"The thermometer is lying"

[oldr_n_wsr]

[rubato]

Being less dependent on foreign oil makes us safer and more free in a way that no amount of defense spending ever can.

So you are for the Keystone pipeline and opening up more drilling in the USA, things Obama seems to be against?

Well I agree. Drill here to make us more independent and build the pipeline so we can buy Canada's oil (otherwise they will build a pipe to thier west coast and ship the oil to China) as Canada is much less "terrorist" controlled than any mid east country.

No sane person would disagree.

You are an astonishingly unthinking person. Obama is not "against" the keystone pipeline he merely refused to approve a pipeline WHEN THEY HAD NOT EVEN DECIDED THE ROUTE. No responsible administration would EVER have approved it at this stage. The Republicans brought it to a vote because they knew you were just this stupid.

a-mazing.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849
Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Large Current Deficits
Economic Recovery Measures, Financial Rescues Have Only Temporary Impact

By Kathy Ruffing and James R. Horney

Updated October 10, 2012

Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficit over the next ten years — according to this update of our analysis, which is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent ten-year budget projections (from August) and congressional action since we released the previous version of this analysis in May 2011. (For a fuller discussion, see the technical note that begins on p. 6.)

The deficit for fiscal year 2009 — which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration — was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II. * At $1.3 trillion and nearly 9 percent of GDP, the deficits in 2010 and 2011 were only slightly lower. If current policies remain in place, deficits will likely exceed $1 trillion in 2012 and 2013 before subsiding slightly, and never fall below $700 billion for the remainder of this decade.

The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.[1] The stimulus measures and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time. ... " (see link for further)
_______________________________________





You may need to see this again.


A few times.

yrs,
rubato

* The fiscal year runs Oct 1 to Oct 1 so the fiscal 2009 budget was passed in 2008.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So because there was no route it was just disgarded out of hand? With today's technology which a route could be made in short order with minimum disruption to things in place we just decide that we won't do it, denying thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to be made? In Conn. alone eminent domain was used to confiscate homes to build a shopping mall benefitting few, and we won't use the same policy to build a pipline which benefits the whole country?

Thinking people would find a way.

The Republicans brought it to a vote because they knew you were just this stupid.

Well I am glad they were thinking of me.

[rubato]

So because there was no route it was just disgarded out of hand? With today's technology which a route could be made in short order with minimum disruption to things in place we just decide that we won't do it, denying thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to be made? In Conn. alone eminent domain was used to confiscate homes to build a shopping mall benefitting few, and we won't use the same policy to build a pipline which benefits the whole country?

Thinking people would find a way.

The Republicans brought it to a vote because they knew you were just this stupid.

Well I am glad they were thinking of me.

There was no route hence there was no plan hence no reasonable person could possibly approve it.

Are you really this dense?

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

So there was no discussion, no way to find a route, no GPS, no satellite imaging, no nothing.
Sounds like a sure way to notimprove things.

Are you really this dense?

Well that really added a whole lot to the discussion.
Shuttered minds do not let the rain, snow, sleet, hail, nor the light shine in, all of which are beneficial.

[dales]

Plenty of ice at the South Pole........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/

[rubato]

So there was no discussion, no way to find a route, no GPS, no satellite imaging, no nothing.
Sounds like a sure way to notimprove things.

Are you really this dense?

Well that really added a whole lot to the discussion.
Shuttered minds do not let the rain, snow, sleet, hail, nor the light shine in, all of which are beneficial.

In really small words: the people who proposed to build the pipeline did not have the route mapped out.

No intelligent person would approve a pipeline plan when they had not even said where it would go.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Plenty of ice at the South Pole........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/

Do you ever care about the truth or is smarmy bullshit your limit?

Someone who had actually researched the antarctic ice sheet would have seen the huge and historic collapses of ice fields on the peninsula &c.


___________________________
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 69894.html
Loss of Antarctic ice has soared by 75 per cent in just 10 years

Parts of the ice sheets covering Antarctica are melting faster than predicted, with the net loss of ice probably accelerating in recent years because of global warming, a study has found.

A satellite survey between 1996 and 2006 found that the net loss of ice from Antarctica rose by about 75 per cent as the movement of glaciers towards the sea speeded up.

Scientists estimate that that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost about 132 billion tons of ice in 2006, compared with a loss of 83 billion tons in 1996. In addition, the Antarctic peninsula lost about 60 billion tons of ice in 2006.

"To put these figures into perspective, 4 billion tons of ice is enough to provide drinking water for the whole UK population for one year," said Professor Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol. "We think the glaciers of the Antarctic are moving faster to the sea. The computer models of future sea-level rise have not really taken this into account."

Sea levels are estimated to have risen by 1.8mm a year on average during the 20th century, but data from the past decade or so suggest that the average rise is now about 3.4 mm per year.

Computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict that sea levels will rise by no more than about 50cm by 2100, are based largely on the stability of the Antarctic ice sheets. But many scientists now believe this forecast is too restrained. "I agree with a number of scientists who feel the IPCC is likely to have underestimated the upper bound of predicted sea-level rise by the end of the century – 50 cm is probably too conservative," Professor Bamber added.
... "
___________________________________

Which 'step' is it in alcoholism recovery where you start to care about the truth? I pray you get there some day.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Do you ever care about the truth or is smarmy bullshit your limit?

Someone who had actually researched the antarctic ice sheet would have seen the huge and historic collapses of ice fields on the peninsula &c.

The Geographic South Pole is located on the continent of Antarctica (although this has not been the case for all of Earth's history because of continental drift). It sits atop a featureless, windswept, icy plateau at an altitude of 2,835 metres (9,301 ft), about 1,300 km (800 mi) from the nearest open sea at Bay of Whales. The ice is estimated to be about 2,700 metres (9,000 ft) thick at the Pole, so the land surface under the ice sheet is actually near sea level

Therefore the statement ; "Plenty of ice at the South Pole." is factually accurate. Don't you ever care about thinking before posting? Next you'll be telling us that the ice at the South Pole is a sign of excessive affluence...

[dales]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The poor sot can't help himself, it's the weekend.

And a gorgoeus one at that.

Had a wonderful lunch with younger daughter (college kids)

Funny, my younger daughter even though going on 23years is socially light years ahead of our develomentally truncated rubato.

[rubato]

why should anyone ever care about the facts?

We have morons instead!

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Indeed, morons who when confronted with an absolutely unarguable refutation of their point, instead of admitting they were in error, ask; "why should anyone ever care about the facts?"

Then sign it;
yrs
rubato.

[oldr_n_wsr]

In really small words: the people who proposed to build the pipeline did not have the route mapped out.

No intelligent person would approve a pipeline plan when they had not even said where it would go.

So dismiss it out of hand? No way to work it out?
How about the length and territory is was going through might have, just might have, needed gov intervention/approval/consulting. Nobody in the gov turned around and said, "Hey, an actual idea that has some merit, lets get together and work out the logistics and see what we can do?"

If past supposedly "crazy" ideas were dismissed out of hand, we would not be anywhere near as advanced as we are.

[Econoline]

AFAIK, the idea of the pipeline extension (the pipeline itself already exists and terminates in Illinois) wasn't dismissed "out of hand"; it simply wasn't approved...on the grounds that the 60-day deadline demanded by Congressional Republicans was not sufficient time, given the complexity of the issues to be decided and the sheer number of alternative proposals. The idea is still alive and if it has merit will no doubt come up again in the future.

[oldr_n_wsr]

60 days to design a pipeline going down the middle of the USA?!?!?!? I'm sorry, it takes me 60 days to just think of how to design a PCB let alone actually design it. Politicians are stupid, no matter what side of the aisle.
Keep it alive, work it out, it only helps the USA. Otherwise, Canada is going to build it 90 degrees to the west and sell their oil to China.
I'm at the point of, whoever is in, is being voted out.

[Scooter]

Keep it alive, work it out, it only helps the USA. Otherwise, Canada is going to build it 90 degrees to the west and sell their oil to China.

That one is already in the works, but is facing its own share of opposition. Don't worry, we have a large enough supply of dirty oil to contaminate the land under both pipelines.

[Sue U]

To say nothing of what tar sands extraction is doing for the envronment in Alberta already.

[Scooter]

You should see the sickening ads the oil companies run to reassure us about how much they care about the environment. Strange that images like that never manage to be included.

[Rick]

and notice the swastika like roadways...