Obama could singlehandedly stop "the world's most destructive project."

[Bluebear]

What does it mean to live in an energy sacrifice zone? For many First Nations of Canada, it means that the land and water your families have lived on for generations is no longer safe. Nearly every major oil company in the world is participating in making the homelands of indigenous peoples unsafe by investing in the Athabascan tar sands.

In what is called by the Environmental Defense Fund the “world’s most destructive project,” an area the size of Florida is slated for various forms of mining. Locked up in sand, clay, and bitumen, tar sands oil is one of the hardest to mine and refine and is also one of the dirtiest: extracting it creates three times more greenhouse gases than conventional oil. Mining the tar sands means not only deforestation but also the creation of massive lagoons filled with toxic wastewater. These ponds are leaking 11 million liters of toxic water each day and by 2012 are expected to leak 72 million liters a day.

The project’s carbon footprint is global. Mining the tar sands requires special equipment that is manufactured in Korea, shipped across the ocean, and barged through Portland, Oregon, up the Columbia and Snake Rivers through the Nez Perce reservation and on to Idaho. The current plan is to haul it on massive trucks to northern Alberta. American highways have never seen trucks of this size, and the haul will require major modifications to roadways along the way.

Oil giant TransCanada hopes to expand the project even further by building a pipeline that will pump dirty oil from northern Alberta, across the headwaters of major rivers, and down to the Gulf of Mexico where special refineries exist to handle the lower-grade oil. The pipeline, named Keystone XL, is expected to actually raise gas prices in the states it crosses because the refined oil will have to be shipped back up from the Gulf. This rise will be the equivalent of a “$4-billion-a-year tax on oil we already get from Canada, with all the money going from American wallets and pocketbooks to oil companies,” said Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Federation, in testimony before the House Energy Commerce Committee.

http://www.honorearth.org/news/prevent-tar-sands-disaster

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. He could indeed.

So. Why won't he?

I continue to be horrified and sickened by this project.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Aren't the tar sands in Canada?

And I think they're already being refined.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Obama Has No Authority Over Oil Drilling IN CANADA

[_ed_]

22. The pipeline is on OUR side of the border

Maybe you should learn a little about about a given topic before shooting your mouth off about it. This pipeline is through America, which is why Obama has authority to allow it to happen or not.

[AndyTiedye]

50. You Think We're the Only Ones Who Would Buy that Oil?

They're gonna drill there regardless of what Obama does.
If we don't buy the oil, China will.

If you are arguing that it is wrong and we shouldn't be a part of it,
I respect that position, though it would also be applicable in some
degree to just about all the oil we get these days.

We need to figure out how to use a lot less of it, obviously.

Unfortunately the current plan of record for doing that involves
starving the poor.

[jimlup]

51. You are exactly WRONG -

The pipeline will deliver the oil to the Texas coast which opens up it to the world markets.

[pasto76]

74. no he was exactly right

you're both saying the same thing.

[AndyTiedye]

88. You Think They Can't Build a Pipeline to the West Coast and Ship it to China?

[defendandprotect]

71. We've figured out how to live without OIL ... and we should be doing cit -- !!!

We can also live without nuclear power to boil water to create steam --

Either OIL or nuclear -- or coal -- are suicidal --

And Obama is truly immoral for doing this!

[pasto76]

75. really? you must be a genius billionaire

please share with the rest of the world how you live without petroleum products. Including the plastic in the computer you are reading this with.

[defendandprotect]

78. Solar, wind -- solar batteries/cars --- NUKE, OIL and COAL offer only death - see Fukushima --

See our dead and dying oceans --

See Global Warming breathing down our necks --

Capitalism is suicidal -- and has proven it, sadly -- !!

[pepito]

72. china will buy it

as any other COMMODITY,it will go to the highest bidder,just sayin...crude is traded internationally

[joeybee12]

98. Hey enabler, it's worthless unless it gets to our refineries...

China won't buy it.

[pasto76]

73. This is the problem with you 5th way liberals these days

this represents THOUSANDS of jobs. Thousands more than we have today. The road modifications mentioned in the article? More jobs. Maintenance on this pipeline? more jobs. Hopefully the pipelines will actually be manufactured in the US. More jobs.


The working class is in austerity mode. Yes, I want a healthy planet. Yes, I support clean energy and all that stuff. But I also need a goddamn job to keep a roof over my daughter's heads, and put food on their plate. The sole reason they still have a house in a safe naighborhood and not in a low income project is the Stimulus money that has financed the jobs Ive been on for over a year. So, Thanks, Mr President.

I dont think a lot of you screaming libs have really felt what this depression is really all about.

[dameocrat67]

79. it would only create jobs for plains constituancies who are even

more republican than southerners.

[defendandprotect]

80. True -- if you kill more people, you need more undertakers! MEDICARE FOR ALL - 2.3 million jobs!!

[Rincewind]

10. You are correct.

The tar sands are in Canada (which has it's own government and everything) and the tar sands are currently being dug up and refined. The oil is also being shipped into the USA by an already existing pipeline, they want to build a second pipeline sown to the Gulf coast. With or without the second pipeline, it's already way too late to stop them from digging up the tar sand.

[_ed_]

23. The pipeline is on OUR side of the border

Google is your friend. You might want to actually learn a bit about a given subject before remarking about it.

[ProSense]

3. One has to wonder

why on earth the State Department supported such a project?

State Department Keystone XL Environmental Review: It's Easy to Find "No Significant Impact" if You Do No Significant Study...

Today, the U.S. State Department released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The State Department’s finding that there will be no significant environmental impact to most resources is completely without merit. Our initial analysis of the environmental review makes one thing clear: it was premature for the Department of State to issue the review. The detailed studies needed to fully demonstrate the need for and evaluate risks of this tar sands pipeline have not been completed. In fact, the FEIS seems to ignore information that clearly points more to how the pipeline will cause an increase to air pollution, greater greenhouse gas emissions and a higher potential for oil spills threatening drinking water resources. What the FEIS should find is that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not worth the environmental and safety risks. We have better alternatives to meet our transportation needs than dirty tar sands oil from Canada.

Unfortunately, Secretary of State Clinton did not fulfill her promise to “leave no stone unturned” and the State Department’s pledge to do a “thorough and objective” assessment. The things missing are all the more glaring because they relate to the issues that have been most controversial and the source of most of the public debate. It appears the State Department continues to rush the decision on this pipeline manufacturing an urgency that doesn’t exist.

While the State Department claims they have exhaustively considered all of the issues, there in fact are gaping holes that have remained with only superficial analysis since the beginning of the process:

<...>

Let's hope the other agencies reject it and urge the President to do so.

[truedelphi]

15. Two answers why the State Dept approved it:

Reason One: Money

Reason Two: Power

Put the two together and you have absolute corruption that extends outward for ever.

Same reasons are applicable to almost every situation in which the politicians do things ass backwards, ruining people's lives or ruining the environment.

[defendandprotect]

76. "Congress is under the control of OIL and COAL industries" - Al Gore/Rolling Stone

I imagine they also have control of the White House -- and State Dept!!

Coup on JFK in 1963 took not only our president, but our people's government --

1960 Platform which JFK ran on called for NATIONALIZING the oil industry --

JFK was cutting the oil depletion allowance --

[hedgehog]

61. My interpretation is that the State Department has determined

the tar sands an the added carbon load is a done deal. The only question is whether the oil gets refined and exported thru Texas or elsewhere.

[truedelphi]

92. Indeed your assesment is probably right. And probably can be extended to these

New prinicples:

One: screwing the middle class person over for the benefit of Wall Street is a done deal, and those politicians who oppose it will not get the campaign financing needed to run and win an office


Two: Money derived from the MIC for said political campaigns is also very needed. Also, Congress critters never disapprove of any programs that allows their constituents to hold down jobs.

So: no military programs will be cut at any time, anywhere. And this isn't even a new policy - I was re-reading an old magazine from the eighties the other night. And the article was detailing a list of military bases the Pentagon ASKED Congress to close down, as they were not needed. Even so, the Congress critters refused.

Three: The environment is not as important as money derived for camapign expenses from Huge Corporations. As a result, we saw Obama's EPA sign off on Corexist, per BP's request, a new chemical that the EPA had examined for only one week. (You can view one of my sig line vids for more information)

At some point soon, the earth will no longer feed us. The GM crap is affecting too many factors: the infertility of the soil, the co-mingling of spoecies. As an example of the latter - I have a "maple tree" that now blooms with St John's wort blossoms in my front yard where the landlord sprays some Bayer product. What happens when corn morphs into poison ivy? How will we feed our nation then? How do farmers combat the super weeds resulting from RoundUp co-mingling various weeds into one Super Weed species?

[Ozymanithrax]

4. But that would be saying no to big oil...

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. Can not say no to big oil!

Won't happen. :shrug: Certainly the Obama Administration won't say NO.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. But they call it negotiation...

[hay rick]

66. NO?

Have you lost your mind? The Obama administration can't even say MAYBE.

[Monk06]

5. No point in bringing First Nations into this. They are overwhelmingly in favour of the Tar Sands

Project. They are making a killing driving trucks and
setting up supply companies.

[truedelphi]

16. That is sad to hear.

Though I am sure many of the elders are not quite so glib about doing it.

[Monk06]

20. You can't get romantic about how the Dene live in Northern BC and Alberta. They have welfare

and their kids huffing gas or the oil sands. Those are
the choices. People romanticise native life in the north
but as Hobbes said it is, "Nasty, brutish and short".

I lived there years ago. Now the natives are either on
welfare, in the arts scene or in the diamond or oil trade.
The biggest problem in the high north isn't alcoholism now,
it's cocaine. You can thank southern oil workers for that.

There was a native art school opened by two brothers I went
to school with in the Cowitchan Valley. It is closed now because
the Cowitchan Band opened a casino. Natives now have a new addiction,
gambling. Young people are not doing native arts and crafts now.
They're black jack dealers.

[truedelphi]

54. Believe me, I am not romantic about the native peoples

And what is happening now in terms of life on the Rez.

I live in a County in Northern California where there are similar problems.

However I did know of Indian tribal elders who were very enthused about an environmental group that got pesticide sprayings on roadsides banned. They offered that group of people a special award. The reason for their enthusiasm was that once the pesticides were sptopped, they could go back to gathering the weeds and brush they needed to make baskets, according to practices and patterns left behind from their tribal elders.

Those elders had adapted to city life though, and were not part of any reservation system.

[defendandprotect]

83. True - Welfare, cocaine -- and anti-environmental activites were their obvious fate -- !!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. I think we all already know what he's going to do.

:(

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. Cave. Give in. Cater to. In the name of 'bipartisanship'

x(

[Major Hogwash]

11. President Obama is President of Canada, too?

Who knew? ~ Johnny Carson reference.

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. No he is the Leader of the Free World. Who knew. So you think this pipe line is a good thing

for the Climate, for the World? And US State Dept approving this is a good thing?

And you don't think that the Obama Administration won't go along with its Oil Corp backers?

This is Major Hogwash, indeed.

[Major Hogwash]

17. As a matter of fact, I do.

I've known about it for about 3 years now when rumors of it first appeared in the papers here.
And like someone said farther up in the thread, the Indians in Canada gave this pipeline their explicit approval.

I don't know how they are going to snake the pipeline clear from Canada to Texas, because I haven't seen the map of where they plan to lay it yet.
But, if it follows other pipelines that cross the Northern tier, it won't go through any pristine areas that I am aware of.
I certainly don't think Wyoming has any pipelines running through their natural forests or parklands.
But, don't quote me on that.

[_ed_]

25. Do you have any idea how much more carbon this pipeline

will allow to be released into our atmosphere? You don't care about our climate?

[Major Hogwash]

27. The pipeline won't release any carbon.

False premise.

[_ed_]

29. Nice dodge

I'm not going to play semantic games. If you don't understand how this pipeline will allow more carbon to be released for a number of factors, it's not my job to educate you. Stay ignorant, or pretend to be ignorant to play semantic games, I really don't care.

[Major Hogwash]

32. Not a dodge at all, it is absolutely factual.

You couldn't educate a dog to roll over judging by your lame attempts here.

" . . .I really don't care."

I knew that when you first posted crap in this thread.

[_ed_]

33. You didn't even know the pipeline was going to be in America

Nice try. Please go away now.

[Major Hogwash]

34. This is hugh!! The pipeline is coming to America?!? Wowza.

This will be killer, dude.
That's one of my favorite bands --- Pipeline!
I wonder what tickets will cost?!
Oh, I can't wate!!!

[_ed_]

37. If you're going to post such idiotic crap,

you should probably start by deleting the post where you didn't know the pipeline was going to be in America.

[Major Hogwash]

39. When you order tickets online, do you get a receipt for it?

Do you know?

I never get a receipt for the crap I post here, so I was just wondering if you knew.

[_ed_]

44. The Ogallala Aquifer provides 30% of US agricultural irrigation

But, yeah, keep making jokes.

[defendandprotect]

81. Didn't know that -- !! Is this another of their assets we've stolen?

[H2O Man]

35. Respectfully and strongly

disagree. It is death.

[Major Hogwash]

38. No, that's not even at issue here.

It isn't about death at all.
It's about whether we have the right to lay pipe.
We do.
And we're going to lay pipe whether anyone here at the DU likes it or not.

