Keystone XL: The Biggest Mistake of Obama’s Presidency?

Keystone XL PipelineKeystone XL is a “go.” Count on Secretary of State Kerry to do the right thing – for the industry. The planet will have to take its chances.

h/t Roots Action:

It’s classic. Wait till late on a Friday to announce a reprehensible decision in hopes of minimizing the uproar in response. But the climate crisis doesn’t take weekends off.

…”Significant impacts to most resources are not expected along the proposed Project route assuming the following,” reads the State Department report, before listing a series of improbable assumptions.

They say it’s just one pipeline. But the point is we have to say no to ALL the pipelines and leave fossil fuels in the ground.

UPDATE:

The Central Flaw of the Keystone XL Economic Analysis (It’s status quo bias)

UPDATE:
Sam Stein: So What Exactly Is Obama’s Red Line On Keystone XL?

UPDATE: As Keystone Decision Looms, Buried Report Cites TransCanada’s ‘Inadequate’ Pipeline Inspections

UPDATE: Environmentalists Continue To Question Keystone Analysts’ Ties To TransCanada

  1. #1 by brewski on February 3, 2014 - 6:00 pm

    Richard, remind me again how you get to work every day.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2014 - 6:32 pm

    Perhaps you can explain how a pipeline that sends Canadian oil overseas would help me get to work.

    Actually I’ll answer that for you – Keystone XL is going to increase gas prices in this country.

  3. #3 by brewski on February 3, 2014 - 7:25 pm

    The Nation? Seriously? What’s next, Pravda?

    • #4 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2014 - 8:40 pm

      Um, the analysis is from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). They’re pretty good with facts, in my experience.

      • #5 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 8:23 am

        Then why did you link The Nation and not NRDC? You can’t read original sources? Besides, NRDC is an advocacy group so they have an axe to grind. You can do better than that.

        • #6 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2014 - 8:38 am

          The Nation’s summary was good enough. NRDC’s facts are good enough. I note that you’re not even trying to defend the Keystone XL Pipeline.

          • #7 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 9:05 am

            Somehow I suspect that if Fox News quoted NRDC you’d have a fit about it and dismiss it since it came from Fox News.

            The NRDC’s piece has some pretty large logical self contradictions in it. I am sure they couldn’t care less about the price of gasoline. They just want to stop the pipeline no matter what. They are just anti-union and anti-worker.

          • #8 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2014 - 6:15 pm

            Well Faux News Channel probably wouldn’t cite an NRDC report except to claim it was wrong. But if by some fluke they quoted NRDC approvingly, I would look at the facts like always.

            If you are in favor of Keystone XL, say so and stake your claim!

          • #9 by cav on February 5, 2014 - 9:27 am

            Between Keystone, Fukashima, fracking, mountain-top strip-mining for coal, etc senseless ravaging for the sake of SuperBowl treats, we’ve pretty much screwed this stewardship pooch.

            Again, because exceptionalism.

  4. #10 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2014 - 7:16 pm

    We’re waiting for brewski to make the case in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is designed to convey Canadian crude to Europe at tremendous environmental cost.

    • #11 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 7:59 pm

      You haven’t made any case against it so why should I make a case in favor of it? Hell, I’m still waiting for you to answer any one of a billion questions I’ve asked which you do nothing but dodge.

      • #12 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2014 - 9:01 pm

        You mean, other than saying the environmental toll will be tremendous, and it will raise the cost of gas for Americans?

        Admit it, you agree with President Obama on this one. :-(

        • #13 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 9:47 pm

          I agree with the AFL-CIO, the Department of State, and pretty much every non Authoritarian.

          Environmental toll = 0

          Increase in cost of gas will only be in the Midwest.

          Higher gas prices is good for the environment since it makes people use less of it. Just ask every pinko country in Europe that you admire so much.

          • #14 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2014 - 8:03 am

            North Dakota recorded 300 oil spills in two years without notifying the public

            Where is your evidence for zero environmental impact? Also, what about the impact on global warming?

          • #15 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 10:25 am

            The oil is going to get produced and transported with or without the Keystone XL pipeline. So the pipeline will not increase global warming or anything else. It will just make moving the oil cleaner and safer than by rail or truck.

          • #16 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2014 - 11:00 am

            So you agree with the State Department’s conclusion that the U.S. Government is somehow a powerless bystander that can do nothing to stop this?

        • #17 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 1:14 pm

          Stop what? What is “this”?

