CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:19 am
 


Quite possibly, yes. Not in my time probably but maybe yours or your kids. Of course, old farts were always saying that when I was young too, so who knows. But yes, I view the sheer number of people on the planet as a problem, one growing every day.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:25 am
 


saturn_656 wrote:
andyt wrote:
Won't help. You can't nuke millions of desperate people flooding across the border. As far as deterring the US as a country, we'd better get an awful lot of nukes. At some point taking some casualties might seem worth to 300 million (and breeding) thirsty people.

Quote:
Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks.
Muffley: I refuse to go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.
Turgidson: Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books.


All hope is lost eh Andy? :lol:


I know, eh? Andy, may I suggest a new avatar for you?

Image

Just joking!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:36 am
 


I think my Avatar will do just fine at a time like this, thanks.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:50 am
 


Harper warned not to pester Obama about Keystone in Mexico

He had better warn his smarty-ass young operatives to not robocall the President's entourage.



"It's the newest, coolest thing from the States!" they told the older Conservatives who thought:

"We must keep up to date with these new technologies".


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:02 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
No, just demonstrative of where a lot of people weren't necessarily lined up with the idea of "bi-partisan support." Meech Lake is another example.


Except, in this case, opinion polls align quite well with bipartisan support, with Keystone still seen as positive by a majority of Americans, even after the anti-Keystone campaign ramped up once more, using ads like this




Quote:
Yeah, Tip O'Neill: "All politics is local." Probably true. My point is, though, that environmentalists are not a fringe radical element. There may well be opinion polls indicating most Americans support Keystone, but I certainly wouldn't refer to it as "overwhelming," as you did. If 30-40% of people polled oppose, that doesn't make them some radical fringe. If that 30% were homogeneously distributed, they would be a minority everywhere. Pandering to the opponents of Keystone is not pandering to the extremem left--that's where I disagree with you. It's pandering to an appreciable minority, according to polls.


Overwhelming was a bit of an exaggeration, but with the combined efforts of both bipartisan Congressional support, the constant approval of the Keystone pipeline over the last few years, support and/or of the governors of the states Keystone would cross through (Montana, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, Kansas and Nebraska, there's hard pressed evidence that you can argue anything but continued, strong support by both the American people, and the American political leadership, with one major exception.

Certainly far better support than you, and others have been letting on, and certainly doesn't bode well for the various allegations that people (not just you) continue to make that Prime Minister Harper has soured the Americans to Keystone XL.


Quote:
That Nebraskan aquifer is the Ogalla Aquifer, that covers about 8 states and upon which about 30% of agriculture relies. And it supplies drinking water to around two million people. So yeah, level of concern there. That doesn't strike me as a radical or fringe concern.


I knew what it was. I was saving myself from typing Ogallala every time I mentioned it, and more importantly, the pipeline would only be crossing the Nebraskan stretch of the Ogallala Aquifer, but, I'll keep typing it out now. The Ogallala Aquifer has already been crisscrossed by pipelines, including crude oil pipelines. A lot of pipelines. Keystone XL has been singled out out of the various existing pipelines, and expanding crude oil pipeline development over the Ogallala Aquifer...why, exactly? The risk of a leak would exist with any of them, no?

Image

And yet, the new, approved route by the Nebraskan governor still seems to cut through the same aquifer that other pipelines also cut through. There is that strange area where there are nearly no pipelines of any sort in central Nebraska.

With a bit of research, the main issue for the Nebraskan governor was not the aquifer, but the Nebraskan Sand Hills, which the new route avoids.

Image

Hell, right now, the Pony Express pipeline is being converted from natural gas to crude oil (started in 2013), which crosses through the Ogallala Aquifer across Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska...without barely any media attention nor environmental outrage to the same extent as Keystone XL. I never even heard of this pipeline development before this current discussion. Maybe you have.

Image

Tell me again, how does a brand new pipeline cutting through the Ogallala Aquifer somehow pose a far more dangerous threat than the other, older pipelines that already exist and cross over the Ogallala Aquifer?


Quote:
Yes, they may well be…and to get to get back to my original point…environmentalists shouldn't be characterized as radicals or some fringe element. Sure polls may show support, but that level of opposition can't be classified as extreme.


Not all environmentalists, no, but environmental NGOs can be considered a more fringe element, even to standard environmentalists. Considering those environmental NGOs have the significant wealth to fund an anti-Keystone campaign, over their views that the Keystone XL pipeline will be encouraging further use of fossil fuels over alternative energy development. If that's not an extreme position to oppose North American energy development, what is? Especially if they single out Keystone XL over US based oil sand development, and the production and expansion of oil pipeline development over Ogallala.

They are some of the major players to the anti-Keystone XL campaign. No doubt there are plenty of other environmentalists (say, the Nebraskan governor) whose environmental concern of the Keystone XL crossing through the Nebraskan Sand Hills was a concern that was addressed to his satisfaction.

How can anybody address opposition to the Keystone XL if they can't focus on the major players? Yes, not all environmentalists have extreme views on Keystone, but certainly, some of the large environmental NGOs are actively opposed to Keystone because of their opposition to oil/coal/natural gas in the modern economy, without having any major alternatives available to replace those fossil fuels. (And, one of the biggest alternatives, nuclear energy, most of those organizations are ALSO against!) I didn't exactly pick out fringe environmental groups here. The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation? They're the ones stating their opposition quite clearly is based their opposition to fossil fuel usage and development, quite clearly not a mainstream belief.

You might have more rational reasons as to why you're concerned over Keystone XL, and we can discuss your personal views, including why you are very vocal in defending Keystone opposition (although you've said in the past you're not actually against Keystone XL) but, since you aren't the representative for the American environmental movement and their goals, opinions, and beliefs, so the American environmental NGOs are the next closest thing to gauging American environmentalist reaction to Keystone...and might I say, their positions can be easily seen as extreme, even if they support their beliefs through valid concerns.

They're not opposed to Keystone XL over the Ogallala Aquifer, or the Nebraskan Sand Hills. They're opposed because they don't like "dirty oil", as they stated quite clearly. I view that as an extreme position, but you might not. It's all subjective. I can easily label environmental NGO opposition being steeped in extreme positions, because, in my eyes, they are stating their extreme positions clearly.


Quote:
Because Bush had made a decision and based his political future on it. He was invested. This is the exact opposite. Obama isn't invested. It seems to me he doesn't see much of an advantage either way. This idea that he is catering to some extreme fringe makes no sense. He's not going to get re-elected.


Oh, but Obama is invested as well. On one hand, he hints at approving the Keystone XL pipeline whenever an election is approaching (there are many, many articles over the past few years on this site that prove this) to help US Democrat representatives to gain a few votes, or, at least, not lose them (especially in those states directly affected) only for him to delay his decision to cater to the large environmentalist support within the Democratic party, consisting of major donors and fundraisers, as well as the business interests of Democrat donors who benefit from the delays in the Keystone XL (as the oil is being transported by other means).

A lot of the support for Keystone, and the direct beneficiaries are in states that go Republican anyway (Montana, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Kansas, and Texas) in federal elections, so jabbing those governors and those populations in the eye won't really hurt his political chances, especially as the rest of the United States aren't as invested in it (politics is local), compared to what might happen if President Obama jabs one of the major Democratic bases in the eye.

Quote:
I was mostly talkig about Harper's reputation in Canada, but from those that are aware of him, it's probably not much better. He's not exactly considered a staunch green kind of guy.


Were you? Didn't sound like it

Zipperfish wrote:
The level of cynicism of the Harper government is particularly egregious, and is probably contributing to the general level of mistrust Amercians have with respect to Keystone.


Again, either the Americans aren't aware of Harper, much less give two flying fucks about what Harper has done in Canada, or they are aware, and it's contributing to the "general level of mistrust" in Keystone XL (which is relatively small as both politicians and the American people have been supporting Keystone for quite a while now). Or, the few that are aware and care of Harper's record in Canada are the same ones who would be opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline anyway (a far more likely situation)

This has been something far too many leftists on this site has been doing lately, putting the issues of Keystone XL at Harper's feet, like if he can do much more than what he has already tried to sway Obama to approve something that would benefit the United States immensely. Problem is, the parts that benefit the most don't vote Democrat.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:04 pm
 


commanderkai wrote:
Overwhelming was a bit of an exaggeration...


yes.

Quote:
They're not opposed to Keystone XL over the Ogallala Aquifer, or the Nebraskan Sand Hills. They're opposed because they don't like "dirty oil", as they stated quite clearly. I view that as an extreme position, but you might not. It's all subjective. I can easily label environmental NGO opposition being steeped in extreme positions, because, in my eyes, they are stating their extreme positions clearly.


No I don't believe it is subjective. I believe it is at least semi-quantifiable. An extremem position would be held by 5% or maybe 1% of the population. When you are talking 30-40% the adjective does not apply.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:47 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
commanderkai wrote:
Overwhelming was a bit of an exaggeration...


yes.


So will you admit your exaggerations, or no?

Exaggerations like this, especially:

Quote:
The level of cynicism of the Harper government is particularly egregious, and is probably contributing to the general level of mistrust Amercians have with respect to Keystone.


I still see strong support, and clearly, far more support than opposition to Keystone XL. I have also seen absolutely no evidence of Prime Minister Harper's actions in Canada had any impact at all to the opposition of Keystone XL in the United States. Either you have this evidence, or you are completely exaggerating the level of impact Prime Minister Harper has, and the amount of impact his actions has had upon the American people's opinion on Keystone.

Quote:
No I don't believe it is subjective. I believe it is at least semi-quantifiable. An extremem position would be held by 5% or maybe 1% of the population. When you are talking 30-40% the adjective does not apply.


Sure it does, when the expressed opinions of some of the major environmental NGOs against Keystone XL are doing so for their opposition of the development and exploitation of oil and other hydrocarbons over development of alternative energy sources, even if that means the US economy suffers for it.

Again, back to my original point:

commanderkai wrote:
extreme left political interests in the United States when it comes to Keystone XL. I say extreme left because there have been a number of votes in US Congress that went through with significant Democrat support


Now, that 30-40% opposed to Keystone XL aren't exactly as influential, as say, environmental NGOs and other figures who are actively engaged with their time and resources to oppose Keystone XL. Those who are actively engaged, and thus can bring organized political pressure, clearly expressed political views that I deem as extreme. I view the support of a large number of Democrats in political office as a sign that a good portion of the American left are supportive, or, at least, indifferent to Keystone XL.

It's certainly subjective, and I highly doubt the 30-40% of those who are opposed to Keystone XL in those polls have the same resources and have devoted the same amount of effort compared to various environmental organizations.

To summarize: All environmentalists are radical? No. (Nor did anybody ever make this claim) Those who are in the forefront of their opposition to Keystone XL, and are actively engaged in opposing the development with time and financial resources? I say yes.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:01 pm
 


Quote:
So will you admit your exaggerations, or no?


No, I think I made my point. I realize it is part of the contemporary conservative narrative to portray environmentalists as an extreme / fringe group, but this is not the case and I will challenge it each time I see it.

You are correct--it is probably wrong of me to attribute negative feelings about Keystone in the US to the Harper government. Most folks down tehre probably don't even know who he is.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:19 pm
 


yet it`s ok to portray conservatives as being uncaring about any and all environmental issues?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:32 pm
 


ShepherdsDog wrote:
yet it`s ok to portray conservatives as being uncaring about any and all environmental issues?


I don't see how that necessarily follows.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:59 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
No, I think I made my point. I realize it is part of the contemporary conservative narrative to portray environmentalists as an extreme / fringe group, but this is not the case and I will challenge it each time I see it.

You are correct--it is probably wrong of me to attribute negative feelings about Keystone in the US to the Harper government. Most folks down tehre probably don't even know who he is.


And it's been a common leftist narrative, on this site, and no doubt elsewhere, that attributes the delays in the Keystone XL pipeline development to Prime Minister Harper's actions.

Also, you haven't exactly addressed the common perception that environmentalist NGOs are against Keystone XL due to oil sand development, and more broadly the entire hydrocarbon-based economy that we operate in, without proposing realistic alternatives, or even fighting against said alternatives. I'm not sure if it's a "conservative" narrative to say that the environmentalist NGOs in the US are one of the big players pushing the anti-Keystone agenda.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:33 pm
 


commanderkai wrote:

And it's been a common leftist narrative, on this site, and no doubt elsewhere, that attributes the delays in the Keystone XL pipeline development to Prime Minister Harper's actions.


It certainly true that he doesn't get the best reception whereever he wants his pipelines. But in the US it's probably local politics as much as anything. In BC we just don't believe anything he says on the environment.

Quote:
Also, you haven't exactly addressed the common perception that environmentalist NGOs are against Keystone XL due to oil sand development, and more broadly the entire hydrocarbon-based economy that we operate in, without proposing realistic alternatives, or even fighting against said alternatives. I'm not sure if it's a "conservative" narrative to say that the environmentalist NGOs in the US are one of the big players pushing the anti-Keystone agenda.
[/quote]

I don't have to address it. My point is that opposition to the Keystone pipeline or for environemtnal issues in general is not the sole purview of wing nuts and radicals. That was my only point. Persoally, I'm a scientist and engineer myself--I'm not going to look to Greenpeace or PETA for policy options. The Pembina Institute in Canada does some good thinking, in my opinion. I haven't seen a LIberal platform for energy policy yet, but I don't much like the Conservative one. The NDP one is OK. I actually quite like Stephane Dion's approach--the idea of turning environetmnal protection to a competitive advantage--but obviously he wasn't very popular.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17831
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:25 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
stratos wrote:
Yet when Obama was elected president the protests stopped. The war continued on for more than a year. Thus one can conclude that these people were only using the war as a front for their ant-Bush stance. Interesting that all those bring them home people are not seen today protesting the continued military presence in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. Wingnuts, probably not, liars and hypocrites, sure looks that way.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, as far removed from reality as that might be. :lol:


After Obama's election did you see news casts of protests against the war(s) going on all over America? Did you see the mob of people outside state capital buildings like when Bush was in office? Oh wait I know you seen those marches down US. city streets in protest of the war once Obama was elected. If you did it might be time to talk to someone about the illusions you witnessed. :P


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:42 am
 


Probably won't be "approved" till Obama and Harper are gone but it doesn't change the fact that it is already being built and has been underway for two years. Just seems like a good topic for chirping.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63919
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:15 am
 


Centre wrote:
American officials have already bluntly warned Harper...


You don't do that kind of sh*t to one of your best friends and this f*cked up regime wouldn't even dream of doing that to China, North Korea, Iran, or etc.

Curious, are liberal Canadians still in love with the Magic Negro?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.