Romney 2012?

@snood,

snood wrote:

Right now I'm more concerned with how easy it will be to attack with issues like Benghazi than I am about the truth of the story. Right now it is all about strategy, not with hand-wringing about how the Republicans won't be honest.
Right now it's about whether Obama will commit to a knife fight Tuesday night - to defend his record with passion - to point out hiw opponent's weaknesses with bite.

Unfortunately the known facts of the Bengazi matter don't give Obama much to fight with. Once again his preconceptions got in the way of the real facts. Moreover it looks like the Administration is trying very hard to evade the obvious truth. Given their already revealed deceptions on the matter, and the vivid contrast between current reality and Obama's previous promises, the continued Administration references to the political opposition as "liars" (with respect to evolving political proposals) , is simply far too obviously hypocritical for them to continue it.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

There is one 26 mile segment of the proposed pipeline that passes through some sandy soil in Nebraska that could lead to some groundwater intrusion in the event of a leak.

As has been pointed out before to you george the Ogallala aquifer is not just 26 miles. It is virtually impossible for the pipeline to cross Nebraska and only cross 26 miles of the aquifer.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

There is one 26 mile segment of the proposed pipeline that passes through some sandy soil in Nebraska that could lead to some groundwater intrusion in the event of a leak. Rerouting the pipeline around it is a very small adjustment to which the builders would readily agree.

Just some sandy soil, eh? And rerouting would be no trouble at all?

You've checked these "facts?"

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Obama has stupidly chosen to impose unemployment on the very middle class he pretends to love precisely to advance his foolish(and radical) environmental agenda. We need to use our abundant natural gas to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum and coal

WOW.. talk about talking out of your ass there george. Obama only wanted the proper environmental studies to be completed. Congress wanted to bypass those studies and made Obama cancel the project since the studies weren't done. I am curious how importing from Canada on the proposed pipeline reduces our imports but then maybe I am stupid for realizing Canada isn't part of the US.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

You wrote,

Quote:

The prose and cons involve the very unemployment and slow economic recovery we have been talking about. Obama has stupidly chosen to impose unemployment on the very middle class he pretends to love precisely to advance his foolish(and radical) environmental agenda. We need to use our abundant natural gas to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum and coal. Doing so will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead Obama gave away hundreds of billions to cronies and contributors to design and produce new solar panels - all of whom went bankrupt.

From the Maddow Show.

Quote:

Senate Republicans kill veterans' jobs bill
By Steve Benen - Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:01 PM EDT
4.4K

Associated Press
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama led the charge against the Veterans Job Corps Act.
With a major national election just seven weeks away, senators would have to be out of their minds to reject a jobs bill for U.S. military veterans, right?

Apparently not.

Veterans won't be getting a new, billion-dollar jobs program, not from this Senate. Republicans on Wednesday afternoon blocked a vote on the Veterans Job Corps Bill after Jeff Sessions of Alabama raised a point of order -- he said the bill violated a cap on spending agreed to by Congress last year.

The bill's sponsor, Patty Murray of Washington, said that shouldn't matter, since the bill's cost was fully offset by new revenues. She said Mr. Sessions and his party colleagues had been furiously generating excuses to oppose the bill, and were now exploiting a technicality to deny thousands of veterans a shot at getting hired as police officers, firefighters and parks workers, among other things.

The bill needed 60 votes to advance. The final tally was 58 to 40, and all 40 opponents of the proposal were Republicans.

As proposals go, this should have been a no-brainer. The Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012, sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sought to lower unemployment among military veterans, giving grants to federal, state, and local agencies, which in turn would hire veterans -- giving priority to those who served on or after 9/11 -- to work as first-responders and in conservation jobs at national parks.

The bill was fully paid for, and entirely bipartisan -- Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) had his own set of ideas for the bill, and Murray incorporated all of them into her legislation.

And yet, all but five Senate Republicans voted to kill it anyway, 48 days before a national election. Even Burr sided with his party to defeat the bill, and it was filled with his provisions.

A New York Times editorial added the other day, "It makes sense for the 99 percent of Americans to find new ways to pay their debt to the 1 percent who serve in uniform. To most people, Senator Murray's bill would seem like one decent way to do that. But not if you're one of those Republicans in Washington who thinks it's more important in an election year to deny Democrats a success or accomplishment of any kind."

0 Replies

@parados,

Not only that, but when has Canada agreed to sell their oil cheaper to the US? When? What's the overall cost of piping the oil to Texas? Will the cheaper oil make up for the cost of the pipeline? Where's the break-even point? How do we know what oil prices will be 5 - 10 - 15 years from now? How about alternative energy? Where's the trade-off?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
There is one 26 mile segment of the proposed pipeline that passes through some sandy soil in Nebraska that could lead to some groundwater intrusion in the event of a leak.

As has been pointed out before to you george the Ogallala aquifer is not just 26 miles. It is virtually impossible for the pipeline to cross Nebraska and only cross 26 miles of the aquifer.

Once again you are creating you own straw man to criticize.

I made no specific reference to the Ogallala aquifer. Instead I referred to a 26 mile segment of the proposed pipeline over the aquifer which, owing to sandy soil and the absence of any stable clay layer above the aquifer that could lead to the contamination of it. That is the only area relkevant to the point behind your comment.

The Ogallala already has numerous ciries, factories, roads pipelines, etc on the huge surface over it. Do you suggest we tear them down?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

You wrote,

Quote:

The Ogallala already has numerous ciries, factories, roads pipelines, etc on the huge surface over it. Do you suggest we tear them down?

Depends on their potential for polluting the environment - and their cost.

