Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Obama’s pipeline timetable

February 26, 2014

A couple of months....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(74)

GoInPeace

Mar-07-14 9:09 AM

Just love keeping the rightwing nuts in limbo.Goinpeace

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-03-14 2:40 PM

"Raw Story is a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media. While giving coverage to the big stories of the day, we also bring our readers' attention to policy, politics, legal and human rights stories that get ignored in an infotainment culture driven solely by pageviews.

"Founded in 2004, Raw Story reaches 9 million unique readers per month and serves more than 30 million pageviews."

This little "about Raw Story" info says that our "infotainment culture" is interested in stories "driven solely by pageviews."

Isn't it funny that their pageview amount is the last info bit one reads about them?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Mar-03-14 9:49 AM

I won't tell anyone, Willies....but we both know the Raw Story is produced by the Onion....

Let's keep that under wraps...OK?

GoInPeas

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BillGarr2016

Mar-02-14 12:20 AM

When you read an editorial in your local newspaper, your natural assumption is that it expresses the views of that paper’s staff and reflects local concerns. This, however, does not appear to be the case with the many small-town papers owned by Ogden Newspapers, Inc.

Thanks to Muriel Kane of The Raw Story for pointing out that the Minot Daily News is part of a string of newspapers who astroturfs its unsigned ‘right-wing’ editorials.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Mar-01-14 4:43 PM

The rest of my Democrat Party's communist agenda in a little bit....

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Mar-01-14 4:42 PM

Me and my forword-looking Democrat Party still support all those Communist agenda of 1963:

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. 17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks. 18. Gain control of all student newspapers. 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Mar-01-14 4:41 PM

Me and my forword-looking Democrat Party still support all those Communist agenda of 1963:

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) 12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. 13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. 14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office. 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Mar-01-14 4:40 PM

Me and my forword-looking Democrat Party still support all those Communist agenda of 1963:

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. 7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N. 8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N. 9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. 10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Mar-01-14 4:39 PM

Me and my forword-looking Democrat Party still support all those Communist agenda of 1963:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. 2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. 5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-01-14 12:25 PM

There's that billigerence again.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BillGarr2016

Mar-01-14 10:31 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA says.."Fair enough, but the blaming of one party cuts both ways. I am mainly aiming my comments at Landslime"

It doesn't matter to loco. They are joined at the hip.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Mar-01-14 7:12 AM

GO Blue Dogs!!!!!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 9:32 PM

"But the real difference overall is how far to the right both parties (and thus the country as a whole) have moved over the past several decades."

And yet elections keep happening, and the power keeps going back and forth, first one party, then another.

All that tension should finally lead to something great. Hope I'm around to see it.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:56 PM

From politicaldictionary . com

"Boll weevil Democrats were conservative southern Democrats in the mid 1900s, largely known for their opposition to civil rights. They used the term because the boll weevil, a southern pest, could not be eliminated by pesticides – politicians therefore thought of them as a symbol of tenacity.

"The term fell out of use in the 1980s, and conservative Democrats are now known as Blue Dogs."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"The Blue Dog Democrats were formed in 1995 by approximately thirty conservative-leaning House Democrats who sought to challenge the liberal tilt of the broader Democratic party. After Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 by a narrow margin, the Blue Dogs sought to become the swing vote.

"Former Rep. Pete Geren (D-TX) is credited with the term by explaining these conservative Democrats had been “choked blue” by liberals in his party."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:49 PM

I just don't see a Republican monolith for the years 1995-2012. Sorry, HAetc, there have been Democrats in Congress during those years too, and yes, they voted on bills that were introduced before them.

It's so easy to blame one party for everything. But when info is introduced that it might not have been just one party responsible for everything, then you've said, "well, it wasn't the truly liberal Democrats."

Fine, but that's awful close to having one's cake and eating it too. If Democrats were there and voting yea or nay, then they bear some (notice I didn't say all) of the responsibility too.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:46 PM

"In what was reminiscent of the 1994 elections, Republicans won back control of the House in the 2010 elections. The Senate however remained with the Democrats (51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats). Republicans also won a majority of state governorships and State Legislatures. The congressional elections of 2012 brought no change of control in either the House or Senate."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:46 PM

"The Senate shifted to control by the Democrats (though they technically were the plurality party as they were one short of a majority) after GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after the November 2002 elections. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state governorships (28-22)..."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:45 PM

"In the 1996, 1998, and 2000 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly, the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate..."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:43 PM

Wow, what's in the lemonade tonight, HAetc?

This from wiki, to be taken with the usual grain of salt concerning wiki...

"When the 104th United States Congress convened in January 1995, House Republicans voted former Minority Whip Newt Gingrich – the chief author of the Contract with America – to become Speaker of the House, while the new senatorial Republican majority chose Bob Dole, previously Minority Leader, as Majority Leader. With their newfound power, Republicans pursued an ambitious agenda but were often forced to compromise with Democratic President Bill Clinton, who wielded veto power. (Imagine that.)

"The 1994 election also marked the end of the Conservative Coalition, a bipartisan coalition of conservative Republicans and Democrats (often referred to as "boll weevil Democrats" for their association with the U.S. South), which had often managed to control Congressional outcomes since the New Deal era."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:19 PM

Wow, HAetc, with all the "love" you're talking about, who needs hate?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:17 PM

Personally, at the time Mr. Hamm testified before the 2011 legislature about ND's extraction tax rates, I wasn't impressed with the implicit threat of taking his business elsewhere. Go ahead.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-28-14 7:16 PM

I agree that Mr. Hamm has always looked out for Mr. Hamm.

"...Continental Resources has recently expanded drilling activities to France. Just last month, (Harold) Hamm told Bloomberg’s Business Journal that his company “is pursuing a permit to drill for oil and gas on 67,000 acres in the Paris Basin in France,” because they can use the horizontal drilling techniques developed in ND to tap France’s oil resources. In an interview with PlainsDaily last week, Hamm confirmed that the French government is being very accommodating and giving the company favorable business incentives."

I figure that no matter what, oil companies will do what's best for them in the long run. So our state has to have in place the taxes, assurances, and guarantees from those companies so the land and people of ND are compensated for disruption and for reclamation when they find more "favorable business" opportunities elsewhere.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-28-14 10:44 AM

...how his group helped block permits for the pipeline. “We didn’t want all that oil dumped in Oklahoma.”

Hamm didn’t want American markets flooded with cheap Canadian crude, but when TransCanada agreed to accept Bakken crude into the Keystone pipeline as well, Hamm changed his tune.

Which was…convenient.

So why has Hamm changed his tune again? Probably because the situation has changed again. The infrastructure crunch for the Bakken is showing signs of easing, and will be eased even more by the time Keystone ever gets approval, so the most profitable course of action is for Hamm to oppose it again from the standpoint of protecting the markets he operates in.

That may be a smart move for Hamm, who was never supporting the Keystone pipeline from a desire to promote free markets and fair competition. Those things are what’s best for the market, and thus energy consumers, but not so much for people like Hamm.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-28-14 10:43 AM

Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources which is acknowledged as the biggest player in North Dakota’s Bakken oil boom, says the Keystone pipeline isn’t necessary any more (via Aaron Flint):

Oklahoma’s pre-emiment oilman, Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm, joined the chorus after developer TransCanada agreed to add an on-ramp to transport oil from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana. But apparently Hamm has changed his mind on the project. “It’s not critical any longer,” Hamm told National Journal Daily‘s Amy Harder. “They just waited too long. The industry is very innovative, and it finds other ways of doing it and other routes.” This may come as a surprise to some, but it’s worth remembering that no so very long ago Hamm was an opponent of the Keystone pipeline, even going so far as to form a lobbying group in 2009 to oppose the building of the pipeline. ”We basically stopped Keystone at the border,” Hamm said in an interview with Reuters at the time explaining...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BillGarr2016

Feb-28-14 9:04 AM

""""savings and loan industry in the 1980's."""

During the 1980's hundred of Savings and Loan Banks failed. Those bank failures cost U.S. taxpayers over $500 billion.

What a crime family. Google any of these headlines.

Neil Bush: Taking Down Silverado.

Jeb Bush: Influence Peddling for a “Bust-Out” Scam.

George Bush, Jr.: Insider Information, Oil, and Baseball.

Jonathan Bush: An Unregistered Broker.

George Bush Sr.: Shutting Down the Organize Crime Strike Forces.

and finally-Prescott Bush: The Yakuza’s Front man.

Never, ever, vote for a Bush!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 74 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web