Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

by **pacino** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:39:37

none of what he stated is how any of that works

by **pacino** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:04:54

Israel's ruling faction broke apart after Netanyahu fired his centrist finance minister. The two cenrist parties then pulled out of his government. He's called for a new election. Interesting times ahead.

by **pacino** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:07:49

British hostage John Cantlie is being held by ISIS. These are some amazing pics he took before his capture

he's probably going to be murdered.

In other ISIS news, Al Baghdadi's one wife was arrested in Lebanon.

Several towns in Northern Iraq have been liberated. ISIS is slowly being driven back by the Peshmerga, Iraq and US-backed coalition.

We still don't have a declaration of war from Congress. LAWLESSNESS. They might get around to after we leave.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:13:10

jerseyhoya wrote:Rob Portman isn't running for president

I'm one of a few dozen people in America who is upset about this

Portman took one look & realized he'd be 2016's Huntsman, with gay son rather than hot babe daughters

in short, fucked from the get-go

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:19:28

Huntsman could have been a decent candidate if he tried to run a different race, but he went for the interesting tactic of actively disdaining the people he was asking to vote for him. That proved not to work.

Portman's 2012 comparison if things went poorly would have been Pawlenty, not Huntsman.

by **dajafi** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 13:13:35

This is probably obvious, but the Republican nominee will be whoever threads the needle of convincing the hate-addled crazies that he's with them, while also convincing the sado-libertarian billionaires that he'll defend and expand their right to make money while curb-stomping whoever/whatever gets in the way (e.g. "the planet"). Portman probably would have been solid on the latter, but the gay son would have doomed him on the former. Remember these are the people who thought Rick Perry was too nice regarding immigrants. (Not that this was Perry's biggest problem, but I do think it was a factor.)

My guess is it'll be one of their governors. I'm kind of hoping for Kasich as the least-worst of many awful options. Then again, right now I have about as much optimism regarding the Democrats as I do the Phillies; both might be functionally dead until 2020.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 13:22:43

If the "tone" of politics is really a problem, that problem is most manifest in how competent and thoughtful people who actually care about America have no real reason to run. We're left with crackpots, dopes, and opportunists. Politics has always attracted those kinds of people of course, but the system used to give them an incentive to behave themselves.

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 13:24:32

TenuredVulture wrote:If the "tone" of politics is really a problem, that problem is most manifest in how competent and thoughtful people who actually care about America have no real reason to run. We're left with crackpots, dopes, and opportunists. Politics has always attracted those kinds of people of course, but the system used to give them an incentive to behave themselves.

have you read history, seems like congress has always acted bat shit crazy

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 15:12:55

pacino wrote:my Congressman Joe Pitts SOUNDS OFF in the Pottstown Mercury about illegals, the XL pipeline, misunderstanding net neutrality, and the lawless Obama administration

About Keystone XL, Joe Pitts wrote:...a majority of the American people support the project.

I wonder if they know most industry analysts say Keystone XL would increase the price per gallon of gas by 50+ cents in the Midwest and 20+ cents everywhere else in the US?

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 15:55:57

What industry analysts say that? Why would Keystone cause gas prices to go up?

by **TomatoPie** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:03:35

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
pacino wrote:my Congressman Joe Pitts SOUNDS OFF in the Pottstown Mercury about illegals, the XL pipeline, misunderstanding net neutrality, and the lawless Obama administration

About Keystone XL, Joe Pitts wrote:...a majority of the American people support the project.

I wonder if they know most industry analysts say Keystone XL would increase the price per gallon of gas by 50+ cents in the Midwest and 20+ cents everywhere else in the US?

Not likely. But nor would it be likely to cause any steep drop in US gas prices. That raw material is coming here, be it by truck, rail, or pipeline. Pipeline is the most environmentally friendly way to do that.

by **dajafi** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:15:14

TomatoPie wrote:That raw material is coming here, be it by truck, rail, or pipeline. Pipeline is the most environmentally friendly way to do that.

This is the sort of issue where the partisan polarization of the media makes it really difficult to know what's true. I feel like I've read things that assert minimal to no environmental impact from the XL Pipeline, and other things that suggest it's going to be ruinous for some communities.

My sense is the value in terms of jobs created and other positive effects doesn't remotely justify the risk. But I also doubt this is the tipping point decision on whether or not we wreck the planet.

by **TomatoPie** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:24:42

dajafi wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:That raw material is coming here, be it by truck, rail, or pipeline. Pipeline is the most environmentally friendly way to do that.

This is the sort of issue where the partisan polarization of the media makes it really difficult to know what's true. I feel like I've read things that assert minimal to no environmental impact from the XL Pipeline, and other things that suggest it's going to be ruinous for some communities.

My sense is the value in terms of jobs created and other positive effects doesn't remotely justify the risk. But I also doubt this is the tipping point decision on whether or not we wreck the planet.

One thing I haven't gathered is - who pays for it? If this is to be paid for - in full - by the oilmen and oilgals who profit by it, with no sweetheart deals - I'm for it. If it requires govt subsidy, then it's in the same boondoggle boat with ethanol and solyndra.

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:27:44

TomatoPie wrote:
dajafi wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:That raw material is coming here, be it by truck, rail, or pipeline. Pipeline is the most environmentally friendly way to do that.

This is the sort of issue where the partisan polarization of the media makes it really difficult to know what's true. I feel like I've read things that assert minimal to no environmental impact from the XL Pipeline, and other things that suggest it's going to be ruinous for some communities.

My sense is the value in terms of jobs created and other positive effects doesn't remotely justify the risk. But I also doubt this is the tipping point decision on whether or not we wreck the planet.

One thing I haven't gathered is - who pays for it? If this is to be paid for - in full - by the oilmen and oilgals who profit by it, with no sweetheart deals - I'm for it. If it requires govt subsidy, then it's in the same boondoggle boat with ethanol and solyndra.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit

by **pacino** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:29:02

as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

by **TomatoPie** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:32:11

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

by **pacino** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:32:40

i should've written your response before you did.

by **dajafi** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:40:01

TomatoPie wrote:
pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

Yeah, government support never helped spur technological intervention. Well, other than the thing over which we're having this conversation. And countless other things, most of which did in fact yield pretty big profits.

"It has no business trying" is a defensible statement, if you're willing to say "yes, I am an ideologue, and no, I don't care about facts or real-world consequences." The "not capable" part is just incorrect, given it's humans making the decisions--presumably on the same criteria as the sanctified Masters of the Universe who also get it wrong a lot, and whose motivations are generally less admirable.

Unless I've really misread you, you're not a fundamentalist in religion. I don't grasp why you're so committed to being one in economics.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:43:04

dajafi wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:That raw material is coming here, be it by truck, rail, or pipeline. Pipeline is the most environmentally friendly way to do that.

This is the sort of issue where the partisan polarization of the media makes it really difficult to know what's true. I feel like I've read things that assert minimal to no environmental impact from the XL Pipeline, and other things that suggest it's going to be ruinous for some communities.

My sense is the value in terms of jobs created and other positive effects doesn't remotely justify the risk. But I also doubt this is the tipping point decision on whether or not we wreck the planet.

The State Department assessment says there will be minimal or no net negative environmental impact. John Kerry's State Department and the Washington Post aren't exactly mouthpieces for big oil. The earlier path took it through an environmentally sensitive region in Nebraska, but they reworked the path back in 2013 to avoid those areas. I don't think there's any more risk to moving oil through pipelines than their is via train or other methods.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 16:45:30

I think there are unknowns regarding pipeline impact on the environment. If everything works, then the impact probably is less than sending the oil via truck or train. But if things don't work, say with a major oil leak, then the impact can be pretty devastating.

However, to say there are risks with pipelines and thus will shouldn't build any more is to forget that oil tankers and trains do crash and spill. So, then the question how well can we predict an accident, how much oil is like to end up where we don't want it in an accident, and how likely is that a given pipeline or trucking route will make an accident in an environmentally sensitive or residential area likely? And would you like to live with an oil pipeline running under you home?

Before you answer that....

Archived

Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.