Very Refreshing
 

On 1/30/2015 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 9:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 9:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 7:37 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 7:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/









Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too.



Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this
morning.
She had McCaskill as a guest.

Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and
competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far
more conservative than she is.

McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many
Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents
vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based
on partisan lines.


I understand the politics of Missouri and Kansas, and what a candidate
running statewide in those states of the right-wing religiously insane
has to do and say to stay elected.

We're turning into what the third world used to be. The Keystone
pipeline is nothing more than a private enterprise disaster that
may be
built to move one country's filthy sludge through another country
so it
may be sold to additional countries. Most Canadians are quite happy
that
the United States is so willing to serve as its oil sludge sewer.



Environmental hazards can be found in virtually any project. We worry
so much about polution due to oil leaks yet have millions upon millions
of miles of paved asphalt roads and highways that have known
carcinogenic petroleum hydrocarbons that leech and runoff into the
surrounding ground. That doesn't take into account the run off of oil
drippings from vehicles traveling on those roads and highways.



True, but I don't see the benefits to the United States or to its
inhabitants living along the proposed Keystone route. I see the benefits
to Canada, I see the benefit$ to the Koch brothers, but I don't see the
benefits of allowing Canadian oil sludge to be transported via pipeline
through the United States so it can be sold abroad.



It already is and has been for years. To satisfy your objections the
whole thing would have to be shut down (which is probably fine with
you). The Keystone pipeline project is only one of several phases that
have already been built and in use.



Yes, I know. How does this proposed pipeline benefit the United States
and its citizens, aside from the relatively few jobs, mostly short-term,
it may provide.



Refinery jobs, balance of trade.

Very Refreshing
 

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:46:02 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

How does this proposed pipeline benefit the United States
and its citizens, aside from the relatively few jobs, mostly short-term,
it may provide.

===

Easy. The next time there is a supply crunch, and there will be more,
we can keep that Canadian oil right here in the USA.

PS, all crude oil is a relatively foul substance. It really doesn't
matter all that much where it comes from.

Very Refreshing
 

On 1/30/15 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:26:54 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/


Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too.

The way you folks throw the Koch brothers around you would think they
were the #1 bribers of politicians. In fact both Kochs put together
gave about 20% of what Bloomberg gave to federal candidates, parties,
political action committees, 527 organizations, and Carey committees.
Bloomberg is still a piker compares to Tom Steyer who gave about 3
times that and he is a major opponent to the pipeline. Steyer's money
is probably how you heard the pipeline was being built in the first
place. People act like this is the first oil pipeline ever built in
this country and it is some new, untested technology.
The real motive for pipeline opponents is the simple fact that they
hate the idea of burning fossil fuels and they have invented the other
issues to disguise that.
It is also ironic that Harry is so quick to get in line behind a
couple banksters like Steyer and Bloomberg.



Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:55:04 -0500, wrote:

It is also ironic that Harry is so quick to get in line behind a
couple banksters like Steyer and Bloomberg.

===

Heh, hypocrite is Harry's middle name.

Very Refreshing
 

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:01:19 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:26:54 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/


Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too.

The way you folks throw the Koch brothers around you would think they
were the #1 bribers of politicians. In fact both Kochs put together
gave about 20% of what Bloomberg gave to federal candidates, parties,
political action committees, 527 organizations, and Carey committees.
Bloomberg is still a piker compares to Tom Steyer who gave about 3
times that and he is a major opponent to the pipeline. Steyer's money
is probably how you heard the pipeline was being built in the first
place. People act like this is the first oil pipeline ever built in
this country and it is some new, untested technology.
The real motive for pipeline opponents is the simple fact that they
hate the idea of burning fossil fuels and they have invented the other
issues to disguise that.
It is also ironic that Harry is so quick to get in line behind a
couple banksters like Steyer and Bloomberg.



Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.


As I have stated here many times, I do not expect politicians and others
in the political arena, as Bloomberg still is, to agree with my
positions on every important issue. I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, and on many
other issues, such as:

embryonic stem cell research
abortion rights
climate change
immigration



--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/


Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too.


Proof?

Very Refreshing
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/




Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too.



Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning.
She had McCaskill as a guest.

Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and
competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far
more conservative than she is.

McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many
Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents
vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based
on partisan lines.

For a lemming like you that must be breaking news!

Very Refreshing
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/




Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too.



Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning.
She had McCaskill as a guest.

Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and
competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far
more conservative than she is.

McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many
Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents
vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based
on partisan lines.

Sorry, I thought Harry actually posted this!

Very Refreshing
 

On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.