Tough Justin
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
I was replying to someone else who did. It would have been disingenuous of me to change their words. So take it up with them. You can see their post here:
What point is it you think you're making here?
I was told the carbon taxes were a hardship for them. Anyone making billions in profits is not facing a hardship.
you are attempting to vilify an extremely important economic sector
i felt it was important to provide some balance to your biased uniformed attack
so where is your diatribe against thousands of companies with profits in excess of $1 billion
where is your virtue signaling rant against Apple, Google, a number of railroads , the auto manufactures, coke-a-cola, Pepsi, JNJ, insurance companies , general electric, nestle, a dozen engineering companies etc ???
royalties & income taxes are not carbon taxes
fyi, if fossil fuels were shut down completely tomorrow, you would not last six months
why ? do you think they will leave their share behind in the CPP?
Alberta has been paying the lions share of the transfer payment bribe to Quebec
they are getting tired of being abused by central Canada
they could get a better offer from the US
I called you a science denier.
Either stop pretending you're using ignore and complain to me or deal with it.
You're a science denier.
You cancel all of NASA, IPCC, AAAAS and all legit sciences on climate.
You are vilifying all of science in order to back an industry already making $1 trillion/year while lying and destroying the climate.
No, I replied to the person who posted the word. I'm not going to be disingenuous in my discussions just because you don't like it. As I said, you can take it up with them because I'm not assuming responsibility for their word choice. It's not an order, it's just letting you know you're bitching to the wrong person.
I'm attempting to villify them? By posting their actual profits from their own published balance sheets? At no point did I villify. The topic at hand was that PP wants to "ease the burden" on low income earners by taking money out of their pockets. Someone said it was "killing" the oil industry, and I was merely pointing out their billions in profits to show they're hardly dying.
Once again you're in such a rush to be offended, you're making assumptions about intent. It's all on you.
Can you show me my diatribe against Alberta's oil producers in this thread? No, because I didn't make one. I posted the profits to show they're not being killed by the carbon tax. The only person with diatribes here is you towards me, for absolutely no reason other then your perceived attack on oil.
if saying oil companies made money is a diatribe against them, you've got a long list of people to attack. Like all their CEOs and CFOs.
You're very confused here. Maybe you should try taking a step back.
Yes, exactly. Which why I asked you what your point was for bringing them up when the only reason I brought up their profits was to demonstrate that the oil companies aren't being killed off be carbon taxes. And I'm still waiting to hear what you point was. Did you have one?
Good thing I'm not advocating for that.
give me a break
its clear you believe these are excessive profits
you ignore the fact they paid huge royalty & income taxes
you ignore the fact most of the cash flow has to be re-invested back into new drilling, exploration & maintenance just to maintain production
you ignore the fact the massive amount of investment required to generate those profits.
you ignore the fact your pension funds demand a certain level of return on their investment in these companies
you also ignore the fact the current liberal fools in Ottawa have burdened the industry with massive regulations and intend on shutting the industry down
see above
yeah i don't thinks soif saying oil companies made money is a diatribe against them, you've got a long list of people to attack. Like all their CEOs and CFOs.
You're very confused here. Maybe you should try taking a step back.
the point is you are vilifying this industry
the clean fuels standard has just started to be applied
The liberals do intend to shut this industry down
if you had a clue you would not be vilifying this industry
you can not survive without them[/QUOTE]
Your views will be washed away in history.
The problems with FPTP amd single member districts were already known 100 years ago. It's just really hard to fix a system that has a long history. People are always worried about getting screwed because at least the shitty system is the devil they know.
What would actually be a better system for Canada is much bigger discussion, and that scares people too. That's why we get minor tweaks like Instant Runoff Voting ("Ranked Choice" as it is annoyingly called in North America) without real discussion of what the effects might be.
Does it?
I'd love to see some real data backing that up.
In the US, for instance, even though the media barons LOVE "Fiscal Con, Social Lib" (that's why there is always time and column inches for anyone claiming it as their position), actual voters don't. It's the least popular position on the grid these days.
Canada might have more support for it, but I am suspicious it would be the "vast majority".
I could be wrong though! I would love to see some data.
Can you say more?
The Conservative leadership election isn't FPTP, so presumably you are talking about some other way that factors in.
Ranked ballot (assuming you mean instant runoff voting) tends to squeeze out centrists and slightly favor extremes. So I don't think the current CPC would do that badly under IRV.
You must feel good vilifying the industry while tapping your keyboard and clicking your mouse to skim through an escort board using the power they provide....
Here's a few. SNC election donations scandal, Aga Khan vacations scandal, SNC Justice Minister scandal, Indian vacation on taxpayer dollars with cultural appropriation/dancing like a clown in costume thrown in scandal, elbowgate, blackface, RCMP investigation interference, $6k/night hotel room, arrivecan cost fiasco.