Another thing; were they on federal or state lands?

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
There is one 26 mile segment of the proposed pipeline that passes through some sandy soil in Nebraska that could lead to some groundwater intrusion in the event of a leak. Rerouting the pipeline around it is a very small adjustment to which the builders would readily agree.

Just some sandy soil, eh? And rerouting would be no trouble at all?

You've checked these "facts?"

Yes I have. Moreover they have been well described in the media and are very well known among geologists, in the environmental communit , and in the environmental remediation company which I run.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

george is correct in that there is an area called the "sub crop" where most of the recharge to the Ogallala occurs. However, the Sand Hills are an extensive surficial water table aquifer in themselves and they gather up and store a larger prcentage of rainfall runoff than normally occurs in a water budget.

Still, to use engineering as an excuse for NOT fully protecting the entire sweep of the aquifer is really isane. In the east coast its been a very lucrative business cleaning up deeper aquifers by spot contamination that occurs around well casings, or where excavations and foundations serve as diffusion sources. The Potomac aquifer is riddled with such spot sorce contamination and the MAgothy Raritan, the Patapsco, James Run,Columbia, Cockeysville, all the way down south to the Tuscaloosa and the Floridian.

I used to write hundreds of unsolicited proposals to my mining clients to help clean up the very **** piles they made in these aquifers AND, my most responsive clients were the sand and gravel pits in the NJ<Del<MD, VALongIsland and NC areas.

While you are technically correct George, you are playing Russian Roulette with a resource that is very difficult to unfuck up after the fact.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Obama has stupidly chosen to impose unemployment on the very middle class he pretends to love precisely to advance his foolish(and radical) environmental agenda. We need to use our abundant natural gas to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum and coal

WOW.. talk about talking out of your ass there george. Obama only wanted the proper environmental studies to be completed. Congress wanted to bypass those studies and made Obama cancel the project since the studies weren't done. I am curious how importing from Canada on the proposed pipeline reduces our imports but then maybe I am stupid for realizing Canada isn't part of the US.

I'm fascinated by your continued propensity to select, reassemble and add your own creartions to arguments you don't like in order to contrive imaginary targets for your criticism. However in the following sentence I think you tripped over your own stupid contrivance;

parados wrote:

Congress wanted to bypass those studies and made Obama cancel the project since the studies weren't

If this is so then how is it true that " Obama only wanted the proper environmental studies to be completed. " as you wrote?

The fact is that, instead of making specific comments and proposed changes to the proposed route, as is standard in the process, the Administration simply required additional extensive (and unbounded) studies of the whole proposed route. The developers accurately understood the real meaning of this fairly standard ruse, and abandoned the project.

The truth here is that there are already several pipelines operating safely in areas over the Aquifer. The only real risk was in the small segment I indicated, and going around the area in question would be an easy and inexpensive matter.

If you will take the trouble to read my poost, you will see that my reference to reducing imports had to to with added oil & gas exploration on Federal lands, offshore and In Alaska, not the Keystone pipeline.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I generally agree with yor point about existing spot contamination of aquifers (we're doing some wotk on the Patapsco river now). However as we both know most of it involves organic and metallic contamination that is far more mobile than heavy petroleum, whichgenerally presents a far less hazardous potential to deep aquifers.

I also agree that avoiding the Nebraska sandhills is important for several reasons. It befuddles me that the proposers of the Pipeline didn't propose a route around them - something they could easily have done. I also believe the pipeline will eventually be build and it will avoid this area.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

You wrote,

Quote:

If you will take the trouble to read my poost, you will see that my reference to reducing imports had to to with added oil & gas exploration on Federal lands, offshore and In Alaska, not the Keystone pipeline.

You mean to tell us that oil from Canada isn't "imports?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Having a "senior moment" cicerone?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

U.S.-Canada Trade Facts

U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled over $681 billion in 2011. Exports totaled $337 billion; Imports totaled $344 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Canada was $8 billion in 2011.

I have senior moments quite often, but please challenge what I say, not about my age.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You must realize that neither Canada or the United States control the price of oil products, right? This pipeline is not JUST for Canadian oil, it will also pipe American oil, to American plants and provide American jobs.
Pipelines cost big bucks up front, but over the long haul it is much cheaper, faster and less dangerous than trucking or bringing the products by train. Not too mention the shortages or train cars, trucks and truckers.
While there is much to be excited by alternate kinds of energy, oil products are necessary for many things other than energy. Try building a road with wind power... or all the plastics we use on a daily basis. When you fly all over the world c.i., it ain't solar power you're using.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

If you will take the trouble to actually read the excerpt from my post which you pasted above, you will see I was saying that my reference to reducing imports had to do with authorizations for producing oil and gas on Federal lands, offshore, and in Alaska and NOT the Keystone pipeline.

That said, I also prefer to inport petroleun from Canada rather than from Iran or even Saudi Arabia.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Of course the trade deficit is high, Canada is a tenth of your population. What you get is raw goods from us, which you then sell as finished products to the world.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

So? A trade deficit is still a deficit that the US owes all other countries from trade. Do you understand the consequences of all that?

China buys raw materials from around the world, but especially from Australia. That gives Australia a false sense of a good economy which some people I met in Australia told us "it's a false economy." They're telling the truth, not the people who believes Australia's economy is strong.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, and do you understand the consequences of getting cheap raw goods to then transforming them to sell to a much larger world market? You buy cheap, you sell high. In the meantime, manufacturing jobs are created and funded... It's called trade, if you didn't want our products you would by them elsewhere or not at all, and thusly, you wouldn't have a manufacturing base. You can't make something from nothing.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know