live, work, travel, study, invest and conduct research

The Alberta Washington, D.C. Office began operating in October 2004. It is co-located in the Canadian Embassy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

While I agree with you, I believe the visit is to talk about the delay of the Keystone pipeline specifically. The article is awkwardly worded.

“I am meeting with senators and congressmen. I am meeting with legislators who have an interest in hearing a different side of the story on Keystone, who have an interest in talking to Canadian legislators who represent a different point of view,” Ms. Leslie said.

I think their trip has a specific purpose, although the article has spun it to mention greater oil sands development.

Thats what happens when you give a quote specific to halting the Oil Sands, its the same poor resonance that hit Jack Layton out here during his campaign when he flew over the Oil Sands in his campaign jet, pointed down to the development and stated that he wanted to shut it down.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

If I felt that it was a deal that provided no true gains to our nation then yeah I would not like it. Its not like this is a deal that one company or person benefits from. This is a boost to our economy in which we all get something out of it.

Like I said in another post differing opinions are fine, but we picked who would be our voice outside of Canada already. Democracy has spoken and the people have chosen.

Yeah but the gains to the nation are another point of debate. Some people might think that a significant raise in the price of a commoditiy which will affect the price that people pay for that commoditiy may not benefit the majority of the population. The oil companies will benefit from being able to sell their oil at a higher price, but the average Canadian who will inevitably be paying more at the pump may not quite see the benefit.

So far the opposition to this project has been largely framed in terms of the potential environmental impacts, but there are serious economic implications that have not really been looked at.

[Tinordi]

Dutch disease? Petro-state? Hardly bad things.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by troutman

Only the party with 40% of the popular vote can speak for Canada? The party with 30% of the popular vote has to be quiet?

http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx

Yes. The party with 40% is the Government of Canada. The one with 30% is not.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

While I agree with you, I believe the visit is to talk about the delay of the Keystone pipeline specifically. The article is awkwardly worded.

“I am meeting with senators and congressmen. I am meeting with legislators who have an interest in hearing a different side of the story on Keystone, who have an interest in talking to Canadian legislators who represent a different point of view,” Ms. Leslie said.

I think their trip has a specific purpose, although the article has spun it to mention greater oil sands development.

Ozy, your twisted logic is ridiculous! In one post, you state unequivocably what the NDP are or are not going to do re: oil sands. And then you "think" you know what the NDP trip is about. In the first case, the words are paramount; in the second, their merely awkwardly worded.

I are you trying to run for political office. What is this agenda that you're pushing? I want answers!

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

It would not suprise me at all that Nenshi has voted NDP.

Hi Barb, the election was more than a year ago. You really should be over it at this point. I guess you've got a lot of time to kill these days.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Ozy, your twisted logic is ridiculous! In one post, you state unequivocably what the NDP are or are not going to do re: oil sands. And then you "think" you know what the NDP trip is about. In the first case, the words are paramount; in the second, their merely awkwardly worded.

I are you trying to run for political office. What is this agenda that you're pushing? I want answers!

The article is awkwardly worded. It leads in to the NDP crushing the oil industry, but then quickly changes tone to the Keystone pipeline with that quip by Mr. Leslie.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The article is awkwardly worded. It leads in to the NDP crushing the oil industry, but then quickly changes tone to the Keystone pipeline with that quip by Mr. Leslie.

It's not awkward at all. It is representing what the NDP are going to say down there.

From the article:
But Ms. Leslie says the potential contamination of soil and water was not the only consideration.
“Some folks have pushed back, rightly so maybe, that this decision wasn’t about greenhouse gases,” she said. “But, if you look at the State Department statement, it says that they are going to do a review that includes environmental impacts and it says specifically, ‘including climate change.’ So it is about where this oil is coming from, what it can do, what states it’s going to go through. It is about the whole big picture.”

What's not to get?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

I guess the NDP only cares about Ontario unions.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by zuluking

It's not awkward at all. It is representing what the NDP are going to say down there.

From the article:
But Ms. Leslie says the potential contamination of soil and water was not the only consideration.
“Some folks have pushed back, rightly so maybe, that this decision wasn’t about greenhouse gases,” she said. “But, if you look at the State Department statement, it says that they are going to do a review that includes environmental impacts and it says specifically, ‘including climate change.’ So it is about where this oil is coming from, what it can do, what states it’s going to go through. It is about the whole big picture.”

What's not to get?

Yes, all within the context of the Keystone pipeline. That's my point. Not the entire oil industry, although it may read like that. Hence, awkwardly worded at points.

[Barnet Flame]

I don't see a problem with what the NDP has done. Why shouldn't people/parties not lobby their views when the opportunity arises? It is hardly going to be news to Americans or their Government that there is a sizeable body of opinion within Canada that opposes current policy in relation to extraction of oil from the tar/oilsands.

You may disagree with the message they make, but I simply cannot understand how, in an open democracy anyone would disagree with them making their voice heard.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yes, all within the context of the Keystone pipeline. That's my point. Not the entire oil industry, although it may read like that. Hence, awkwardly worded at points.

I disagree, the one direct quote does talk about extraction which has nothing to do with the Keystone Pipeline.