This isn't about death at all.
It's about energy.

If you were going to build a national nuclear repository for all of the nuclear waste to be stored that the United States creates, where would you build that repository?

[H2O Man]

41. Yes, it absolutely is.

Energy projects that involve the use of the earth's resources all have a negative impact. The larger the project, and the more it involves the harvesting of buried resources, the greater the damage.

Such projects have often been "hidden" from the American public. For example, the projects to reap oil reserves from the Middle East bring about but a dim awareness, when there are "shortagess," or leaders who ain't friendly to US "interests" -- meaning our oil companies' interests. But the destruction of their environment, and the impact on their populations, has never been a concern to Americans -- because they are unaware.

The large industries that require massive quanties of "energy" also produce massive quantities of wastes. These do not disappear. Again, the public has been largely unaware of these, unless they have had the misfortune to be in a neighborhood destroyed by the wastes. For many decades, industries in the US sought Indian territories ("reservations") for disposing of toxic wastes. When one was not available, they found isolated, poor areas for dumping.

I've been involved in working on numerous cases of this very thing for decades, my Friend. I've worked with populations devastated by toxic dumps. I've had the opportunity to work with some of the top scientists and lawyers and medical experts in the nation. I've brought witnesses to Washington, DC, to meet with those government attorneys who want to do the right thing -- to protect people and other living things -- despite the fact that bureaucracy handcuffs them, and holds their agencies hostage to "big business." And I've had family and friends die at an early age due to exposure to toxins. So when I say "death," I am not appealing to emotion, but to rational thought.

The exact same toxins used in the industries I've been intimately involved with are used in these current energy projects. I'm reminded of some research I did in the early 1990s. I invested a fair amount of time reading the records on one important case. I found that page 100,556 of the US EPA/ NYS DEC report was "missing." Being the suspicious type, sitting alone in the basement of a public library, reading volume after volume, night after night, I thought, "Why is page 100,556 missing? By accident? Yet, no other page is missing. On purpose? Why?"

I did a FOIL request. No response. I made phone calls. Not respected. So I had RFK, Jr., demand the missing page. Got it. It proved, beyond question, that the government officials knew the industry in question was lying to them and the public. "About what, Mr. Waterman?" you ask. About three days of rain in April of 1991, that resulted in some natural springs running into a lake, and killing virtually every fish that was living in that lake. Again, when I say "death," I am not appealing to emotion, I am stating a fact.

People can continue to inhabit the fog of dim awareness. Or they can wake up.

[Major Hogwash]

43. Dude, you didn't even answer the question that I asked.

And I asked it in such a nice way, too.

[H2O Man]

49. Your "question"

was rhetorical. There are times that rhetorical questions can be meaningful; your's was not.

[Major Hogwash]

89. I didn't know that

you could decide what was rhetorical and what wasn't. No biggie.

I didn't know that you're from New York.
I live in Idaho.
It's pretty much redneck central here at the moment.
We've had Democratic Senators before, but not for about 30 years now.
It's pretty hard to beat this state for being more Republican, although Utah gives us a run for our money every 2 to 4 years.

My 2 Senators and both of my Representatives will support this project.
But, they're Republicans.
So, it's really very odd to me that President Obama would agree with those 2 assklowns about anything.

The problem I have with the nuclear repository is that Senator Reid and President Obama cut off funding for it right after Obama was elected.
That makes no sense to me since this is a long-term project that has been in the works for more than 20 years.
So, I think politics got in the way of it being finished and actually used.

Then I realized that NAFTA wasn't repealed, or even scaled back, after Obama was elected. And it suddenly flashed on me that we are going to ship our nuclear waste south, to Mexico.

[H2O Man]

90. Let's take a look

at your question:

"If you were going to build a national nuclear repository for all of the nuclear waste to be stored that the United States creates, where would you build that repository?"

Is that not an extreme example of a rhetorical question? I think we would both agree that I am not in any position to build a national nuclear repository for any, much less all, nuclear waste. Combine that with the simple fact that I have never -- not on DU, or at any other time -- said a single word that could be mistaken as being in favor of nuclear energy. Hence, your question is rhetorical squared.

What I have stated here, over and over again, is perhaps best summed up by a quote that I've used on DU many times. It was delivered by Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons, who many DUers became familiar with when Bill Moyers interviewed him on his PBS series inspired by his earlier interviews with Joseph Campbell. My cousin was speaking in Binghamton that day. He told the audience that what had happened to Indian people in North America in the past, and what was happening "now," would soon be happening to non-Indian peoples in the United States in the very near future.