          Remind me again, how did you get to work today?

          • #18 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2014 - 3:04 pm

            Um, the Keystone XL Pipeline (i.e. the subject of this post), which is what we’ve been discussing. Try to focus. If Secretary of State John Kerry doesn’t approve it, it can’t be built. But that would mean the Obama administration would have to take heat from the fossil fuel industry.

          • #19 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 4:11 pm

            There is no point in stopping the Keystone pipeline, other than making you feel good.

            Remind me again how you got to work today?

          • #20 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2014 - 6:54 pm

            With the Keystone Pipeline, climate change will be worse than without it. There is no denying that simple fact. Tar sands MUST stay in the ground.

            How I got to work is irrelevant, because everything that goes through that pipeline is headed overseas. It’s not a pipeline TO the USA, it’s a pipeline THROUGH the USA.

          • #21 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 7:54 pm

            The tar sands will come out of the ground with or with out the pipeline. It’s a simple fact. The Canadians will sell it to someone else. The net impact of the pipeline is zero.

            How did you get to work, chicken?

          • #22 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2014 - 8:37 pm

            How are they going to get the stuff to a refinery without the pipeline?

            I rode my bicycle, because I knew you would keep asking your irrelevant question. The gas in my car doesn’t come from Canadian tar sands and never will.

          • #23 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 9:10 pm

            You rode your bicycle to Price? That’s quite a ride over Soldier Summit.

          • #24 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 9:11 pm

            BTW, please read up on this issue. It really isn’t a fair contest if you know so little about it. I don’t really want to do your homework for you.

          • #25 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2014 - 9:38 pm

            It’s 2.5 miles from my apartment to the office. Look, brewski, it’s not about me or about you. The issues are what’s important. I don’t even know your real name, nor do I particularly care.

            I’ve done all the homework. If you have an affirmative case for the Keystone XL Pipeline, then make it. So far you’ve got nothing except blanket statements like “zero environmental risk” based on no information.

          • #26 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 10:02 pm

            You have never bothered to consider anything I have ever said nor evidence on any topic, ever. So why would I bother explaining the painfully obvious to you now. You are unwilling and incapable of listening to anything or anyone with whom doesn’t just parrot back to you your own feelings.

          • #27 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 9:27 am

            Right-wing propaganda is the opposite of information.

          • #28 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 9:43 am

            Ooooo geee, that was really convincing.

            Too bad the last 2000 years of human history has thrown your Statist Authoritarian religion on the trash heap.

          • #29 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 11:47 am

            Well, I guess we better not try to save the planet because somebody might call us “statist authoritarians.” Or something.

          • #30 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 1:46 pm

            If the pipeline is not built the Canadian will sell the oil to someone else. So building it or not building it will not make any difference to the planet. They will find other refineries and other customers.

          • #31 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 3:56 pm

            Oh, sure, they could build another pipeline across the Canadian Rockies. Maybe they will, but it would be a bad idea for the planet.

            You’re really buying the State Department’s “nothing we can do, we’re just an innocent bystander” story, huh?

          • #32 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 8:20 pm

            Just like they were bystanders and liars as they watched 4 Americans get murdered while they did nothing and lied about it later.

          • #33 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 7:26 am

            You are more obsessed with Benghazi than Faux News Channel. Does it matter to you that none of that is factual?

          • #34 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 11:18 am

            I have never said anything that wasn’t factual.

  5. #35 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 9:48 pm

    I am in moderation.

  6. #36 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 10:15 pm

    But there is another option that could solve Canada’s oil glut without the headache of shipping its oil to China. Canada could ship oil to itself. Sounds bizarre but there is currently no way to ship oil from Canada’s oil fields in the west to its refineries in the east. Currently, Canada imports around 800,000 barrels a day of crude, which is roughly the same amount of oil slated to be shipped to Asia. It makes no sense for Canada to ship to Asia when it is importing so much expensive foreign oil. Shipping from Alberta to the refineries near Montreal would cost around $5 a barrel. Shipping all the way to refineries around Saint John, New Brunswick would cost around $8 a barrel, TD Economics estimates.
    Building Keystone and a new eastward pipeline to Canada’s Maritimes is a win/win for both countries. Canada isn’t losing anything by not shipping to Asia — it is gaining both energy independence, something it should have achieved a decade ago, while also gaining the jobs and economic stimulus that would come by building one of the world’s longest pipelines. Building the estimated C$4 billion pipeline would create some 3,500 construction jobs and add as much as C$3 billion to Canadian GDP, TD Economics estimates. These are no small numbers. Refiners would win as they would no longer need to import expensive foreign oil, and the savings could then be passed down to consumers. And Canada’s trade deficit, which reached a high of around C$12 billion last year, would disappear as the nation reduces its dependence on foreign oil.

    • #37 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 7:25 am

      But would Canadians tolerate the environmental damage from a trans-Canada pipeline?

      • #38 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 11:24 am

        What environmental damage? They already have lots of pipelines so why would they not agree to this one particularly for the benefits stated above.

        • #39 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 12:21 pm

          Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe in pipeline spills even though they happen hundreds of times every year. Your idea begs the question of why the Canadians want to build a tar sands pipeline across the USA instead of in their own country. Since it’s such a terrific plan. ;-)

          • #40 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 12:52 pm

            It doesn’t beg the question at all. There are lots of alternatives, lots of customers, lots of routes. I am sure they evaluated all of them and the one proposed is the one which makes the most sense to them. If it didn’t make sense to them then they would propose it. I know that you have a hard time grasping that people generally do what is in their interests. If choice A is taken off the table then they will move to plan B. So one way or the other the oil will be extracted, it will be pipelined to somewhere, it will be refined and it will be used. So blocking plan A will not result in any incremental reduction of CO2.

            Meanwhile, you will still drive your car and heat your house and be the immoral hypocrite that you are.

          • #41 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 1:15 pm

            I suppose it makes sense to our northern neighbors to have Canadian tar sands oil spills in the USA rather than Canada. :-(

          • #42 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 2:18 pm

            Just to illustrate what we are talking about here.

            “The net impact of the pipeline is zero.” — brewski.

          • #43 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 2:20 pm

            Then it could just as easily happen there as here. So net net, no incremental change.

            We have plane crashes too. Are you going to ban all planes?

            Intellectual weakness of the left.

          • #44 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 2:24 pm

            Basic logic indicates that where there is no oil pipeline, you won’t have to worry about oil pipeline spills. Department of duh.

          • #45 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 2:28 pm

            Basic logic dictates that anyone who ever drives in a car, bus or flies in a plane or heats his home is a total hypocrite for being against those who provide the very fuel that you so gleefully burn.

            Intellectual weakness of the left.

          • #46 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 2:43 pm

            I’ll be the first in line to buy an electric car when I can afford it. And spare me the standard Faux News lecture about coal power, that’s a separate issue. Same goes for home solar panels. If the government subsidies that support the fossil fuel industry were supporting renewable power instead, then the economic incentives would be flipped. IMHO.

          • #47 by brewski on February 8, 2014 - 8:13 am

            I know every time you mention “Faux News” that you have nothing to say and I won.

        • #48 by Richard Warnick on February 8, 2014 - 11:17 am

          Let’s be clear. The 1 Percent are the winners, and the rest of us are losing.

  7. #50 by cav on February 8, 2014 - 5:20 pm

    I really don’t suppose I’m alone in finding brewski insufferably boring for his winning via a preponderance of sops, (same old pony shit). Anything he imagines will set a liberal to ‘crankin’.

    He’s a winner alright, ought to be in Sochi

  8. #51 by brewski on February 8, 2014 - 5:46 pm

    Cav, there is no other interpretation to someone who is totally unresponsive to the facts and merits and bleats “Faux News” even when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. THAT is insufferably boring.

    • #52 by Richard Warnick on February 9, 2014 - 10:14 am

      By “facts,” brewski of course means counter-factual arguments. Of the type the right-wing (and Faux News Channel in particular) specializes in.

      • #53 by brewski on February 9, 2014 - 1:01 pm

        False.

        “Faux News” again? For what purpose when they have nothing to do with anything? Are you capable of completing a sentence without bleating “Faux News”? Or is that all you got when have nothing at all to say?

        Cav, call me boring, but if that’s all he has is “Faux News” name-calling, and I have facts, then indeed I have won.

        • #54 by Richard Warnick on February 9, 2014 - 6:26 pm

          Faux News Channel is the definitive source for right-wing Republican alternate reality. Not the only source. Their “facts” are not actually real. For example, the way the recent CBO report was misrepresented to falsely claim that the ACA would cost the economy millions of lost jobs. Paul Krugman:

          Think about it. We had the nonexistent death panels. We had false claims that the Affordable Care Act will cause the deficit to balloon. We had supposed horror stories about ordinary Americans facing huge rate increases, stories that collapsed under scrutiny. And now we have a fairly innocuous technical estimate misrepresented as a tale of massive economic damage.

          Did brewski get his CBO lie direct from Faux News Channel? Quoth Hillary Clinton: What does it matter?

          • #55 by brewski on February 9, 2014 - 8:19 pm

            Who cares? I wasn’t talking about them. I was talking about substance and you did your Pavlovian reaction. I wasn’t talking about them or using them as a source for anything and all you do is bring them up for no reason whatsoever. You seem to suffer from some Fox News Derangement Syndrome. Get profession help.

            I copied and pasted my CBO quote word for word from CBO.gov.

            The fact that you think it was from Fox News shows that you haven’t read the report and just get your feelings and emotions from think regress and never actually read the source document in question. You are totally dishonest, illiterate and intellectually weak.

          • #56 by Richard Warnick on February 9, 2014 - 9:02 pm

            The ACA is far from good. It’s insurance reform when we need health care reform. There isn’t any public option, although Medicaid has been expanded in states where right-wing Republicans didn’t obstruct it. The essence of the ACA is the individual for-profit private insurance mandate invented by the Heritage Foundation. Faux News ought to call it “HeritageCare.”

            Whatever the ACA’s failings, it’s not a drag on the economy or a budget-buster. Nor does the CBO say that it is.

  9. #57 by brewski on February 9, 2014 - 9:49 pm

    You haven’t read it so how would you know?

  10. #58 by brewski on February 9, 2014 - 9:53 pm

    “After obtaining coverage under the health-care law, some workers will choose to forgo employment, the report said, while others will voluntarily reduce their hours. That is because insurance subsidies under the law become less generous as income rises, so workers will have less incentive to work more or at all.

    The design of the subsidies — like many programs in the social safety net — represents “an implicit tax on additional work,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said.

    The CBO attributed the decline in workforce participation primarily to this effect. But there were other, less important causes, too, including the likelihood that some employers will cut people’s hours, hire fewer workers or offer lower wages to new workers to avoid or compensate for a new fine on employers that do not offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week.”

    Washington Post

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/cbo-botched-health-care-law-rollout-will-reduce-signups-by-1-million-people/2014/02/04/c78577d0-8dac-11e3-98ab-fe5228217bd1_story.html

    You may find this hard to believe, but when 2.5 million people are not working, that means they are not producing anything, or paying taxes.

    It’s math. Learn it.

    • #59 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2014 - 9:24 am

      If Americans now have more options regarding employment, that’s a good thing. I think we all know people stuck in jobs because they were afraid to lose health insurance coverage.

      • #60 by brewski on February 10, 2014 - 11:11 am

        Explain to me how high effective tax rates on low income people is a “good thing”.

      • #61 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2014 - 12:17 pm

        I don’t think the for-profit private insurance mandate is a good thing. Given that we’re stuck with it (thanks to the Heritage Foundation, Willard Romney, and Liz Fowler) we have to hope that subsidies will make insurance affordable.

        BTW this post is about the Keystone XL Pipeline.

        • #62 by brewski on February 10, 2014 - 1:08 pm

          Then why did you bring up ACA and Fox News when neither of the two have anything to do with this and I didn’t bring them up?

          Ohhh right, you needed a distraction to try to get me to not realize you don’t have any substantive argument and that you already capitulated and lost on Keystone.

          • #63 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2014 - 5:20 pm

            I was just giving a recent example of a counter-factual argument you made that echoes Faux News Channel.

            The facts about Keystone remain the same. There’s nothing in it for America or the planet. Approval is not in our interest.

          • #64 by brewski on February 10, 2014 - 5:57 pm

            I made no counter factual argument.

          • #65 by Richard Warnick on February 11, 2014 - 9:24 am

            Conservatives push misreading of CBO report to claim Obamacare is a job-killer

            In reality, the report stated [PDF] that while the number of total jobs in the U.S. will increase by 2017, more people will choose to work less than a full-time schedule, since they will have the ability to pay for their own insurance, rather than rely on their employers to provide it.

            America Has Forgotten That We Don’t Have Freedom If We Don’t Have Free Time

            A recent report on Obamacare by the CBO found that the law will nudge workers to work less. Why? Because if you don’t have to take a full-time job just to get coverage, then maybe you won’t. Conservatives are interpreting the report to mean that Obamacare is a “job killer.” But they’re deliberately missing the fact that the work reduction in this case is voluntary.

          • #66 by brewski on February 11, 2014 - 10:12 am

            Again, you are quoting a secondary source and I quoted the actual document. When I did quote the actual document directly, you accused me of quoting “Faux News”. So the fact that you think the actual document sounds like “Faux News” should tell you something.

          • #67 by Richard Warnick on February 11, 2014 - 12:08 pm

            And my point is that the individual freedom from “job lock” is a good thing. It’s certainly not the same thing as a reduction in overall employment in the economy, which the CBO is not predicting.

          • #68 by brewski on February 11, 2014 - 1:35 pm

            Why are you refusing to read the actual CBO report?

            From the actual text of the CBO report and not from someone else telling you what they want you to think it says. Here is what it really says verbatim:

            “CBO estimates that the ACA
            will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net,
            by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period
            from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will
            choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and
            other incentives they will face and the financial benefits
            some will receive. Because the largest declines in labor
            supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
            the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
            and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy
            will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in
            hours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA
            will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate
            labor compensation over the 2017–2024 period, compared
            with what it would have been otherwise.”

          • #69 by Richard Warnick on February 11, 2014 - 1:52 pm

            I’ve been busy lately, but I did have time to read the CBO’s rebuttal of the right-wing talking points you love so much.

        • #70 by brewski on February 11, 2014 - 2:17 pm

          Yes, and not one word of that refutes one word of anything I have ever said. Thank you for confirming that I am 100% accurate.

          • #71 by Richard Warnick on February 11, 2014 - 2:56 pm

            The CBO did not say what the right-wing says they said. In the future, some may voluntarily choose to work part-time or quit their jobs — but this does not equate to fewer jobs overall.

            Why don’t Republicans focus on the Americans who are involuntarily out of work now due to right-wing economic sabotage?

          • #72 by brewski on February 11, 2014 - 3:49 pm

            It says exactly what I said it says which includes:

            “the total number of hours worked, on net,
            by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period
            from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will
            choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and
            other incentives they will face and the financial benefits
            some will receive.”

          • #73 by Richard Warnick on February 12, 2014 - 8:16 am

            Again, why so concerned about the possibility of people in the future working less voluntarily, when millions of Americans are out of work NOW involuntarily? What is the right-wing plan to reduce unemployment today?

          • #74 by brewski on February 12, 2014 - 8:45 am

            You use this word “voluntarily” as though that makes it all somehow OK. Let’s say you decided to tax farmers at 99% so they “voluntarily” stopped farming since it just wasn’t in their interests to farm any more. Or suppose we decided to tax investment income at 99% so investors “voluntarily” stopped investing in new businesses. So in this case the CBO says specifically that low income people will face a high effective marginal tax rate on working so they will choose to not work. Less work means less output, less household income, less demand, less taxes. The CBO says all of those things. But somehow you are buying the Jay Carney bullshit that this is a good thing which is not what the CBO actually said.

          • #75 by Richard Warnick on February 12, 2014 - 2:49 pm

            Of course for employees the ACA is a benefit not a tax.

          • #76 by brewski on February 12, 2014 - 3:30 pm

            Until the mandates encourage employers dump them altogether.

  11. #77 by cav on February 10, 2014 - 7:26 am

    The cons are warming up for another round of Elitism Trumps.

    I view brew as someone whose toe is being crushed, but it’s in the door, and he wouldn’t have it any other way.

    Still, we’ll benevolently reserve a nice cushy hammock and cold beer for him, come the revolution… because Mercy. He’s been a real troop.

  12. #78 by Larry Bergan on February 11, 2014 - 8:03 pm

    brewski is definitely a troop.

    Maybe Americans could benefit from not racing their lives away so much. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons we keep shooting each other.

    Last night I saw an ad on the Olympics which featured an overachiever type who was cutting down people in other countries for getting a month off work each year, saying that’s what makes us great as the ad cuts to a picture of his perfect new car.

    Big deal.

    We all know the corporations are going to get their pipeline, one way or the other. It’s just how things work now-a-days.

  13. #79 by cav on February 12, 2014 - 7:08 am

    The Hard Work ™ of destroying a planet.

    C’mon everybody, pitch in to the maximum of your abilities…there’s a thousand $ nano-fabric tie in it for you!

  14. #80 by Larry Bergan on February 12, 2014 - 6:37 pm

    Or a gold laced chocolate frapino. Only disappointing thing about that is when there isn’t somebody sitting next to you who can’t afford one.

    I wouldn’t give up my 94 Corolla for anything except maybe an electric car. I’m really getting tired of this smog.

    • #81 by brewski on February 12, 2014 - 8:38 pm

      I have a 15 year old car with 250K miles. Love it, rust and all.

  15. #82 by brewski on March 7, 2014 - 3:26 pm

    What was that about how smart Obama is?

  16. #83 by Cryozoin on March 22, 2014 - 2:37 pm

    Brewski- you deserve to be shot in the back of the head along with all the other 1% who have stolen away american hard earned money and values… for their own profit and greedy lifestyles. This country COULD be great if we didn’t have to argue with sick people like you over common sense and morals. Politics aside.. think about what “we the people” need and what we deserve in a democratic society and not what will make 1% rich. You probably think that the iran/iraq/afghanistan war is over terror too. Government needs to balance our corporate greed and power, not assist.

  17. #84 by cav on March 22, 2014 - 3:01 pm

    Harsh CryoZion.

    Step back and look at yourself. See if your posture doesn’t overlap with the Fascists you seem to despise.

    Even if violence of the type you recommend were hauled out, it likely would really only take a relatively small number of examples to swing the deal. Still, perhaps there’s a somewhat less karmically destructive teaching tool somewhere. Just have to think.

  18. #85 by brewski on March 22, 2014 - 8:52 pm

    At least Cryozoin confirms my impression of the violent tendencies of the Left.

  19. #86 by cav on March 23, 2014 - 10:25 am

    One nutcase does not an ideology make, you silly rightist.

  20. #87 by brewski on March 23, 2014 - 9:06 pm

    You are right, but 100 years of history and evidence does.

    http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/08/liberalsRiot.jpg

    • #88 by cav on March 23, 2014 - 11:05 pm

      Reverse Projection. A human failing yes, but far down the list.

      • #89 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 7:36 am

        Reverse projection? Hardly. The greatest mass murders of the 20th century were all committed by atheist Statists. Not an accident.

        • #90 by cav on March 24, 2014 - 9:05 am

          Getting back to CryptoZionist’s abusive statement, I’m sorry he feels / writes the way he does – and not because he presents as a ‘leftist’. In my view, such proposals most diminish the potentials of those making them and carrying them out. Even while others may die the dastardly actors earn the scorn and future condemnation.

          Now, on to the photo you linked to – which can be taken at least two ways: One as ‘rightists’ who are asking permission of ‘leftsts’ to riot, OR, two, as ‘leftists’ mockingly suggesting that rioting is really their preferred approach to problem-solving (when thwarted in other less riotous attempts brings them to that). Pick either and it’s still reverse projection. Someone seeking to live up (or down) to the image someone else has of them.

          Finally, your statement about the greatest mass murders of the 20th century. Oddly, you overlook Hitler (Catholic) and all of the ‘Oh So Religious’ Leaders of these very United States’ who have bombed, shot, radiated, and sanctioned multiple millions into their own graves.

          I’m going to write this oversight up to your being ‘rattled’ by the very unpleasant CryptotoZion. I would be rattled too. And, the fact that you trot this lame notion out regularly as you go about your business of bashing ‘left-leaning’ thought in any guise. It’s habitual, but we see addictions of almost any sort as treatable. My ‘leftist’ Best to you in your growth and understanding – if it takes a hundred years.

  21. #91 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 9:16 am

    False:

    historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian – a view evidenced by sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann contained within Hitler’s Table Talk.[8] Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”

    • #92 by cav on March 24, 2014 - 9:24 am

      So by default he was a leftist?

      But then you stopped! WTF?

      • #93 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 9:40 am

        Atheist Statist.

        You know:

        National S-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m

    • #94 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2014 - 9:49 am

      Up is downism. What right-wing ideology ought to be called.

      • #95 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 11:12 am

        Keep telling yourself that, over and over. It makes you feel better.

  22. #96 by cav on March 24, 2014 - 9:51 am

    The political landscape in this country is a wasteland of mirages and dust devils. That is the true weakness of the USA now. We’re incapable of seeing the disorder in our own house. Why should we even glance overseas at others?

  23. #97 by Richard Warnick on April 18, 2014 - 2:31 pm

    Surprise! The Obama administration has delayed the decision on Keystone XL until after the November elections.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: