Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:

http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x

--
Salmonbait

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:33:52 -0500, J Herring
wrote:

Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:

http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x

====

They haven't totally flipped out since they ended the article by
advocating for a carbon tax. I do agree with their premise however
that environmentalists are fighting the wrong battles. All too often
they go after soft targets that have no political backing as opposed
to going after the serious offenders.

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:59 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:33:52 -0500, J Herring
wrote:

Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:

http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x

====

They haven't totally flipped out since they ended the article by
advocating for a carbon tax. I do agree with their premise however
that environmentalists are fighting the wrong battles. All too often
they go after soft targets that have no political backing as opposed
to going after the serious offenders.

I'm surprised that the Post even published such a story, and this time it wasn't just one
individual. Washington Post seems to be waking up.

This is something new also:

http://thewashingtonpost.newspaperdi...er/viewer.aspx

But, now one won't even get a doggie bag.
--
Salmonbait

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:59 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:33:52 -0500, J Herring
wrote:

Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:

http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x

====

They haven't totally flipped out since they ended the article by
advocating for a carbon tax. I do agree with their premise however
that environmentalists are fighting the wrong battles. All too often
they go after soft targets that have no political backing as opposed
to going after the serious offenders.

I'm surprised that the Post even published such a story, and this time it wasn't just one
individual. Washington Post seems to be waking up.

This is something new also:

http://thewashingtonpost.newspaperdi...er/viewer.aspx

But, now one won't even get a doggie bag.

Gee, of COURSE if something doesn't 100% agree with the party line, you
narrow minded lemmings won't have an open mind about it.

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:59 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:33:52 -0500, J Herring
wrote:

Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:

http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x

====

They haven't totally flipped out since they ended the article by
advocating for a carbon tax. I do agree with their premise however
that environmentalists are fighting the wrong battles. All too often
they go after soft targets that have no political backing as opposed
to going after the serious offenders.

Huh? The Keystone doesn't have political backing??? What the ****??

How would you like to live next to a toxic spill?

Serious offenders? Like big oil drilling without safety protocols in
place in the Gulf? Or, the meat industry pushing burgers that are
bigger than basket balls down the throats of people?

How about the bull**** of "clean" coal promoted by one of the
filthiest industries of all time?

Give me a ****ing break.

On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 12:46:08 UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:59 -0400, Wayne B

wrote:



On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:33:52 -0500, J Herring

wrote:



Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:



http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x



====



They haven't totally flipped out since they ended the article by

advocating for a carbon tax. I do agree with their premise however

that environmentalists are fighting the wrong battles. All too often

they go after soft targets that have no political backing as opposed

to going after the serious offenders.



I agree, they assume that if the XL pipeline is not built, Canada will

abandon their oil industry.

They would just build another pipeline to the coast somewhere else.

The US could use the work and the royalties on the oil that they ship.

I assume a lot of that oil would be refined here and we would make

money on that too. Who knows, more supply might even push the price

down a little.


The crazy thing is...we have to import expensive oil on the east coast for our two refineries instead of using cheaper Alberta oil.
There is talk of building a pipeline from Alberta to at least Montreal and maybe New Brunswick if y'all don't want our cheap stuff.

On 3/5/13 1:34 PM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 12:46:08 UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:59 -0400, Wayne B

wrote:



On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:33:52 -0500, J Herring

wrote:



Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:



http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x



====



They haven't totally flipped out since they ended the article by

advocating for a carbon tax. I do agree with their premise however

that environmentalists are fighting the wrong battles. All too often

they go after soft targets that have no political backing as opposed

to going after the serious offenders.



I agree, they assume that if the XL pipeline is not built, Canada will

abandon their oil industry.

They would just build another pipeline to the coast somewhere else.

The US could use the work and the royalties on the oil that they ship.

I assume a lot of that oil would be refined here and we would make

money on that too. Who knows, more supply might even push the price

down a little.


The crazy thing is...we have to import expensive oil on the east coast for our two refineries instead of using cheaper Alberta oil.
There is talk of building a pipeline from Alberta to at least Montreal and maybe New Brunswick if y'all don't want our cheap stuff.



You Canadians ought to keep your non-renewable natural resources for
yourselves. Even if you don't need them now, you will in the future.

On 3/5/2013 1:34 PM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 12:46:08 UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:59 -0400, Wayne B

wrote:



On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:33:52 -0500, J Herring

wrote:



Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:



http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x



====



They haven't totally flipped out since they ended the article by

advocating for a carbon tax. I do agree with their premise however

that environmentalists are fighting the wrong battles. All too often

they go after soft targets that have no political backing as opposed

to going after the serious offenders.



I agree, they assume that if the XL pipeline is not built, Canada will

abandon their oil industry.

They would just build another pipeline to the coast somewhere else.

The US could use the work and the royalties on the oil that they ship.

I assume a lot of that oil would be refined here and we would make

money on that too. Who knows, more supply might even push the price

down a little.


The crazy thing is...we have to import expensive oil on the east coast for our two refineries instead of using cheaper Alberta oil.
There is talk of building a pipeline from Alberta to at least Montreal and maybe New Brunswick if y'all don't want our cheap stuff.

Maybe we'll help build you a cross Canada pipeline, someday. What do you
need oil for anyway?

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:46:08 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:59 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:33:52 -0500, J Herring
wrote:

Nah, it couldn't happen, but it did:

http://tinyurl.com/b98va2x

====

They haven't totally flipped out since they ended the article by
advocating for a carbon tax. I do agree with their premise however
that environmentalists are fighting the wrong battles. All too often
they go after soft targets that have no political backing as opposed
to going after the serious offenders.

I agree, they assume that if the XL pipeline is not built, Canada will
abandon their oil industry.
They would just build another pipeline to the coast somewhere else.
The US could use the work and the royalties on the oil that they ship.
I assume a lot of that oil would be refined here and we would make
money on that too. Who knows, more supply might even push the price
down a little.

They don't have to build it across our country. The jobs it would add
are minimal, and it would have nothing to do with the price in next 10
years at a minimum. Besides it pumping the absolute filthiest kind of
oil.