By Rob Beschizza at 7:01 am Mon, Feb 18, 2013
Why did he respond in the conditional? The syntax implies that the question was “were someone to query whether …”
This would be should be maybe fuffle kind of response is a creeping sickness on clarity. The responder seems to feel, through some misty logic, that they are avoiding accountability for their response, whereby they would later reply to a challenge to that response that they responded in the conditional. It’s a bit of a mindfuck.
So his answer should have been: “My answer is no … Fucking asshole.”
Then I can start to make sense of it all.
It’s elliptical: “[If I were to deign to answer your question,] the answer would be no.”
More complete answer, for those unfamiliar with Canadian politics: “The answer would be no, given that Alberta’s oil and gas industry will never tolerate more than token regulatory oversight from Ottawa, especially when our own boy is PM. Why even ask, you fucking eastern asshole.”
Although no one really knows, the signs suggest Canada’s big guys are unlikely to be bought outright by foreign state-owned companies. It’s ok for US companies – ExxonMobil – to do that sort of thing, but not Asian companies.
Just look at the delays and near misses from the CNOOC-Nexen and Petronas-Progress deals.
all i can think of is this: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=250
Our government’s quite willing to sell off everything we value to the highest bidder. Or the first bidder…
I think the word “Encana” was supposed to be in this sentence somewhere. That “its” is just hanging out all by itself.
Monty Python’s Flying Circus!
Christ what an…
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin