PDA

View Full Version : I wonder why



pooltchr
04-21-2012, 05:56 PM
I wonder why Obama shot down Keystone, saying it would only make a very small impact on oil supply and prices, but when he wanted the Buffet rule passed, even though it will have minimal impact on our budget problems, his arguement was that even a small step in the right direction is a good thing.

I guess the difference is whether it's something he wants, or something he doesn't want.

Obama is a joke, and I fear for our future if enough idiots vote for him again to give him 4 more years. The country can't afford for more years of this idiot.

Steve

Soflasnapper
04-21-2012, 08:39 PM
Things are even more confusing when you misunderstand the situation.

Obama didn't actually shoot down the Keystone XL pipeline, and the smart money would say he will approve it, under terms of regular order, which will take far more time than what the GOP allowed. He shot down the idea of jumping ahead of all the regular order, which includes following the law concerning environmental impact assessment, to make his approval in such a too short time frame as demanded (and either passed into law or agreed to, to get other laws) by the GOP. Such approval would require that the southern route be set, and no such setting of the southern route CAN be set, without the Nebraska approvals, which are not in hand and not yet in prospect.

So, IF the answer had to be yes or no <u>as of last month</u> (or whenever the decision had to be made, per the forcing of the GOP), the answer had to be no, according to federal law. You know, the law he is obligated to faithfully execute? I'm surprised you advocate he should break the law, but perhaps you aren't aware of that part of the issue.

As for the Buffet rule, $47 billion over 10 years is not huge money, but neither is it small money, in the context of the tradeoffs of what has been proposed to be cut in human services, much smaller amounts of money, that have been said to be necessary because of the financial situation. Such as the $33 billion advocated to be trimmed from the SNAP program.

It's the GOP that is hung on the horns of that dilemma. THEY state we have to cut from the poorest, because far less money that this represents is a lot of money. Then they say THIS is so little money that it is meaningless.

They are trying to have it both ways, and the Keystone comparison is entirely inapt.

LWW
04-22-2012, 05:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder why Obama shot down Keystone, saying it would only make a very small impact on oil supply and prices, but when he wanted the Buffet rule passed, even though it will have minimal impact on our budget problems, his arguement was that even a small step in the right direction is a good thing.

I guess the difference is whether it's something he wants, or something he doesn't want.

Obama is a joke, and I fear for our future if enough idiots vote for him again to give him 4 more years. The country can't afford for more years of this idiot.

Steve </div></div>

Because he knows that the nutty 25% will slavishly accept whatever they are told.

pooltchr
04-22-2012, 08:32 AM
Sofla...they had 3 years to study this project. Is that how we operate an "efficient" government? Not to mention, we have thousands of miles of pipeline all over the country that are actually better for the environment than using surface transportation to move crude. To think Obama's decision was anything less than political is to have the blinders on.

Everything this administration does is politically motivated. It would be nice to have a leader who actually puts the good of the country ahead of the good of their own political career or of their party.

It's not happening with this administration.

Steve

Soflasnapper
04-22-2012, 12:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sofla...they had 3 years to study this project. Is that how we operate an "efficient" government? Not to mention, we have thousands of miles of pipeline all over the country that are actually better for the environment than using surface transportation to move crude. To think Obama's decision was anything less than political is to have the blinders on.

Everything this administration does is politically motivated. It would be nice to have a leader who actually puts the good of the country ahead of the good of their own political career or of their party.

It's not happening with this administration.

Steve </div></div>

Do you believe in federalism or not? The problem is with the State of Nebraska, its governor and its legislature. A red state, which so far as I know has all its branches of government in Republican majority control.

[Yep: Current elected officials

The Nebraska Republican Party controls all six statewide offices, one of the state's U.S. Senate seats and all three of the state's U.S. House seats. While the Nebraska state legislature is officially non-partisan (and unicameral), Republicans hold a supermajority in its chamber when taking into account legislators' political affiliations. Wiki]

What you are suggesting, I guess without knowing it, is that the federal government ought to simply over-ride local control, deny the state its sovereign role, and shrug off its concerns for its underground water aquifer's contamination, and just dictate to it.

I agree, it would be far simpler to void state sovereignty and just ram through federal initiatives, but that's not our system. Do you think it should be? If not, then you should not be advocating for the federal ending of, or even questioning, this delay, which is entirely of the Nebraska state government's making.

Basically, there is no real long-term economic advantage to our country, and grave potential hazards to the agricultural sector of Nebraska. Says Nebraska, and the company itself.

The projected economic effect of this in the Midwest will be to hike the local prices of oil there. The pipelines that already exist (that don't follow the disputed new pathway) are running below 50% capacity right now. This is for that company's profits, period, as the new pipeline's flow will all be exported, and not contribute to domestic supplies at all.

As I've already explained to you, once Nebraska gets off the pot and decides on its alternate route, Obama will approve it.

You've gotten the partisanship backwards here. The GOP tried to get him approving the whole thing ahead of the election, to dispirit and anger the enviros part of the Democratic coalition. By such ham-handed and clumsy maneuvering, they've allowed him to JUSTIFIABLY say he cannot do that, by law, at this premature time certain they demanded, both pleasing his enviros, and still giving the wink to the industry, that they'll get what they want after the election (after Nebraska sorts things out).

Soflasnapper
04-22-2012, 01:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sofla...they had 3 years to study this project. Is that how we operate an "efficient" government? Not to mention, we have thousands of miles of pipeline all over the country that are actually better for the environment than using surface transportation to move crude. To think Obama's decision was anything less than political is to have the blinders on.

Everything this administration does is politically motivated. It would be nice to have a leader who actually puts the good of the country ahead of the good of their own political career or of their party.

It's not happening with this administration.

Steve </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Keystone I pipeline has 12th leak in first year</span>
By Ed Brayton | 05.10.11 | 7:49 am

While the State Department is in the process of approving the Keystone XL pipeline, the first part of that project — Keystone I — just had its 12th leak in only its first year of operation, according to environmental group Friends of the Earth.

A TransCanada pipeline that carries tar sands oil into the U.S. from Canada had to be shut down for inspection Saturday after spilling about 21,000 gallons of tar sands oil in southeastern North Dakota, according to news reports.

The spill underscored safety concerns raised about TransCanada’s proposal to build a larger tar sands oil pipeline across the U.S., the Keystone XL. The proposal is currently under review by the Obama administration.

According to eyewitnesses, Saturday’s rupture of the Keystone I pipeline sent a six-story high gusher of oil into the air. The spill occurred at a pumping station, but the spray contaminated soil and water in a nearby field before it could be contained.

“TransCanada’s first tar sands oil pipeline into the U.S. has sustained spill after spill,” said Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “Nobody should have to wake up on a Saturday morning to the sight of oil spraying sixty feet into the air near her home.”

The tar sands oil spill in North Dakota is the 12th spill from the Keystone I pipeline in just its first year of operation.

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
04-24-2012, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sofla...they had 3 years to study this project. Is that how we operate an "efficient" government? Not to mention, we have thousands of miles of pipeline all over the country that are actually better for the environment than using surface transportation to move crude. To think Obama's decision was anything less than political is to have the blinders on.

Everything this administration does is politically motivated. It would be nice to have a leader who actually puts the good of the country ahead of the good of their own political career or of their party.

It's not happening with this administration.

Steve </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Keystone I pipeline has 12th leak in first year</span>
By Ed Brayton | 05.10.11 | 7:49 am

While the State Department is in the process of approving the Keystone XL pipeline, the first part of that project — Keystone I — just had its 12th leak in only its first year of operation, according to environmental group Friends of the Earth.

A TransCanada pipeline that carries tar sands oil into the U.S. from Canada had to be shut down for inspection Saturday after spilling about 21,000 gallons of tar sands oil in southeastern North Dakota, according to news reports.

The spill underscored safety concerns raised about TransCanada’s proposal to build a larger tar sands oil pipeline across the U.S., the Keystone XL. The proposal is currently under review by the Obama administration.

According to eyewitnesses, Saturday’s rupture of the Keystone I pipeline sent a six-story high gusher of oil into the air. The spill occurred at a pumping station, but the spray contaminated soil and water in a nearby field before it could be contained.

“TransCanada’s first tar sands oil pipeline into the U.S. has sustained spill after spill,” said Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “Nobody should have to wake up on a Saturday morning to the sight of oil spraying sixty feet into the air near her home.”

The tar sands oil spill in North Dakota is the 12th spill from the Keystone I pipeline in just its first year of operation.

</div></div> </div></div>

LOL, gets very quiet when facts are presented, huh?

I like the silence. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Here's to more of it! Down with the Kool Aid slurping Lemmings!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-FDXFD4Mmo&feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0oB61TfdKE&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ_JacfmcTk&feature=relmfu

Soflasnapper
04-24-2012, 08:58 AM
The question is, why isn't the role of the red state Nebraska better known in this situation?

They are the hold up, not the feds, at least if we are to go by binding law.

Somehow, and it is not an accident, but the result of a deliberate presentation that omits these facts, the president's critics on this aren't dealing with all the facts, and I guess simply do not know the background.

That should tell these people something about the quality of what they consume for news.

Alternatively, some may very well know, and don't mention it, out of a cynical attack strategy.

Gayle in MD
04-24-2012, 09:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question is, why isn't the role of the red state Nebraska better known in this situation?

<span style="color: #CC0000">I would suggest the answer is because they don't give that information on Fox Noise, or on any of the other RW media. The Repubolicans I know, do not research for facts, and are not well read. They simply tune into the daily hate spewers, for their daily dose of RW BS, put out there by the RW corporate owned and operated Repupblican media, aka propaganda. </span>

They are the hold up, not the feds, at least if we are to go by binding law.

Somehow, and it is not an accident, but the result of a deliberate presentation that omits these facts, the president's critics on this aren't dealing with all the facts, and I guess simply do not know the background.

<span style="color: #CC0000">Those in the RW media who do know, simply intentionally lie about it. Additionally, many others of the RW media pundits are known for their ignorance, well proven by manny of their irrational statements.

Additionallty, as is well documented on this forum, facts are rejected by the right, and common sense isn't their forte, either, as their analogies indicate. </span>

That should tell these people something about the quality of what they consume for news.

<span style="color: #CC0000">True, operative word being "should"... but authoritarian lovers just follow what their superiors lay out for them. They aren't known for possessing what is known as authentic, autonomous personalities, nor for possessing a quest to perform research, looking to find out for themselves what the real truth might actually be.

For example, Take Rove's insistence that he was not the confirming source for Novak's article exposing Valarie Plame's identity. Only Novak could actually make that call. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>AND, Novak did make that call, right on national television, saying that Karl Rove was a confirming source.</span>

Yet, we still have some idiots in this country, RW-ers of course, who not only deny those facts, but continue to deny that Valarie Plame was anything but just a secretary! How does one debate, with people who choose to irritate rather than to take part in any honest debate?

I'd say it's about half and half, half genuine ignorance, and half intentional cynicism and attack strategy, the olo' kill the messenger, typical Rovarian style kindergarten tactics. </span>


Alternatively, some may very well know, and don't mention it, out of a cynical attack strategy. </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Same way they deny the lasting damages of Bush's Administration, his gross misuse of power, his illegal activities, the fraudulent methods used by Cheney, Rice Rumsfeld, Rove Card, all of them, to lie us into the Iraq war, followed by their gross mistreatment of our soldiers, ad negligence in wasting billions of dollars.

Hey, their lives are built on denial. They are possessed by greed, ignorance, irrationality and a skewed value system, which bares no resemblence to the words of Jesus, IMO.

They are counterfeit, without conscience, for the most part, and they choose to be that way, as far as I can tell. Many of them have only one interest, are what we call, one issue voters, and their only concern is what they will pay in taxes. Nothing else matters to them. They cannot think beyond that one thought, as regards our national politics.

For example, if the Koch/Republican/Grand Oil party threats, of filthy water, filthy air, filthy food, which they all drink, breathe, and eat, and the obvious increased illnesses to all Americans, animals, children, birth defects, all of which will result, do not instruct them as to their skewed values, what could?

We are watching the Koch types, pay off Republicans, by buying their seats, so that they can mow down our mountain tops! It is happening, has happened!

Doesn't wake them up at all.

G. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif