Canadian Politics Redux

1ThoughtKnown

^^^^
"A shill is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing or other business areas.
Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns."

I work in the transmission of high voltage electricity and have nothing to do with the oil industry outside the fact they are do use electricity so they are technically customers. Once again, someone on here with very little argument resorts to non-factual name calling. *Yawn*
I'm tiring of the lack of intelligence of these lame retorts.

What is really sad is the thousands of people who are currently out of work and the fact that environmentalist whack jobs (funded by the money behind the railways) is preventing the construction of three very important pipelines to our resource based economy.
Even your hero Trudeau is pro-pipeline and pro-oilsands. I was actually proud of him for telling Decaprio, the nitwit who mistakingly took a Chinook in Alberta as "sign of global warming", to task for his uneducated and irresponsible stance against the industry.

These mindless twits don't even understand that they are throwing people under the bus who pay to watch their movies. I wonder if he has looked at his own industry for environmental transgressions? I know for a fact that once filming is over everything, and I do mean everything, goes straight in the garbage. That ends up directly in a landfill. Broavo mr. Big shot

The world is not perfect, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts if you needed an artificial limb or a heart valve you wouldn't give a rats ass if that oil got to a refinery by a pipeline, a truck, a train a boat or a horse and fucking buggy. The Hypocrisy of environmentalist is laughable. If anyone of you ride a bike and live in a teepee and eat only weeds and grubs you have a leg to stand on.

polaris_x

oh dear ... the old if you don't live off the land and remove yourself from civilization you can't care or talk about the environment ... a sure sign one lacks the knowledge or the rationality to comprehend issues ...

at least it's an indication of who is worth the time and who isn't ...

HughFreakingDillon

polaris_x said:

oh dear ... the old if you don't live off the land and remove yourself from civilization you can't care or talk about the environment ... a sure sign one lacks the knowledge or the rationality to comprehend issues ...

at least it's an indication of who is worth the time and who isn't ...

yes, the "all or nothing" argument. it's weak.

no one is saying get rid of oil completely. but our dependence on it for so many things that we don't need to depend on it for is the issue. we just have to take a good hard look at the benefits and drawbacks of what we are doing. if we are sacrificing the environment and future natural resources for a few bucks and the ability to drive an SUV and sit in a Tim Horton's drive through for 20 minutes instead of a smart car, parking it and going inside, or taking the bus, then yeah, that's a problem.

We are all guilty of this. We all do it. No one is saying otherwise. I think we can all recognize that we can criticize at the same time realizing that we can also improve our own processes.

it's about smart choices, and moderation. the way we are going is unsustainable. this is a fact. not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

polaris_x

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's about smart choices, and moderation. the way we are going is unsustainable. this is a fact. not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

it's not hard to understand ... but people lack the ability to think critically these days - their opinions are based on what's fed to them from ideological viewpoints they most connect with ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

He has some legitimate points, but his passages 'seem' to reflect disdain for resource management in an era when resource management should be of paramount concern.

HughFreakingDillon

30, I agree on both points.

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

He has some legitimate points, but his passages 'seem' to reflect disdain for resource management in an era when resource management should be of paramount concern.

really!? what legitimate points does he have?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

He has some legitimate points, but his passages 'seem' to reflect disdain for resource management in an era when resource management should be of paramount concern.

really!? what legitimate points does he have?

The hypocrisy.

My university roommate said one of the greatest things ever said: the only true environmentalists are the Amish- they talk the talk, but they walk the walk.

Treehuggers driving their Volkswagon vans and wearing their leather Birkenstocks up to the rainforest was hypocrisy to some degree.

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

He has some legitimate points, but his passages 'seem' to reflect disdain for resource management in an era when resource management should be of paramount concern.

really!? what legitimate points does he have?

The hypocrisy.

My university roommate said one of the greatest things ever said: the only true environmentalists are the Amish- they talk the talk, but they walk the walk.

Treehuggers driving their Volkswagon vans and wearing their leather Birkenstocks up to the rainforest was hypocrisy to some degree.

k, well that I disagree with.

is it hypocritical to smoke weed and drink alcohol but be against hard drugs? nope. it's all about setting limits and balance. it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

He has some legitimate points, but his passages 'seem' to reflect disdain for resource management in an era when resource management should be of paramount concern.

really!? what legitimate points does he have?

The hypocrisy.

My university roommate said one of the greatest things ever said: the only true environmentalists are the Amish- they talk the talk, but they walk the walk.

Treehuggers driving their Volkswagon vans and wearing their leather Birkenstocks up to the rainforest was hypocrisy to some degree.

I guess that's only true if the "tree huggers" don't understand the meaning of moderation either... Although I will agree on the car issue. While I live car-free, and work to do so, I don't begrudge car drivers across the board. I do, however, begrudge a person who spouts off about air pollution and pipelines and then drives away in a gas guzzler that they don't even need. This is just a common sense kind of thing.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

He has some legitimate points, but his passages 'seem' to reflect disdain for resource management in an era when resource management should be of paramount concern.

really!? what legitimate points does he have?

The hypocrisy.

My university roommate said one of the greatest things ever said: the only true environmentalists are the Amish- they talk the talk, but they walk the walk.

Treehuggers driving their Volkswagon vans and wearing their leather Birkenstocks up to the rainforest was hypocrisy to some degree.

k, well that I disagree with.

is it hypocritical to smoke weed and drink alcohol but be against hard drugs? nope. it's all about setting limits and balance. it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

Right, exactly.

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

He has some legitimate points, but his passages 'seem' to reflect disdain for resource management in an era when resource management should be of paramount concern.

really!? what legitimate points does he have?

The hypocrisy.

My university roommate said one of the greatest things ever said: the only true environmentalists are the Amish- they talk the talk, but they walk the walk.

Treehuggers driving their Volkswagon vans and wearing their leather Birkenstocks up to the rainforest was hypocrisy to some degree.

oh dear ...

the hypocrisy excuse is the lazy person's response to issues they don't want to address ...

i keep saying it on this board ... i could drive a hummer and leave the engine on all night while pumping AC through my open windows and it still doesn't take away from the fact that global warming is causing mass suffering and we are responsible ...

it's the easy way out so someone doesn't actually have to address any issues ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I said he had made some legitimate points. He has spoken to the fact that we are all consumers and contribute to the environmental problems we experience- we create the demand.

I also said he has seemed to scoff at resource management and environmental concerns which are items that should not be brushed aside.

This is the reality that seems to be ignored here: we are all part of the problem to varying degrees. I'm not saying we shove our heads up our asses and ignore the looming global meltdown, but let's also not ignore our complicity in the situation either.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I said he had made some legitimate points. He has spoken to the fact that we are all consumers and contribute to the environmental problems we experience- we create the demand.

I also said he has seemed to scoff at resource management and environmental concerns which are items that should not be brushed aside.

This is the reality that seems to be ignored here: we are all part of the problem to varying degrees. I'm not saying we shove our heads up our asses and ignore the looming global meltdown, but let's also not ignore our complicity in the situation either.

I agree we all need to be conscious of our own contributions, both positive and negative. Absolutely. I think where the problem came in is when you called people hypocritical the way you did, that's all. Mostly because it has no real meaning in this context. Not realistically. It's not like everyone living like the Amish is an option.

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I said he had made some legitimate points. He has spoken to the fact that we are all consumers and contribute to the environmental problems we experience- we create the demand.

I also said he has seemed to scoff at resource management and environmental concerns which are items that should not be brushed aside.

This is the reality that seems to be ignored here: we are all part of the problem to varying degrees. I'm not saying we shove our heads up our asses and ignore the looming global meltdown, but let's also not ignore our complicity in the situation either.

I agree we all need to be conscious of our own contributions, both positive and negative. Absolutely. I think where the problem came in is when you called people hypocritical the way you did, that's all. Mostly because it has no real meaning in this context. Not realistically. It's not like everyone living like the Amish is an option.

Sure it is!!!
Minus the breeding levels lol

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I said he had made some legitimate points. He has spoken to the fact that we are all consumers and contribute to the environmental problems we experience- we create the demand.

I also said he has seemed to scoff at resource management and environmental concerns which are items that should not be brushed aside.

This is the reality that seems to be ignored here: we are all part of the problem to varying degrees. I'm not saying we shove our heads up our asses and ignore the looming global meltdown, but let's also not ignore our complicity in the situation either.

I agree we all need to be conscious of our own contributions, both positive and negative. Absolutely. I think where the problem came in is when you called people hypocritical the way you did, that's all. Mostly because it has no real meaning in this context. Not realistically. It's not like everyone living like the Amish is an option.

Are you serious?

Geezuz, man. I never called anybody anything.

I stated that Unthought made some legitimate points regarding our collective hypocrisy. Then I also stated (basically despite our dependence on the earth's resources) that we need to make concerted efforts to manage our resources, consumption levels, and impact on the environment.

I used the expression my roommate used to illustrate the fact that we are all guilty of contributing to the problem we all lament.

I'm not Amish and my ecological footprint is too big for one person. Am I going to do anything about it? Not significant enough I'm afraid. Can you be honest?

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I said he had made some legitimate points. He has spoken to the fact that we are all consumers and contribute to the environmental problems we experience- we create the demand.

I also said he has seemed to scoff at resource management and environmental concerns which are items that should not be brushed aside.

This is the reality that seems to be ignored here: we are all part of the problem to varying degrees. I'm not saying we shove our heads up our asses and ignore the looming global meltdown, but let's also not ignore our complicity in the situation either.

I agree we all need to be conscious of our own contributions, both positive and negative. Absolutely. I think where the problem came in is when you called people hypocritical the way you did, that's all. Mostly because it has no real meaning in this context. Not realistically. It's not like everyone living like the Amish is an option.

Are you serious?

Geezuz, man. I never called anybody anything.

I stated that Unthought made some legitimate points regarding our collective hypocrisy. Then I also stated (basically despite our dependence on the earth's resources) that we need to make concerted efforts to manage our resources, consumption levels, and impact on the environment.

I used the expression my roommate used to illustrate the fact that we are all guilty of contributing to the problem we all lament.

I'm not Amish and my ecological footprint is too big for one person. Am I going to do anything about it? Not significant enough I'm afraid. Can you be honest?

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was talking in the context of what you posted (sorry, I took your calling them legit points as agreement... that's not the case?).

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I said he had made some legitimate points. He has spoken to the fact that we are all consumers and contribute to the environmental problems we experience- we create the demand.

I also said he has seemed to scoff at resource management and environmental concerns which are items that should not be brushed aside.

This is the reality that seems to be ignored here: we are all part of the problem to varying degrees. I'm not saying we shove our heads up our asses and ignore the looming global meltdown, but let's also not ignore our complicity in the situation either.

who isn't taking ownership? ... everyone here uses "we" in discussing the issues ... he wants to dismiss the points by pointing to hypocrisy ... that's just lazy ...

not sure how using the hypocrisy excuse is a legitimate point ... nor the fact we are all complicit ...

they are just meant to detract and not contribute to any discussion ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I said he had made some legitimate points. He has spoken to the fact that we are all consumers and contribute to the environmental problems we experience- we create the demand.

I also said he has seemed to scoff at resource management and environmental concerns which are items that should not be brushed aside.

This is the reality that seems to be ignored here: we are all part of the problem to varying degrees. I'm not saying we shove our heads up our asses and ignore the looming global meltdown, but let's also not ignore our complicity in the situation either.

who isn't taking ownership? ... everyone here uses "we" in discussing the issues ... he wants to dismiss the points by pointing to hypocrisy ... that's just lazy ...

not sure how using the hypocrisy excuse is a legitimate point ... nor the fact we are all complicit ...

they are just meant to detract and not contribute to any discussion ...

His point- which has been well served- was don't throw stones when you live in glass houses. It bears some legitimacy in my mind whether you care to admit it or not.

Now to his point... he lost the impact he might have gained had he not brushed off what is critical in these types of discussions: it cannot just be carte blanche on the planet and its resources because "meh... we all want this shit soooo whatareyagonnado?"

Managing our activities to do as little harm as possible is without question the prudent thing to do. You don't have to be intelligent to understand this simple truth (and no... I'm not calling anyone dumb here).

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I said he had made some legitimate points. He has spoken to the fact that we are all consumers and contribute to the environmental problems we experience- we create the demand.

I also said he has seemed to scoff at resource management and environmental concerns which are items that should not be brushed aside.

This is the reality that seems to be ignored here: we are all part of the problem to varying degrees. I'm not saying we shove our heads up our asses and ignore the looming global meltdown, but let's also not ignore our complicity in the situation either.

who isn't taking ownership? ... everyone here uses "we" in discussing the issues ... he wants to dismiss the points by pointing to hypocrisy ... that's just lazy ...

not sure how using the hypocrisy excuse is a legitimate point ... nor the fact we are all complicit ...

they are just meant to detract and not contribute to any discussion ...

His point- which has been well served- was don't throw stones when you live in glass houses. It bears some legitimacy in my mind whether you care to admit it or not.

Now to his point... he lost the impact he might have gained had he not brushed off what is critical in these types of discussions: it cannot just be carte blanche on the planet and its resources because "meh... we all want this shit soooo whatareyagonnado?"

Managing our activities to do as little harm as possible is without question the prudent thing to do. You don't have to be intelligent to understand this simple truth (and no... I'm not calling anyone dumb here).

no one here is saying we couldn't all contribute more. but does that mean we should have the discussion on HOW we should all improve, to increase our collective knowledge on how to better serve our home? of course not. so saying he has a legitimate gripe about hypocrisy is off base, to say the least.