11 Replies to “Oh, Frack!”

  3. I agree with the above two comments. This is rather a different sort of original North American ad.
    The first segment looks like it could have been shot in any number of white and gold palace rooms.

  4. “Fracking for Freedom”
    (a slogan for the Freeworld)
    – that would look good on a t-shirt.

  6. Kate – I see a money-making opportunity here. (with Larry receiving 10% of all revenue of course)

  7. Funny ad spot. Unfortunately energy gangsterism/monopolization is no laughing matter – particularly when you realize the life-sustaining part energy plays in our lives, it is a commodity too critical to life to be left in the hands of gangsters, oligarchs or their cronies in government – time for end user-defined energy policies. We need rational policy designed by normal folks who pay the bills – not oligarchs and their zombie protest movements who give their cronies in government the excuse to gouge us with costly policies which enrich only the 1%.
    BTW – I was chuckling to myself watching this suited thug lusting after an energy monopoly and I substituted Justin Turdo’s face for the old Ruski Mafioso – I can just see Justine having an orgasm over screwing the west and monopolizing its energy output just like Daddy did.

  9. There’s a Chretien-Justin-TotalFina ad waiting to be made…(Justin can play the red head’s role).

  10. Yes! let Canada develop energy self-sufficiency. Educate the electorate to recognize the best approach is to ignore the west Coast and deliver all of Canada West carbon fuels to Upper Canada and Eastern Canada. If this includes Quebec, okay, but only if they ask to be included.
    All Of Canada’s energy is to be delivered at market prices. This will probably make the carbon fuels imported from the U.S.A. less profitable and the Tri-Partite gathering at some Rockefeller hideaway will have Brian Mulroney carry their message elsewhere.
    We will have to move slowly. Whoops this has been the approach too long. P.M. Harper needs to be either gently nudged or P.O’d enough to move aggressively on identifying the entities who’re or is that spelled without an apostrophe, interfering in Canada’s sovereignty
    My understanding interfering in a Countries Sovereignty, unless the Country is Israel, is contrary to the United Nations Charter. Therefore all protests in Canada identified as having external funding or claiming some sort of non-Canadian sovereignty will be referred to the United Nations for debate. While this debate continues Canada will proceed with it’s energy policies in an expeditious manner.
    Naturally whenever a protest is initiated it will be treated with the respect it deserves. Use of force is immoral! Therefore a sufficient amount of Government force to maintain the intent of Government Policy will be used. If a quasi-political entity such as any Unionized Entity or Fellowship is involved with funding or active participation in the “now to be classified a strike” , the protest must now be controlled by all Labour regulations and also the Union or Unions various charters and missions.
    Naturally this means the public shall not be impeded in any manner or the matter will be placed under Mandatory Arbitration for discussion. This also means if the protest is being attended by any entity claiming to not be part of Canada, the matter must be referred to the United Nations for discussion. If and when the United Nations arrives at a recommendation the resultant action can only be made within Canada’s Sovereignty and policy.
    No action for an United Nation’s recommendation will be initiated until Canada’s Sovereignty is confirmed. All funding to the United Nations will be discontinued while Canada debates the recommendation.
    Is this sarcasm or sensibility? You decide for yourself; Cheers;

  11. Well if that redhead wants to audition for the role of the future ex-Mrs Teach, I’ll be happy to pencil her in….

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation