One small step towards breaking gridlock in Congress, hopefully.

Landmark Senate Vote Limits Fillibusters

 ScottN wrote: 
Group Hug! 

 gypsyman wrote: 
Worth considering.  Could be that you have your "facts" wrong.

 ScottN wrote: 
Man, you really need to scroll back a few posts to find out what really happened. I am civil to a fault until I am attacked, then its game on. Sorry. However, per usual, the facts don't matter to some folks.

 gypsyman wrote:I won't feel the tool (or fool) for defending a friend from an inappropriate, vulgar  remark you make to them.  Goodbye. 

 ScottN wrote: 
Allow me to respond, Oh Defender of Illogic:

(Had to fix your typo)

1. If one had actually read Alinsky, then that would suggest a method. If one had not, it would suggest ignorance. Therefore, there is relevance.
2. So? What correlation to pipelines does that have, specifically? And what statistics, real or even imagined, have you presented? None.
3. Well, what can I say? Your deficiency in making a skillful argument, while displaying embarrassing naivete, conjoined with the obvious lack of a method, makes you a tool.

Y'all come back, now. When you are qualified. (BTW, some of my best friends are Bangladeshi... )

     

Psychiatrists Deeply Concerned For 5% Of Americans Who Approve Of Congress

 gypsyman wrote: 
Excuse me, but your response is illogical, ad hominem, and ah, full of shit. I guess you like to disguise name calling.  Doesn't mean you don't do it, you just cloak it in innuendo.
1. Saul Alinky and his Rules for Radicals is irrelevant from the perspective of if she read it or not, or is a tool.
2. Bangladeshi engineers (here)  are a reality.  I am well acquainted with such a person.  (a good guy, btw).  Many Somalis too.
3. How far up YOUR ass did you go for this response?

 Isabeau wrote: 

Average US wage for American painters, carpenters and related trades ... $25 to $30 hour.  Illegal Mexicans $10 hour.

You do the math.  There are many RPeeps here who work in the trades and will verify my numbers.

 Isabeau wrote: 
Sigh. I guess you really can't do this without name-calling. Straight out of Saul Alinky's Rules For Radicals. Have you read it, or are you just a tool? And Bangladesh engineers? How far up your ass did you have to reach to get that one?

 gypsyman wrote: 
borders? are you serious? there are no borders when it comes to a young Bangladesh man with a wife and child willing to work as an Engineer in the U.S. for only $12,000 a year.

Average U.S. wage for a mid to advanced level of Engineering? $85,000 — $120,000K. Illegals from Mexico are NOT the problem.

LEGAL in and outsourcing by American Corporations is far worse than any low skilled, hard working laborer (who often picks our fruit and cleans homes)  

You are Pimple Wise and Tumor Foolish. 

 Isabeau wrote: 
So, you support closing the borders so that American jobs are not stolen by illegals. Didn't see that coming.

 gypsyman wrote: 
And you are the height of naiveté if you believe those positions won't be filled by the cheapest possible foreign Visa workers possible; Canada is Exporting this oil, Not the U.S. the pipeline is merely through our back yard, you honestly believe the Canadian Government will allow most of those jobs to go to American Workers?  Man, have I got a Free Trade Agreement to sell ya...

 Isabeau wrote: 
50 permanent positions where? After the build there are thousands of jobs to subcontractors for testing, maintenance, rebuilds. support, etc  You really don't seem to understand....

 ScottN wrote: 
The world's Global Oil Barons will NOT allow renewables to get a hold on in the U.S. if they can possibly purchase enough politicians. They are going to get every last bit of profit squeezed out of that last drop of Dinosaur Fuel before suddenly crying a need for other Alternatives. Regarding the controversial Keystone Pipleline:

“Jobs created - stated by TransCanada's own Pipeline Application to the State Department - estimates 4,000 - 6,000 temporary jobs throughout construction and approximately 50 permanent positions when the project is finished."

 50 might-be American jobs, to transport Canadian Tar sands oil to Port Arthur, TX for Higher Priced Export. Not to help America's oil supply or lower prices for Americans, but merely helping Canada's Oil Producers make more money.

 

By the way, its already leaked 3 times - the last stopping the project for over 5 months.

 

For 50 jobs but a risk to 23 Watersheds across 39 counties and 5 states? Nah. I'll pass.

 

 kurtster wrote: 
Can you say BP and Gulf of Mexico, or Valdez?   These are just two of our worst domestic accidents. There many more   World wide are many more too.  Hardly "flowers being trampled on".  Most estimates put our domestic reserves at 3-5 years current consumption of imported oil.  It's deep, it's in fragile ecology, it's expensive and energy intensive to retrieve, thus not allowing an advantageous "net yield". We see our dope dealers until there is an alternate. Drilling and exploiting FULLY the arctic reserves buys us maybe two years, which hardly seems risk advantageous.

 ScottN wrote: 

You're right.  We will not go round and round. 

But I will say that your thinking on the matter is very narrow as you imply that we will never break free from oil, if we expamd our domestic supply.

I see it as buying time and a bridge to something better and sooner than later.  There is risk in everything.  Yes some flowers will be trampled and spilled upon, but not as many as people like you want everyone to believe. 

We have no viable alternative to oil yet and until we do, we beholden to our enemies and we finance them with our money when we buy their oil.  As soon as alternative energy can be cost competitive without subsidies, it will be used and as widely as possiblem and as soon as possible.  Of that I have no doubt.  The more money we send overseas, the less we have to spend at home on research and development ... and yes, for for the liberals, government subsidies for R&D.

As Bill Maher once said (and its what got him kicked off of ABC)  Israel is our girlfriend and Saudi Arabia is our dope dealer.  Until that changes, we are fucked.

The choice is clear to me.  But I'm in a vacuum, alone on this one as I mentioned above.

 kurtster wrote:Not going round and round w/ you on this controversial drilling subject.  Many people say no, but even if yes, our reserves are not unlimited. Eco damage and other unintended consequences cannot credibly be denied.

 ScottN wrote: 
There are ways out, but no one in charge and few citizens are willing to do what it takes.

We can drill our way out, baby, and drill for peace at the same time.  It was cheap and secure energy that made this country strong and the strongest in the first place.  I could add to it, but no one is interested.  Hydrocarbons are evil.  It begins and ends right there.

And I am relaxed and unafraid.

What is the definition of insanity ?

What do we keep doing with the debt ceiling and expecting to happen everytime we raise it ?

 sirdroseph wrote:  Gee, maybe we (US gov't) are "too big to fail" as some banks are referred. I can hear Nero now.