And that is this: that energy corporations, run by executives with no social conscience or moral compass, have long dumped their industries' waste products on Indian Territory. The results, over the generations, have included high incidents of serious diseases and early deaths. As time has moved forward, those same industries have designated non-Indian lands as "sacrifice areas," where toxic wastes are dumped, both legally and illegally.

In general, rural areas with populations that enjoy no political power have been "sacrificed," for the "national good" -- which is defined by industry profit motives. For many years, the US intended to get rid of those pesky nuclear wastes by "storing" them inside a mountain that has been recognized as "Sacred Ground" by numerous Indian peoples for literally thousands of years. This, despite the treaties that are mentioned in the Constitution, and in gross violation of federal law. All Native People -- and not just Indians -- recognize the close relationship between the poisons of industry, and the destruction of Sacred Grounds.

At this point in time, the criminals and immoral shitheads in industry and government recognize they can save some money, and avoid domestic conflicts, by dumping poison in Mexico. It would be bizarre to attribute anything related to this -- including agreement in principle -- to me.

[Major Hogwash]

91. I never said that you were in favor of it.

Didn't even imply it.
Ever.
I think you have your hands full living in New York as it is.

We don't have any nuclear power plants located in Idaho.
But we do have the first breeder reactor ever built in the United States, NBR-1.
And there is nuclear waste stored there.
So, when Clinton was President of these United States, he agreed in a document that he signed with the Governor of Idaho in 1995 to move it out of Idaho within 10 years.
I'll give you one guess where it was supposed to go.
Yet, here it is 16 years later, and it's all still here.

It's "little" things like that, that is why Bubba is not too popular here in Idaho.

[Pooka Fey]

55. + 1 to infinity.

[sabrina 1]

56. Yes, because 'we can'. We can torture and kill and

destroy the environment, and shred the Constitution, and a number of other things. But that was not the issue, was it? We KNOW what we CAN do. The question is why would we do these things?

But since you're all for us doing everything 'we can' do, you're probably the wrong person for me to direct that question to.

[Major Hogwash]

65. I feels so humiligated now.

I have been exposed for being the GOP shill at the DU forum.
I feels like I has let my corporate masters down.
I rue the day I was borned.

[sabrina 1]

69. You said it.

I wouldn't worry about those 'corporate masters' though. They rule the world and don't much care what anyone thinks or knows anymore.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_ed_]

24. The pipeline is on OUR side of the border

Is this really that hard to understand?

[Major Hogwash]

28. That doesn't bother me one bit.

We have 3 underground pipelines coming through Idaho from Alaska already.

[_ed_]

30. You asked whether or not Obama was Pres in Canada

I showed how ignorant you were about the issue. What does that have to do with existing pipelines?

Or is your position on this very complicated issue just: "Well, we already have 3, what's one more?"

[Major Hogwash]

36. I don't think another one will hurt.

The terminal for those pipelines are in Salt Lake City.

[defendandprotect]

86. Hogwash! How would burning more oil, processing more oil, spilling more oil possibly help anything?

[MrScorpio]

12. How? Invade Canada?

Isn't it up to the Canadian government to handle what goes on their side of the border?

[_ed_]

21. The pipeline is on OUR side of the border

which any cursory google search could have shown you. Perhaps you should wait to form an opinion until you actually know something about a subject.

[MrScorpio]

46. Looks like you've made your quota for snarky comments today

Congratulations for you! :toast:

[_ed_]

59. Congrats on not knowing a thing about this

issue but posting an idiotic snipe about invading Canada. I guess it's snarky when someone points out that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Fine with me.

[MrScorpio]

68. Are you angry? How come, if you are?

I mean, you just seem really perturbed for some reason that I can't seem to figure out why.

Hey, this IS just the internet, you know?

So, it's not like it's all life and death, or if anyone with any real power is paying attention to any of this… Especially, the dig on Obama in the OP.

It's all just empty venting, right?

[_ed_]

97. I was talking about Keystone XL

I really don't care about your armchair psychology.

[MrScorpio]

99. Right. I get that.

I can see where your frustration is coming from.

It's quite understandable.

Is there more that you'd like to get off of your chest.

I'm listening to you.

[Johonny]

14. Given the jobs building the pipe line would create

could Obama, at a time when he is about to ask to spend federal money to create jobs and is being accused of killing jobs by over regulation, really shut this down. Or to put it another way wouldn't a good politicians use this pipeline as leverage to pass a bigger federal jobs bill. Hey big oil if you want this pipe line, tell your bought and paid for Republican house to pass my jobs bill.

[Bluebear]

18. Yes he could, if he had the backbone

[_ed_]

26. You'd negotiate the climate for a couple of jobs

In what rational universe could that CBA be worth it?

[sabrina 1]

60. Sad isn't it? We are so easily bought and sold and then we wonder

why things ever got to this point. I guess we are witnessing it in action. Sell a little of your principles here and there, because your team is doing this time, convince yourself there is 'some' good to come from it, and then do it again, and again until it becomes so normal, you don't even realize it anymore.

I think frankly that this planet cannot be saved. Politics and power and money will win out over principles every time. And they have the perfect system going. When a Republican does it, half the country will support it. When a Democrat does it the other half, previously opposed, will turn around and support it. Until that changes, there really isn't much hope imo.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

31. Obama COULD do a lot of things that he won't. nt

[txwhitedove]

40. The Keystone Pipeline has been at least halfway built and pumping petroleum products

for many months now. Yes, plans are to take it all the way to the Gulf, but there are other refineries in the US and the Canadian product per US Barrel is cheaper than other imports. Also pipelines running from Mexico into U.S., and storage caverns and pipelines from the Gulf run up to processors in northern states. Many more pipelines already in place than most people know. I'm not saying this is "okay", but appears to be a done deal and many here are shouting into the wind.

[bluestate10]

70. Don't you know not to confront hysteria with facts? nt

[QC]

45. He could, but he won't. It's just not who he is.

Why, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, are people still trying to pretend that Obama's really a progressive who is being forced against his will to act like a corporate shill?

It's like a child trying to convince himself that Santa Claus is real, despite the fact that he just saw fifteen identical Santas out at the mall and the old man never answers his letters.

Obama's worldview is essentially that of a moderate conservative. He believes that the system generally works and that the people running the system got there through merit. This has long been obvious to those who paid attention to what Obama actually said and did, rather than just get caught up in the rhetorical style that he appropriated from the Civil Rights and Farm Workers movements.

[Life Long Dem]

47. "Unfortunately, Secretary of State Clinton did not fulfill her promise to leave no stone unturned"

I think Obama should - and he could - postpone this until no stone is unturned.

[AngkorWot]

48. I guess it's in quotation marks because it's patently untrue, huh?

I sure hope you're not planning on complaining about high gas prices. Or high unemployment.

[Hydra]

52. Tar sands will fix high gas prices?

What universe would that be in? The non-Capitalist one?

[Bluebear]

53. Blah blah blah

[robcon]

62. It's a tremendous project that will make a real contribution to the U.S. and Canada.

I hope it's completed soon.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jerseyjack]

58. But then how would he get oil company contributions for '12?

Oh, I guess he doesn't realize he ain't gonna get any no matter what he does.

[Fearless]

64. +1

[Jakes Progress]

67. Amazing number of Oil Corp. talking points here.

The problem is that this administration is pro-corporate. The administration feels it would be nice if people didn't get hurt by corporate interests, but if mankind is damaged on the way to profits - well, that's just the way it goes. When it comes to people and corporations, corporate interests come out on top. Same if you put environmental sanity against a corporation's right to excess profit. I can see the third-way democrats shaking their heads and wishing that people and the environment could be saved, but just don't see how that would be possible.

[QC]

82. We were flooded with Big Oil Inc. propaganda here during the BP disaster.

Remember all that, about how 70% of the oil was magically raptured up to Baby Jesus, and no one who has ever ridden in a car had any right to speak ill of BP, and the prex couldn't swim down there and stop it up, etc.?

[Jakes Progress]

84. I guess, in a way, that kind of creates jobs.

[QC]

85. True. It's the closest thing to a job program we have in this country right now.

Now watch this drive!

[truedelphi]

94. Agree with all you said, except that the

"Third way dems" have already been transformed into Republicans on many of the major talking points.

[Jakes Progress]

96. True. I have been going by this formula:

reagan democrats = third way democrats = new democrats = republicans at heart

[blkmusclmachine]

77. Syndicate:

All the way to the top.

[QC]

87. The boreal forest never really loved him!

:cry:

[truedelphi]

93. This project was approved IN THE PAST -

And as we all know, we have a "forward thinking" president!

For him to possibly consider de-approving it now, that would mean he is so Twentieth Century!

[amborin]

95. no room for "excuses" on this one, though I see some are trying to pin it on HC