|
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 22, 2014, 03:20 PM
|
|
Tom pragmatic? he just flip flops now and again
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 22, 2014, 05:21 PM
|
|
It's not a matter of pragmatism . I'm true to my convictions . If the Repubics do the right thing I'm on board . But they don't always do so. Too often they are big government Democrat lite. It makes sense from their point of view. They are dependent on the system for their perpetual employment in the beltway . I say term limit the whole group of them.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 22, 2014, 08:13 PM
|
|
No Tom term limit everybody, kick those do nothing reps out and kick those do nothing senators out along with them, it's probable you have reached the point where you can't afford to have a President for more than one term too
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 03:11 PM
|
|
We ship gas in pipe lines all over the Untied States. Anyone ever discussed building the refineries in the Dakotas and shipping the gas from there?
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 03:47 PM
|
|
why don't they build a refinery in canada
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 04:21 PM
|
|
Am I wrong in my assumption that there isn't any oil in the Balkans in the Dakotas? My brother-in-law has been out there somewhere running at least 3 trucks 24/7 and is just one of many. Please correct me if my assumption is wrong. My feeling is if the oil we have here is not going to serve the US and Canadian populations, then why make the pipeline. The US citizens are tired of being the "elevator people" -promised the elevator and ending up with the shaft. Let me see now, is it NAFTA or SHAFTA? Some of the Arab countries pay a fraction for the cost of their oil and gas that we do. Imagine what $1.50 a gallon gas and fuel would do for our own economy. I can't run the numbers for you, but I suspect it would have a larger affect than the jobs building the pipeline would and for all sections of the country, not the affected states and a little spill over. Why make just the Texans rich? I don't have an issue with building the pipeline, but let's get the benefits of the risk involved. Let's go for the elevator this time around.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 04:23 PM
|
|
not easy to build new refineries in the US with all the regulations .
But a 200,000 bbl /day refinery broke ground in N Dakota last year .Before this one ,the last new refinery built to do 100,000 bbl /day was in 1977 . Some of the old refineries have been upgraded ;and a lesser capacity refinery was completed in Wyoming in 2008 . But as of today ,there are only 143 refineries operating in the US . When the Dems talk of infrastructure investment though you never hear them mention the need to increase refining capacity . Instead ,they are now considering exporting crude instead of refining it here . I'm sure all those foreign refineries have the safe guards that US refineries have .
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 04:28 PM
|
|
Imagine what $1.50 a gallon gas and fuel would do for our own economy. I can't run the numbers for you, but I suspect it would have a larger affect than the jobs building the pipeline would and for all sections of the country,
100% correct . Our economic growth would double with lower energy costs .
However ,it is not just a supply and demand issue . A major part of our costs are tied to loose monetary polices. When the dollar is devalued to the value of monopoly money ,there has to be an inflationary affect.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 04:29 PM
|
|
I agree with you there. I'll be blunt. The big boys, Democrats and Republicans don't really give a %$#@ about you, me and the rest of the general population. The 6 figure paycheck that we provide doesn't even pay the rent for most of them.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 04:34 PM
|
|
I like blunt and agree that both of the parties in power suck. The only difference between them is that the Repubs think that they would be more efficient managers of the nanny state . But both of them live and die in support of big government .
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 04:37 PM
|
|
My good old dad always told me to follow the money. It takes a billion dollars to elect a president and almost that much to the guy who lost. If that doesn't put out an odor you can't neglect, then I guess my farts don't stink either.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 05:09 PM
|
|
If I didn't care about this country, I would probably do a favor or two for a group of guys who put up a billion dollars to make me famous(and rich). I might even be inclined to let one or two of them be in my cabinet. Of course if you can't afford the billion, I will let my sweetheart give you a tour and a free nights stay at the old white mansion for a quality donation. IF I get a $100,000 for speaking at your university, I might be persuaded to get the IRS off your back in the deal providing you teach my agenda as the truth. Of Course I would never hold a grudge and sig my minions after you for not agreeing with me, why that would be treasonous and surely unethical. By the way, what does unethical mean? I never learned that term at Harvard. They told me it is a term for the little people and not to worry about it.
The meaning of the words liars and traitors need to be modified in Webster's big book, otherwise we would be jailing a lot of important people. Now we can't put billionaires in jail can we?
High School Civics, 1965 home work.
Oh yeah, the word unethical is the term the white house press secretary has to know forward and backward just in case there is an intelligent little person listening to his spew he can dispel any doubt and cast disparity on the opposition. Sure is good word though. I wrote it down once, but the dog ate my homework! That's the truth and I am sticking to it.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 06:27 PM
|
|
Hey guys stop griping and recognise you brought this on yourselves, you wanted to tell us all about free trade and level playing fields and where did this get you, the least cost option, which for the uninformed, and the great unwashed, means that people in underdeveloped countries get all the new refineries and to make all those great gadgets for the rest of us lazy loafers. You can blame your politicians all you want but you don't stop buying cheap shoddy goods from Asia.
Fact is; you did drink the Koolaid
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 07:08 PM
|
|
having crude refined overseas does nothing to help the consumer cost of energy . In fact ,just the opposite .But even more important ;energy independence is a national security matter . And if we also end up being a net exporter of refined petroleum then it is also good for the trade balance. There is no down side to domestic refining ;unless you are an enviro-wacko.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jun 24, 2014, 07:15 PM
|
|
tell it to the oil companies, Tom you see where rampant capitalism gets you, your government by international treaty cannot enforce domestic refining or give preference to it
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Keystone slipped
[ 6 Answers ]
My home has a decorative stone border surrounding the front door. The border has an arched top and the stones are mortared together. One of the stones of the arch has slipped a few inches and needs to be returned to its proper location. My problem is in moving it. It is somewhat heavy and I...
View more questions
Search
|