Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Directly Affected  (Read 14595 times)

GordJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 302
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2014, 06:38:22 PM »

You will not convince me to change my opinion...........


GordJ, in favour of............critical thinking.

Great point. I should have added "because all you do is copy and paste from special interest groups" but your point is right on.
Logged

Athezone

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 989
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2014, 08:18:32 PM »

@ GordJ, so what's wrong copy and pasting ? You think I am just going to pull all the facts and truth out of my own brain. Hell these guys know more than me. Where do you really think anyone gets any information that they speak of. They hear it from a source. Whether you repeat it verbatim or cut and paste it it makes no difference. Forming an opinion is hard when you don't have knowledge of it. I don't get your argument at all.
Logged

salmonrook

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2014, 08:32:57 PM »

Quote
why don't the land owners have a say in this, all 2200 hundred of them. i don't understand how they can lay pipe on land they do not own. how would you feel if your land was ripped up to lay a new pipe down especially if your against the project as a whole. if we were using this fossil fuel for domestic use and not for export my views might change but the video clearly states 100% export. also leave the park your vehicles bs. todays vehicles emit a small fraction of emissions of what they use too and burn much less fuel. also where would the provincial governments tax revenue come in if it weren't for the average joe putting fuel in his car. i would love to see the numbers of how much industry burns fossil fuel compared to the public, i bet we carry most of the tax burden too. all these natural resources are headed to asain markets while they are still worth something to fuel their industry so they can say goodbye to the sun forever because of the pollution. people > big business.
Sad to say this but they actually own a right of way through the Coquihalla valley right beside the river,similar to a railway.
I assume this was purchased way back when ,even before the highway was built.I thought it was built in the 70's but according to a post it's older than that.
 
 Agree about the fish farm forum though to much info from links,people should use their own words.
Logged

StillAqua

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2014, 09:32:22 PM »

... Forming an opinion is hard when you don't have knowledge of it.......

Unfortunately, too many form an opinion without any knowledge of it....that's the problem.

Logged

GordJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 302
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2014, 10:15:00 AM »

@ GordJ, so what's wrong copy and pasting ? You think I am just going to pull all the facts and truth out of my own brain. Hell these guys know more than me. Where do you really think anyone gets any information that they speak of. They hear it from a source. Whether you repeat it verbatim or cut and paste it it makes no difference. Forming an opinion is hard when you don't have knowledge of it. I don't get your argument at all.
When you copy and paste an article from the fish farm site and I counter with an article from the anti fish farm site we are just repeating press releases and there is no unbiased information. Both sides will post propaganda to support their views and believe it or not both sides will lie and pretend that they aren't lying.
For instance, do you really believe that an oil spill will destroy Stanley Park? Stanley Park is almost completely above sea level and I don't think there will be much oil in Lost Lagoon so it will not be destroyed, nor will the Aquarium, so how will Stanley Park be destroyed?
Or, 2,200 properties will be affected by the pipeline? There is already a pipeline in place that runs through almost all of these properties and almost every one of these property owners bought their property with the pipeline in place but when you read the anti position it sounds like each of these properties will be unusable and this is not the case.
When you copy and paste propaganda and I counter with propaganda from the other side it doesn't add to debate it just adds debris.
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2014, 10:50:54 AM »

Great point. I should have added "because all you do is copy and paste from special interest groups" but your point is right on.

Special interest groups may have a one sided perspective that needs filtering, but so do the promoters of whatever project is under consideration. Critical thinking is taking both perspectives and arriving at a balanced understanding that is, in theory, closer to the truth than either of the extremes.

The bottom line for me is that there is risk, at least as much from Kinder Morgan's proposal as from Enbridge's, and although there are arguments that support the need for the expanded pipeline capacity (supplying BC consumption is not one of them), there is also a need for the proposals to mitigate that risk and absorb it into corporate balance sheets and a need for the province to be compensated for assuming it by some mechanism such as a transit tariff on the product shipped. Until such agreement is reached, the pipelines are a bad deal for BC even if they are a benefit for the transnational oil and pipeline companies and their shareholders.

Though you may disagree with the people you say are against everything, without them, the corporate world would run roughshod over governments beyond what they currently do and we as citizens would end up bearing all the risk and and all the consequences while subsidizing corporate profit taking.
Logged

GordJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 302
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2014, 02:06:25 PM »

Though you may disagree with the people you say are against everything, without them, the corporate world would run roughshod over governments beyond what they currently do and we as citizens would end up bearing all the risk and and all the consequences while subsidizing corporate profit taking.

This is your opinion and a political statement but it is not a fact. Before we had an industry around professional protesting we had a country that thrived for over 200 years. The Canada that is here came about without professional protesters. There are, among other safeguards, regulatory bodies in place and I am not convinced that we need professional anti's to keep us in line. But your's is the kind of statement that is made all the time and the people that agree with most of your point of view accept it as fact and copy and paste it to prove their point.
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2014, 03:03:27 PM »

In the last 30 or 40 years there has been a sea change in the nature of society that has put social values and the welfare of citizens second to the economy. Where corporations once served society, society now serves corporations. This change began with Thatcher and Reagan  and was supported by the work of Milton Friedman and an enormous network of supposed think tanks funded by the businesses that benefited from the refocusing of priorities. It has over the decades spread widely and is now broadly represented in national and regional governments. It is best captured by Thatchers comment that there is no such thing as society; there are just individual men and women and families.

Because of that, government now caters to the needs of business rather than the needs of citizens and because business is by nature well organized, well funded and well connected, it has the ear of government where society, being less organized and less funded, doesn`t except through the protests that arise against particularly egregious actions. The system isn`t a conspiracy, it`s the natural offshoot of the evolution of the capitalist system. You may not be personally aware of the change but there is an enormous body of research and literature that documents it.

To call it nothing more than an opinion and a political statement and ignore it for that reason belies every principle of critical thinking.
Logged

GordJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 302
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2014, 04:52:10 PM »

In the last 30 or 40 years there has been a sea change in the nature of society that has put social values and the welfare of citizens second to the economy. Where corporations once served society, society now serves corporations. This change began with Thatcher and Reagan  and was supported by the work of Milton Friedman and an enormous network of supposed think tanks funded by the businesses that benefited from the refocusing of priorities. It has over the decades spread widely and is now broadly represented in national and regional governments. It is best captured by Thatchers comment that there is no such thing as society; there are just individual men and women and families.

Because of that, government now caters to the needs of business rather than the needs of citizens and because business is by nature well organized, well funded and well connected, it has the ear of government where society, being less organized and less funded, doesn`t except through the protests that arise against particularly egregious actions. The system isn`t a conspiracy, it`s the natural offshoot of the evolution of the capitalist system. You may not be personally aware of the change but there is an enormous body of research and literature that documents it.

To call it nothing more than an opinion and a political statement and ignore it for that reason belies every principle of critical thinking.
To attempt to obfuscate the discussion with a dissertation on Reagan's and Thatcher's economic policy is not really commenting on my post. Or, in fact, relevant to the thread. I stated that your comment was not a fact but a political statement and you came back with some diatribe meant to show how incredibly well versed you are in economics and, conversely, how sadly deficient I am and then to completely discredit my post you attacked my claim that I like the concept of critical thinking.
I didn't have to go search very hard to find that HBC and the CN or CP didn't very often put social values or the welfare of citizens ahead of the "economy" 150 years ago so I am not really sure where this "sea change" you speak of came from but I am willing to concede your point.  Hey, wait a minute, didn't big corporations hunt whales to near extinction? How was this societally beneficial? Was that a "sea change"?
Maybe I gave in too easily?
I would suggest that governments have always catered "to the needs of business" or nothing would ever have been done. Of course there would be a lot more beavers. And empty land. "Hey lets build a railway to the Pacific Ocean so that our citizens can vacation in Vancouver" isn't a rallying cry that resonates through history.  They built the railway to make money.
And I stand by my analysis of your statement that "Though you may disagree with the people you say are against everything, without them, the corporate world would run roughshod over governments beyond what they currently do and we as citizens would end up bearing all the risk and and all the consequences while subsidizing corporate profit taking." is political.
Logged

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2014, 04:58:11 PM »

Good post absolon.

It's pretty easy to buy people (politicians) off who are supposed to be representing the best interests of eveyone. People and business.
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2014, 05:53:00 PM »

Does our welfare not depend on a healthy economy? Why should we not think economy first?  Where would we be with out it?  Just asking. The economic thinking of some posts are not making sense to me at this time.
Logged

aquapaloosa

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 659
  • They don't call'em fish for nothin.
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2014, 06:54:19 PM »

The people, him, her, them and us, are the economy.  No us, no economy.
Logged
Chicken farm, pig farm, cow farm, fish farm.

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2014, 07:38:06 PM »

The people, him, her, them and us, are the economy.  No us, no economy.
Thanks Aqua. I was thinking along the line of if there was no economy, forgien investment, and out of country trade we would still be hunters and gatherers living in caves. Kind of have to thank big industry and all the hard workers for our comfort we enjoy today. Hats off to the farmers, ranchers, minors, rig hands, pipeliners, etc, and the people that do not get to spend very much time at home "Truckers" to bring us our needs and wants.  All that are directed by big industry. Basically, I think if it was not for people that have big bucks to create an industry there would be no tourism, very few working opportunities unless you can pick cotton and low lifes like me would not be where I am today. Happily Unemployed. :)
« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 08:17:44 PM by Fisherbob »
Logged

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2014, 08:18:23 PM »

Weird statement. Unless you truely are happily unemployed.
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Directly Affected
« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2014, 08:34:21 PM »

Weird statement. Unless you truely are happily unemployed.
Now I know you really, really like me since you jump on me so much TB. :)
 "happily unemployed" = Retired.
 


« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 09:16:40 PM by Fisherbob »
Logged