Guest American Woman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 The objections were complete absurd and not based on any real risk assessment. That's completely false. Even with that, the Nebraskans are in support of the re-routing and asked that it be approved as quickly as possible. Don't know where you are getting that from - it will be approved as quickly as possible once the plans for re-routing are complete. Complete nonsense. This has nothing to do with "caring" about Nebraskans. They are nothing but convenient pawns. That's your opinion; the POTUS of the county that includes Nebraska feels otherwise. The idea that he cares more about Hollywood than he does Nebraskans is likely in your head - the proof is in his disapproval of the SOPA and PIPA bills. Hollywood cared about that big time, and Obama said he wouldn't approve the bills in spite of it. At least one environmental writer has mused that enviros have made a deal with a devil by siding with the NIMBYs in Nebraska because it will make it much more difficult to get the transmission lines/wind turbines/solar plants built because they need so much land. What one environmental writer says really doesn't mean that much. They had a real, legitimate concern about their water supply. There is no rational reason to believe the the re-routing would not be approved. Exactly. It's what I've been saying all along. So why all the fuss? Why all the "false" claims, making it into something it's not? Pipelines are low risk endeavours are only opposed because for enviro-loons believe energy is provided by unicorns and pixies. The only reason to refuse to give approval for the pipeline is politics which means the Republican narrative is 100% correct. Sensitive eco-systems are very real and lack of concern is easy when it's not one's water supply and livelihood that's being threatened. The Republican narrative is a false, politically motivated scenario. You yourself say that there's no rational reason to believe that the re-routing won't be approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 The idea that he cares more about Hollywood than he does Nebraskans is likely in your head - the proof is in his disapproval of the SOPA and PIPA bills. Hollywood cared about that big time, and Obama said he wouldn't approve the bills in spite of it. hey now... don't be messing with the "Hollywood liberals" angle! What will TimG have left? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Isn't there thread on this other than "Quote of the Day/Week/Month"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 That's completely false.How do you know? You are basing your entire opinion on the claims of people that want to block the pipeline for reasons that have nothing to do with its economic or environmental merits. Don't know where you are getting that from - it will be approved as quickly as possible once the plans for re-routing are complete.Then there is no reason to delay the start of the pipeline contruction. You are being deliberately obtuse or dishonest on this point. If the "real" issue was the time it takes to get the new route approved then there is no reason to delay the rest of the pipeline construction based on the assumption that the new route will be approved in due course. The only reason to delay the construction of the pipeline is because Obama wants to play politics. This is what makes the Republican narrative 100% correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 The only reason to delay the construction of the pipeline is because Obama wants to play politics. This is what makes the Republican narrative 100% correct. approve what? A pipeline without a proposal, a pipeline with an undeclared route, a pipeline without required environmental impact assessments, a pipeline without required U.S. State Department permits... a pipeline missing an application from the proposed builder? Is that what you want approved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) approve what?90% of the pipeline has been through the required process and has met all requirements. The is no reason to delay construction of that part of the pipeline if it is simply a matter process to get the new route for 10% approved. Obama delayed the entire pipeline because he felt that keeping enviro-loons happy was more important than providing the US with timely access to a secure energy supply.Frankly, what is most dishonest are the people in this thread who are trying to pretend that this decision was anything other than a political decision based on Obama's need to 'get the vote out' in Nov. It is one thing for enviro-loons to pressure Obama into making a political decision. It is rather pathetic for Obama supporters to pretend that it was not political after it was made. Edited January 22, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 90% of the pipeline has been through the required process and has met all requirements. The is no reason to delay construction of that part of the pipeline if it is simply a matter process to get the new route for 10% approved. Obama delayed the entire pipeline because he felt that keeping enviro-loons happy was more important than providing the US with timely access to a secure energy supply.Frankly, what is most dishonest are the people in this thread who are trying to pretend that this decision was anything other than a political decision based on Obama's need to 'get the vote out' in Nov. It is one thing for enviro-loons to pressure Obama into making a political decision. It is rather pathetic for Obama supporters to pretend that it was not political after it was made. I expect some might react to your repeated use of the 'enviro-loons' baiting... I expect some might drop to your gutter-level and label you a 'BigOil pimp'. Not me though, I'll take the high road here, even if you can't raise the bar. the first assessment has no credibility - none. It's one of key concerns raised through the process. I can appreciate you would no qualms over an assessment significantly influenced by TransCanada, the same company applying to build the pipeline... imagine! Again, the U.S. State Department completely abrogated it's responsibility in that first assessment - it deferred, outright, to the insider company TransCanada recommended do the environmental impact assessment; the same company TransCanada had worked with several times in the past on other initiatives. Imagine! I can appreciate you would no qualms over an assessment realized through a process that had several industry lobbyists (with past ties to Hillary Clinton) involved. I can appreciate you would have no qualms with an assessment that is perceived, by many, to have been arrived at through direct industry collusion. Imagine! you speak of dishonesty... of those within this thread. The real dishonesty is yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I expect some might react to your repeated use of the 'enviro-loons' baiting... I expect some might drop to your gutter-level and label you a 'BigOil pimp'. Not me though, I'll take the high road here, even if you can't raise the bar. the first assessment has no credibility - none. It's one of key concerns raised through the process. I can appreciate you would no qualms over an assessment significantly influenced by TransCanada, the same company applying to build the pipeline... imagine! Again, the U.S. State Department completely abrogated it's responsibility in that first assessment - it deferred, outright, to the insider company TransCanada recommended do the environmental impact assessment; the same company TransCanada had worked with several times in the past on other initiatives. Imagine! I can appreciate you would no qualms over an assessment realized through a process that had several industry lobbyists (with past ties to Hillary Clinton) involved. I can appreciate you would have no qualms with an assessment that is perceived, by many, to have been arrived at through direct industry collusion. Imagine! you speak of dishonesty... of those within this thread. The real dishonesty is yours. That's a hell of a daily quote!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Dalton McGuinty, 56, premier of Ontario talks about public sector union negotiations: “It’s simply not possible to reduce spending without addressing salary expenditures,” McGuinty told a business crowd at a luncheon speech in downtown Toronto Tuesday..... “I’m hoping that the foundation of respect and collaboration and measurable progress that we have laid during the first eight years puts me in a good position so when I go to my teachers, my doctors, my nurses and everybody else in the public sector and say ‘listen folks, we need to do this’… I’m hoping they’ll receive that with an open mind,” he said. Ottawa Citizen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) This is why I hate McGuinty and politicians like him: "[W]hen I go to my teachers, my doctors, my nurses and everybody else in the public sector..."Ottawa Citizen "My" nurses? "My" doctors? He may as well stand before his minions and proclaim: "L'État, c'est moi!" [ed.: +] Edited January 26, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 This is why I hate McGuinty and politicians like him: "My" nurses? "My" doctors? He may as well stand before his minions and proclaim: "L'État, c'est moi!" [ed.: +] Fits with his title of Premier Dad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 William Johnson, 80, former journalist, explains why he gave $250 to the CAQ: "Yes, I contributed $250, and here’s the reason why. I see Quebec as caught in a political deadlock between federalism and separatism. The signs of it are clear: the fragmentation of the political scene with a multitude of new parties springing up, particularly among the separatists. Meanwhile the Liberal Party of Quebec and its leader, Jean Charest, are discredited in the minds of Quebecers." Montreal Gazette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 US President Barack Obama: "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff." He went on, "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say." The Atlantic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2012 Danielle Smith, 41, Leader of the Wildrose Alliance: “We are one of the first provinces to give women the vote. We had the first female cabinet minister. The Famous Five came from Alberta. We have a mayor in Edmonton who is Jewish, we have a mayor in Calgary who is a Muslim.“We have a female premier and we will have a female premier as of Monday. “When Toronto and Ontario does all those things, I am quite happy to sit here and be lectured about how backward we are. “But until they actually catch up to Alberta, I am standing proud." Toronto Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 Alison Redford, 47, Prime Minister of Alberta: "Every Albertan knew that this election was about choice," Redford told cheering supporters in her victory speech at the Metropolitan Centre in downtown Calgary."A choice between to put up walls or to build bridges. A choice about Alberta's future. Tonight, Alberta chose to build bridges." CBC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." - Alexander Hamilton Edited May 17, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Jacques Parizeau, 81, ex-Prime Minister of Quebec: « Que 200 000 personnes puissent manifester au Québec sans un seul drapeau canadien, je n'en reviens pas. Ces manifestations sont en train de régler le problème identitaire. » Radio-Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Jean Chrétien, 78, retired Liberal Godfather Prime Minister: Chrétien said he received encouragement from Pierre Trudeau to run for the leadership, and wouldn't rule out offering the same advice to others considering throwing their hat in the ring."You know, it depends if they come to see me," he said. CBC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Jose Manuel Barroso, 56, President of the European Commission: "Frankly, we are not here to receive lessons in terms of democracy or in terms of how to handle the economy."This crisis was not originated in Europe... seeing as you mention North America, this crisis originated in North America and much of our financial sector was contaminated by, how can I put it, unorthodox practices, from some sectors of the financial market." BBC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Canuckistani, forum member: Yep. Let's all pass the buck. Edited June 19, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 François Legault, 55, CAQ leader: He was asked at a news conference how he would vote, if a referendum were held right now."I would vote No," Legault replied Wednesday. "Because I think that right now, it's not the good time to do so and it wouldn't be good for our nation to have a referendum right now. (So) of course, I wouldn't vote Yes for the next 10 years." CP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Mitt Romney, 65, Republican candidate for President, answers questions at a Florida fund raiser in 17 May 2012: Audience member: For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4… [Recording stops.] Mother Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Thomas Mulcair, 57, federal NDP leader on the prospect of Justin Trudeau becoming federal Liberal leader: “Let’s recall, the person who will eventually win this Liberal leadership race will be their seventh leader in nine years. I think they have a lot of things to resolve.” Montreal Gazette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 President Barack Obama, speaking at the UN on 25 September 2012: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied." Guardian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 55, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran: “How long can a government with a $16,000 trillion foreign debt remain a world power?” he asked at a press conference with Kuwaiti media personnel. "The Americans have injected their paper wealth into the world economy and today the aftermaths and negative effects of their pseudo-wealth have plagued them.” Jerusalem Post Edited October 18, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.