E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPresident Obama sent the new pope a private letter, the White House says.
Obama voters don’t want him to approve the Keystone Pipeline.
Things change… “Last year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacked the Democratic convention platform for its ‘shameful’ decision to omit a reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But in a sign of how U.S. politics have changed in 40 years, President Richard Nixon complained in 1972 of the Democrats' ‘dishonest’ platform language declaring the city Israel's capital. Nixon's national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, agreed with his condemnation during a previously unreported taped conversation from June 29, 1972,” AP reports.
Kissinger told Nixon: "To make Jerusalem the capital of Israel is not the platform of a major American national party. That is what I find so revolting here."
More: “The tape is one of a collection housed at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. Nixon's national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, agreed with his condemnation during a previously unreported taped conversation from June 29, 1972. ‘To make Jerusalem the capital of Israel is not the platform of a major American national party,’ Henry Kissinger told Nixon. ‘That is what I find so revolting here.’”
Leave a Comment:
"Obama voters don’t want him to approve the Keystone Pipeline."
I think this to be correct, since the democrats are the responsible person in the room, they must protect our environment from such things as tar sands oil which is the worst pollutant known to man. I think we have to ask ourselves how much is the pipeline worth and who is pushing for it. Big oil would like to see this go through but Big Oil has a very poor track record on environmental issues. My question would be why wouldn't it be better to build refineries at the well head rather then transport this terrible commodity across our plains and take a chance on destroying this land? One thing for sure, America's benefit from this pipeline is minimal and the results of a spill could and probably would be catastrophic.
Facts:
The tar sands oil will be developed by Canda, the question is whether the oil will be sent south through the US, or west to China.
The US has hundreds of miles of pipelines carrying oil for decades, with very little environmental problems..
The Democrats are the zealots, who would rather spend billions on FAILED green energy, than allow the US economy to flourish by becoming energy self sufficient by utilizing new technologies..
The liberals are anti progress, anti growth, just stuck in their delusions of solar and wind energy
Rockefeller (Standard Oil) first started the practice of moving oil through pipelines about 100 years ago. The practice has been in effect ever since. There are thousands of miles of oil pipelines running across the country. I don't recall of any major problem with any oil spills from a pipeline.
As long as our government insures the safety of the build I doubt that there would be much of a problem in the future if it were built.
Yes, there could always be a problem. There could be catastrophic problems with just about everything we do everyday like driving, flying, as a passenger on any mass transporter, gas line explosions; etc., etc., etc.
While I'm not saying the pipeline would best for America, I just don't think it's in our best interest to turn our backs on the issue simply because something could go wrong at some point in time. If we ran that course we wouldn't be enjoying the technology and industry that we do on an everyday basis.
Nomoresameo, obviously you haven't done your homework. Look up Enron, and Marshall Michigan, I still cannot fish the Kalamazoo river because of the oil in it. Its been 3 or 4 years since they dumped millions of gallons of oil into a creek that led to the river. Don't tell me tar sands are safe to transport in pipelines. Only those that. The oil from the pipe line will go to China anyway, they are just using our refineries for their profit. I say let Canada do it. At least it won't destroy our mid west.
Bob it matters not what direction the oil flows it will be sold on the world market to the highest bidder as it has always been and will do nothing to make us energy self sufficient, unless of course you want to regulate the oil market as we know it. Oil produced here does not stay here, nor does refined oil products, do you think republicans would be willing to pass a law that insures oil and refined oil products produced in the US must be sold in the US, you think they would vote for heavy regulation of the US oil industry. That is the only way we could be self sufficient and possibly see lower prices otherwise oil is a world commodity sold on the world market and we must pay those world prices. You think we are going to tell the oil companies they can only sell it here even if they have buyers willing to pay more elsewhere? What would that be Bob would that be Socialism, Communism, or Marxism, it don't sound like Capitalism, so don't pretend it will make us self sufficient, or lower our price at the pump.
I think I could support the Keystone Pipeline if I were convinced it was absolutely safe. I feel the same way about nuclear power plants. But there would have to be overwhelming evidence of the safety, and so far I don't see it. I'm confident that technology could do it, but the expense of building it would be greater, and big corporations are greedy above all else.
I agree that the pipeline is probably as safe as any other. The pipeline across Alaska hasn't caused any real disasters and we don't hear of any from the thousands of miles already in existance across the US. Nuclear power is safe when radio active materials are respected for what they do.
With proper oversight by the department of energy and the EPA I don't think we have anything to worry about.
As for oil going to China, sell it to them and get our money back from what we borrowed for the war in Iraq. The US is already producing and selling oil on the open market instead of selling it at home for a reduced rate.
The oil and natural gas reserves we have should be thought of as transitional energy while we make every effort to convert to clean, renewable, safe, home grown and home priced energy.
Adler, I have to agree, and disagree, agree that oil should be a transitional form of energy, but disagree with the government oversight, while it is needed but with funding always on attack from the right. Right now with sequester we are short handed in several area's. The fact of this oil is, it is the most corrosive, and vile of pollutants even more dangerous then nuclear waste. To transport it across our country and refine it for sale on the world market should take a lot of lot of review on every aspect of it. Boils down to what we will benefit against what risk we are taking.
Oil is a finite resource, no matter what new finds are out there, what out there is out there and it is a finite resource the whole world needs and wants, it is a world commodity and priced as such. Electricity on the other hand can be generated in any number of ways and these generating plants can be placed anywhere we need them depending on what method of generation used. The point is we can create all we want, and granted it takes some from of energy to convert to electricity as a said the options are wide and many. We can create all the electricity we care to at will it is a domestic operation and we never have to worry about other nations trying to disrupt our supply as we often do with oil. If we are serious about wanting energy independence at present electricity is the only viable option.
It's on issues like this I really miss the practice of investigative journalism in the mainstream media. I read the Pew Study yesterday, that outlines how broadcasters have had to cut back on real reporting, and switch to an opinion-based format, because they don't have the money to maintain their hard news departments. it's so sad.
Pretty soon you will see the banner flash across your TV screen "BREAKING OPINION".
I could possibly support the pipe line if someone could show hard facts why it is needed and if it is needed. I'm not talking about opinion based facts from talking heads who have an interest one way or the other, I mean actual facts. It was reported (probably just an opinion) that oil companies were shutting down refineries because they had more oil than they could refine. From what I have read the majority of the posters and probably all will not live long enough to see any benefit from the pipe line. It's a political football the media and politicians are using to keep the nation divided.
BTW Amy: Investigative journalism ended when the Supreme Court decided it was OK for the media to lie to the public. And reporters got lazy and started getting their news from blogs and unreliable sources and outright lying to make their story better than the last reporter.
Mo
Those of us over 50 remember when people in power quaked to see Mike Wallace at their door. He didn't just badger these people, though, he did his research and brought a bigger story to light with his interviews. Imagine what Wallace would have made of David Koch?
I think where today's broadcast media shines is in covering things like the aftermath of tragedies. I've seen many, many interviews with grieving relatives, from shootings to cruise line disasters. It makes you feel for people, it really does, and that is humanizing. Complex stories, like why healthcare is so expensive, or the effect of the pipeline on the environment, and what the alternatives to oil might be - broadcasters have a harder time reporting on that.
It seems that facts get lost in the debate about the pipeline.
Afterall, it is foreign, from Canada. It will end up in the Houston, TX area and be on the global market.
Ask yourself...why does TransCanada want to send the oil sands through new pipelines instead of through the existing pipelines to Cushing, OK?
Might it not be so that it can be exported out of the United States...along with other Canadian oil to get it out of the US market?
[Ask yourself...why does TransCanada want to send the oil sands through new pipelines instead of through the existing pipelines to Cushing, OK?]
Ask yourself...what does Houston, TX have?
Ports...It'll be shipped out and sold on the open market.
Is this what the president sent to the pope? A letter on the Keystone pipeline. Way to go posters. lmao
It is the second paragraph (one liner) of this thread.
Guess the Pope intrest fell short.
The letter to the Pope simply said "Whats up with that hat?"
Keystone is a highly symbolic issue for both sides, well outstripping its importance in either environmental or economic terms. Environmentally, blocking the pipeline would at best delay the exploitation of the tar sands. And if the U.S. doesn't import that oil, we're probably going to burn more coal instead, which is also filthy and terrible for the environment. Economically, the pipeline would funnel some money into the U.S., but it wouldn't depress gas prices, and would probably instead increase them in the short term since it would connect North American supplies with the global market. There's substantial profit at stake for the oil companies involved, but we shouldn't expect much of that to trickle down, reduce gas prices, or create a lot of jobs.
I suspect President Obama will find a way to approve the pipeline. It's in his character as a pragmatist looking for compromise.