Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Keystone XL pipeline should be built

February 26, 2013

Perhaps President Barack Obama should worry more about the American people than about radical environmentalists who have bullied him during his first four years, never satisfied with his own......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

Anderson

Mar-07-13 10:06 AM

And the rest is silence?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamesf

Mar-03-13 8:04 PM

We all know what BO said. "The most transparent" gov. ever. "The health care debate will be televised". Granted, Dems and Reps. are liars, but all BO does is hit the campaign trail and tell the sheep that its not his fault. It's those evil people that do not agree with him.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Mar-03-13 6:29 PM

Like your idol, BHO, you are a consummate liar, Cranky. I am old, and often angry (what normal person wouldn't be given the state of the US you and your collectivist comrades have brought about), but the bigotry is on the part of of you and your comrades who here call anyone one who disagrees with Obama a "racist" in an incessant effort to diminish and marginalize them. And, yes, I said LIAR, for Obama said plainly in the final debate with Romney, "I did not suggest the sequester, the Congress did." Now, Woodward and several others have refuted that; the source WAS the White House, NOT the Congress, as Obama well knew. So the WH and its sycophants are trying to diminish and marginalize Woodward et al. It's a tactic right out of your and Obama's Bible, Communist Saul Alynski's "Hand Book for Radicals," and SOP for your leftist crowd. So, what's next, State having just shot down this pipeline hysteria? Marinalize Hillary? Kerry?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Mar-02-13 11:03 PM

My, my, my! Did I hit a nerve, Andy? Did I hold up a mirror to your angry little face?

Tsk, tsk. You ought to learn to take it as well as you can dish it out. You're as transparent as they come, Anderson. And angry, old bigoted man sitting around hating everybody.

Perhaps you need to heed your own advice.

So much anger. What a shame.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Mar-02-13 7:04 PM

Still the shrill harridan, Cranky; don't expect you to ever change. One doesn't have to mention, or even imply, anything with regard to Obama's African heritage here without being called a racists by you low-information leftists. And yes, that is a double standard. As for you, Cranky, perhaps a shrink could help.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Mar-02-13 11:59 AM

There you go again... both of you.

Soundco says I'm advocating death panels and murdering millions of citizens when I say a nation should take care of its people, and Anderson, being Anderson, tries really hard to twist and squirm his way out of his blatant lies.

I HAVE to break this one down, Anderson. It's a gem:

I have "double standards" when I call him out on his racism because "other posters" have been "leftist name-callers" and deserve to be labeled "racist" also.

Also, my "double standard" applies to the fact that I discounted Sowell as a libertarian conservative, which is how he describes himself, but Anderson demands that I discount him because he's black and because Anderson believes every word he says.

I do not, hence my "double standard".

Do I have this right, so far, Andy? Or am I "coming apart at the seams", which is code for "when did you stop beating your wife" - a tactic used whe

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Mar-01-13 9:31 PM

Always the double standard, Cranky! One can hardly count the times critics of Obama's actions and policies have been called "racist" by posters here, especially when unable to offer a substantive rejoinder. Why should you leftist name-callers be immune from similar charges of racism when you try to dismiss or diminish the views of critics of Obama's actions and policies as you did with Sowell, especially since he is not only a black but obviously a vastly more unbiased - and informed - critic than you? Anyone from Iowa should understand that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and not come apart at the seams as you do so continually. Be civil, as Obama urges (but rarely practices0.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Feb-28-13 12:27 PM

I'm not sure where to begin. Should I address the fact that Anderson continually brings up race and then ALWAYS attempts to explain it away by saying that "other people shout racism, so I can too"?

Or should I address his never ending "countries who have unbridled capitalism are the greatest EVER" mantra?

Between him and soundco, they've put more words in others' mouths that alphabet soup. If they didn't say "you guys PROBABLY think...", they wouldn't have anything to say.

Case in point? "I'll bet you haven't read this book or that article." or "You said a black guy is a libertarian so you're a racist."

No, boys, the only truly successful countries are those who take care of their citizens, embrace their entrepreneurs and work together for the good of the whole.

Your world would concentrate all things at the top, punish the citizenry and promote greed and hypocrisy.

Nice.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-28-13 11:01 AM

Hazlitt's book is certainly a better summation of Hayek's theses in "The Road to Serfdom" than is any other of the earlier ones, soundco. Thanks for mentioning it! I would only note, for 3dogerin's immediate benefit, that collectivism leads to authoritarian socialism in ALL its forms, from social democracy to communism, as well as to authoritarian systems on the right, such as fascism.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 11:45 PM

While I'm at it Cranky and 3dogerin, centrally-directed, collectivist societies have never worked anywhere they have been tried, and collectivist govts do not CREATE technology, imaginative INDIVIDUALS and ENTREPRENEURS do - always have, always will. Rewards, whether greedy or just incidental, cause or effect, fuel enduring (and successful) individualist, free market systems. No "deceit" there, Cranky; TRUTH!

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 11:16 PM

Its just that you, Cranky and others of your stripe, raise use the "racism" charge every time anyone disagrees with our Agitator-in-Chief, and - as in the Sowell case - try to dismiss views you are incapable of refuting with some personal attack. So, turn about is not fair play with you, eh?

Having participated in Presidential, VP and Secretary levle trips for 20 years, 3dgerin, I can assure you that logistical and security costs are of a completely different magnitude for repeat and longer-term visits to a single location than they are to multiple locations in a different city every day or two as with Obama's peripatetic campaigning. Also, rural stops incur far fewer logistical and security costs than urban stops; those at restricted military bases, least of all.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3dgerin

Feb-27-13 6:33 PM

Right now the concern is oil, however in the future the biggest issue will be clean drinking water. This is exactly why Bush Sr, Dubya, and his daughter Jenna own 10's of thousands of acres of land in Paraguay, since it sits over the Guarani Aquifer.

I am sorry but I do not believe this is a risk we should take with the water we have, all for a company to make higher profits. There is 100% risk and absolutely zero reward for 99.999% of the citizens of the United States.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3dgerin

Feb-27-13 6:24 PM

Amazing how it goes from a pipeline, to vacation time, and now racism.

Anderson yes Dubya did spend his vacation time on his ranch, however AF-1 took him to the ranch, Secret service was present, and the same checks for his safety were done as they are for Obama. So there really is no cost difference between the two. I worry about your previous comments how after the oil runs or gets to costly then private industry will develop other sources of energy. I would much rather see the government create the technology than have some greedy corporation holding a patent on a basic need and exploiting the public. Take a look at farmers and what they have to pay for seed now since Monsanto holds most the patents and tell me you would like system like that for perhaps your transportation or home heat. Or look at poorer countries and how clean water is to expensive to drink since the water rights are owned by a corporation, and every home has a meter attached to it.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Feb-27-13 4:46 PM

Looks like since you're the only one who mentioned race, so maybe that finger you're trying to point is back at "YOU".

You can stop trying to use your "questionable intelligence" to "deceive" others on this forum with your "selfish" "opinions".

"Individualist" is a synonym for "greedy", as you "well know".

But the "funniest" part of your foolish reply is the fact that your ugly racist true self is showing and you aren't "smart enough" to know it! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 4:27 PM

Oh, Cranky - better check google on Sowell, an "economist and social theorist" who, I grant, has "opinions," since that's what all economists have; however, for someone of your "brilliance" I would have suggested Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," not Sowell's "Basic Economics," which is just that, the "basics" and a much easier read. Both, however, ARE individualists, not collectivists. Suppose I COULD call you racist, since Sowell is a Harlem-raised black, Cranky?? And how about those other two blacks, Walter Williams and Charles Payne - just dismissible as "libertarian conservatives," too, I suppose?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Feb-27-13 12:23 PM

I am so glad I checked this post again. Anderson, you have outdone yourself this time! Tom Sowell? Really? His own bio states that he writes from a "libertarian and conservative" viewpoint. In other words, his own biased opinion. Opinions do not make facts. Much like the Woodward, who has expressed his disdain for this president over and over. Opinions.

Your view is yours, but it doesn't mean it's right. I happen to believe my view is the correct one, and having almost as many years in the government financial sector as you, I would argue that my point may very well be the right one.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 11:02 AM

...that need not be stated.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 11:01 AM

Note that Bob Woodward, Washington Post columnist of Watergate fame, has just called Obama's claims regarding the sequestration a "classic case of distortion and confusion," and Obam's actions in that respect, "madness."

You are absolutely right, ColB, that the govt controls just about everything, economically speaking - TOO BLAME MUCH. So he converts HIS campaign staff into a tax-free lobbying group to agitate for HIS agenda and it is called out even by Common Cause for selling quarterly meetings with Obama for $500,000 a pop. Now that is bribery, a criminal, impeach act under the law!

But how does one weighs Bush's vacation time - most all at his Texas ranch - against Obama's & his incessant campaigning using AF-One almost daily at $180,000+/hour, & that is but the tip on the iceberg of presidential travel expenses, as I know from personal involvement. Slick-talker Obama is leaving Slick Willie in the dust, it seems, with one notable exception that ne

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Feb-26-13 11:03 PM

NOJOKE1, I know it's not a fun fact for someone set in their ways but, you DO know that George W. Bush took about 10 days vacation for every 1 day Obama has taken thus far-right?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NOJOKE1

Feb-26-13 9:16 PM

I’m with you Anderson, and if our Agitator-in-Chief would stop taking all of those vacations on AF-one, lead the country’s leaders to collaboration and compromise - we won’t have to worry about burning so much jet fuel and supplying Americans with ample job opportunities. I guess China will resolve these issues as they continue to buy out our AMERICAN energy companies and assume our oil reserves. Doesn’t anyone read the newspaper anymore? They don’t care about pipelines.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Feb-26-13 7:27 PM

Soundco, the government controls everything the same way the latex glove on the surgeon's hand controls the operation. Most moves by the government these days are done at the command of ruthless corporations who wish to remain faceless while they can get people to blame the government for the outcome.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-26-13 5:08 PM

- and Grounding AF-One!

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-26-13 5:05 PM

"Lude"? "Pipe shale"? What are you trying to say, brucee?

It is difficult to discuss supply and demand, product substitution, pricing etc., with those who do not have either a backgrounds in economics or business experience, which is why I recommend Sowell"s "Basic Economics" to compensate somewhat for the former; unfortunately, there is no compensation for lack of business experience. When fossil fuels do run out, or merely become too pricy, pvt innovators entrepreneurs, and investors - not some omniscient politician or bevy of govt bureaucrats - will come up with some competitive substitute at some price that provides funds with which to pay the costs of all the factors of production, labor (i.e. workers) included. Neither talk nor altruism will secure such product OR employment; never has, never will, our peripatetic Agitator-in-Chief notwithstanding. Meanwhile, I suggest (again) shank's mare (or bicycle at most) for all environmental purists -

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TAXEDENOUGH

Feb-26-13 4:04 PM

Colonelbanters, I agree with your comments. 3dgerin, I also agree with yours except about the buisnessmen making the decision. Most people would be working for almost nothing with no benifits if a lot of these so called buisnessmen had thier way. Most have only one reason for most decisions, it's called greed and how much can I fleece the public. Pretty much what is happening with gas prices right now..

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brucee

Feb-26-13 2:27 PM

anderson anderson will you ever disagree with greed, this topic is so lude to even be considered. To pipe shale 1500 miles across the only thing we havent ruined as yet is absolutely insane.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments
 
 
 

 

I am looking for: