Rant

i) If you were a citizen of Alberta, would you support the pipeline? What could being a citizens of Alberta factor in to your ideas in supporting the pipeline? Is the bias and influenced there different or targetting a different idealogy?

ii) Would you vote for Bill Morneau using your money to improve the economy of Canada? Is your money being well spent for the economy? Would you gamble on a pipeline that might fail?

iii) As a business from another country importing crude from Canada, how would you respond do the heavy prices of crude? What could this do to your business? How could you benefit off of this? Consider the access to crude from other exporters.

iv) What can be done to mitigate the economy loss of heavy crude? 

v) Is the Canada’s mountain worth preserving for a better economy in pipelines?

 

This article is arguing for Bill morneau for putting the supporting the trans pipeline. It proves that the pipeline is a good cause and worth to support, and the people of Alberta were just unreasonable. The article also outlines how Jason Kenny would repeal the carbon tax of the pipeline, as it made crude unbearably more expensive and killed jobs. The topic of the article shows opposing the pipeline is a bad choice. The article is trying to supporting Bill Morneau and the liberals for supporting the pipeline. The article describes how bill Morneau knows what he is doing and wouldn't support the pipeline without plan that the pipeline would fail and has enough support to take in another approach why using carbon tax. This will affect the voters as they would need to be convinced that bill knows what he is doing.this is also a defense in reponseto articles showing how the carbon tax would make supporting the pipeline a lot more expensive. It explains all the factors and voids the different attacks made on the decision to support the pipeline.

 

The article talks about how the Trudeau government is wasting money. How better decisions can be made to make the money. The article also proves the conservative plan to build the railroad and the argues about the liberal government plan to increase the value of oil by limiting the mining and exporting of the crude. The article tries to convince that the trudeau government is increasing the canadian tax, but is spending, or wasting our hard earned money on the useless spending. It is biased towards the conservatives to gain supporters, proving that the conservatives would be better for the country than liberals. The defending party shows the mistake of liberals, breaking their promise to build the railroad. The article is important as it affects the people who care for the environment of Alberta, and the Canadian citizens who pay taxes. The Issue is important for the conservatives as it allows them to show how the Trudeau liberal government is failing. This article affects the countries that import oil from Canada as well, they will be getting less oil at a heavier price, which would not be as good for relationships with Canada.

The article talks about the heat between Ottawa and alberta. The article admits that the statistics are not looking too good for the liberals, but then supports the liberal choice by saying other choices would be worse or equally as bad. The article argues against Bill Morneau’s opinion to build the pipeline by saying that he is betting on the fact that their will many crude in the mountain. The article also touches how even if there is many crude in the mountain the carbon tax would increase as well. It is biased for Justin Trudeau. There is a bias images showing protests outside of conservatives speeches. The article uses that conservatives do not have victories either. The bias compares Stephen Harper to Justin trudeau in attempt to say that the conservative government is on the same level or worse than the Trudeau government. The article supports the liberal party, showing how all actions that the Liberal government were good. The article uses more advanced vocabulary to target an older demographic. With “Harmonious climate” the article targets people who can vote and change the outcome of the pipeline. The article then later provides a solution to appeal to the opinion.

 

The article is arguing about the pipelines and how the construction of the pipeline was to be built under an american company. The article brings up a pipeline proposed from the past, almost 23 years ago. It is biased against the construction of the pipeline to say that the pipeline must be nationalist. The article affects people who are nationalists and people who control the oils in Canada. The Pipeline cannot be funded without the American companies so instead the prime minister says to give up patriotism.

The article is trying to convince the reader to stand up for patriotism. They give reasons and make the American companies seem bad. They use the placement of image to make the pipeline seem like a dirty thing to build and bad, as it does not look good with the environment as shown in the picture. The article attacks Canadian as to say, you think that the Americans can give advice to use more than we can give ourselves? The American company seems to have influenced the liberals. The article biases the decisions of Liberals by saying that they made the decisions because of wartimes and how extra connections to the Americans would be a good support. This is done to show that their reasonings for building the pipeline under American companies are outdated.

The article will affect the American people that are trying to buy the oils. It will also affect alberta’s and canada’s economy. The issue affects the economy of Canada and alberta, as a huge portion of Alberta’s economy comes the crude. The permission affects the residents of Alberta as well. People their will be affected by a dirty railroad built through their home. Another aspect are the who has past generations and ties from Canada for many years. Many respect their sovereignty and do not want to use American companies.

The articles shows the backlog affects of the government manipulating the prices of crude product. The article tries to argue that the backlash of the government raising crude prices had actually caused the crude railway to fail. Crude by rail becomes economically inefficient, and as a result the railways had dropped in usage. It shows the effects of the bad decisions, how there are hundreds of rail tankers that were not shipped and protests to give back the railway. 

The article is trying to convince the reader that the raise in price of the crude is harmful. The article shows the statistics of the railway shipments in a chart to show the slightly educated demographic of people who would see the drop as bad. They do not however reveal statistics of the increased taxes tagged on the heavier oil price. This causes bias as a drop looks unappealing and non-beneficial. It voices the opinions of citizens who had not supported the idea of the price raise from the start to show that this was a common opinion. Comparison saying we plan to ship near zero barrels in February compared to January of the previous years makes it seem like a horrible event. 

The article is important to the taxpayers, who need pay for buying oil and using it. The article effects the economical government. It is an issue to the decline of railway shipping. The article is targeting demographic of people in Alberta that care about the pipeline and the people that care for environments. Alberta has had an accumulation of crude so this affects the government who attempts to clear some of the backlog. The article also touches the venezuelan government who use canadian crude.