|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 27, 2015 14:46:20 GMT
He can't stop the Sandpiper directly, but the Minnesota EPA and the Fed EPA are throwing up large roadblocks. The ND route has been approved, the Minnesota section is in litigation. sigurdur, Normally I do not do "conspiracy theory". But the railroads stand to lose a fortune if the Keystone or Sandpiper pipelines are built. So do not anticipate regulatory issues "expect" them. Warren Buffet company is one of the biggest beneficiaries and he is also one of the biggest contributors to the current administration and likely then next administration as well. Sorry but its the ugly side of "business as usual"
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 27, 2015 18:14:40 GMT
He can't stop the Sandpiper directly, but the Minnesota EPA and the Fed EPA are throwing up large roadblocks. The ND route has been approved, the Minnesota section is in litigation. sigurdur, Normally I do not do "conspiracy theory". But the railroads stand to lose a fortune if the Keystone or Sandpiper pipelines are built. So do not anticipate regulatory issues "expect" them. Warren Buffet company is one of the biggest beneficiaries and he is also one of the biggest contributors to the current administration and likely then next administration as well. Sorry but its the ugly side of "business as usual" I agree Glenn. Burlington Northern is making a killing. Yes, they are spending a lot on capital improvements, but those needed to be made anyways. This Administration is the best one money can buy.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2015 18:38:15 GMT
He can't stop the Sandpiper directly, but the Minnesota EPA and the Fed EPA are throwing up large roadblocks. The ND route has been approved, the Minnesota section is in litigation. sigurdur, Normally I do not do "conspiracy theory". But the railroads stand to lose a fortune if the Keystone or Sandpiper pipelines are built. So do not anticipate regulatory issues "expect" them. Warren Buffet company is one of the biggest beneficiaries and he is also one of the biggest contributors to the current administration and likely then next administration as well. Sorry but its the ugly side of "business as usual" of course a principle of not ascribing to conspiracy theories that flies out the window the momment it arrives in your backyard. I seriously doubt there is anything to the Warren Buffet claim. Yes Buffet stands to lose some business from the pipeline but he is on record supporting the pipeline while clearly stating that railroads make great economic sense carrying a large variety of goods. But more importantly a conspiracy is inherently an illegal activity. There is nothing illegal about giving legal campaign donations and having a lobbyist that expresses to a politician the desires of the contributor. The only reason to support the idea of the pipeline while working against it would be for plausible deniability of being a party to an illegal conspiracy. I see that as a very long reach in this case. IMHO, a project like the Keystone can expect regulatory issues with or without a conspiracy. Its not the ugly side of "business as usual". Instead its the ugly side of "bureaucracy as usual". I have seen architects trying to build unique one of a kind single family residence go through more bureaucratic nightmares than the Keystone pipeline has heretosofar gone through. . . .and because it does make sense and has wide public support it will probably eventually happen, which is more than i can say for some of those architects.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 29, 2015 1:18:36 GMT
sigurdur, Normally I do not do "conspiracy theory". But the railroads stand to lose a fortune if the Keystone or Sandpiper pipelines are built. So do not anticipate regulatory issues "expect" them. Warren Buffet company is one of the biggest beneficiaries and he is also one of the biggest contributors to the current administration and likely then next administration as well. Sorry but its the ugly side of "business as usual" of course a principle of not ascribing to conspiracy theories that flies out the window the momment it arrives in your backyard. I seriously doubt there is anything to the Warren Buffet claim. Yes Buffet stands to lose some business from the pipeline but he is on record supporting the pipeline while clearly stating that railroads make great economic sense carrying a large variety of goods. But more importantly a conspiracy is inherently an illegal activity. There is nothing illegal about giving legal campaign donations and having a lobbyist that expresses to a politician the desires of the contributor. The only reason to support the idea of the pipeline while working against it would be for plausible deniability of being a party to an illegal conspiracy. I see that as a very long reach in this case. IMHO, a project like the Keystone can expect regulatory issues with or without a conspiracy. Its not the ugly side of "business as usual". Instead its the ugly side of "bureaucracy as usual". I have seen architects trying to build unique one of a kind single family residence go through more bureaucratic nightmares than the Keystone pipeline has heretosofar gone through. . . .and because it does make sense and has wide public support it will probably eventually happen, which is more than i can say for some of those architects. Conspiracy is simply another word for collusion. It doesn't need to be illegal to wreak of political stench. Warren Buffet still has the first dollar he ever earned in his wallet; everything he does or says is calculated to benefit his interests. It's like saying when Bill Clinton locked up the largest clean coal reserves on the planet in Utah (a vast desert wasteland) was just "bureaucracy as usual" and it had nothing to do with the Riati family who just happened to directly benefit from Clinton's EO. The ceremony was held at the Grand Canyon, which Clinton's co-conspirators used as a backdrop to convince the public it was done to save it from destruction.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2015 4:59:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2015 6:31:57 GMT
Conspiracy is simply another word for collusion. It doesn't need to be illegal to wreak of political stench. Warren Buffet still has the first dollar he ever earned in his wallet; everything he does or says is calculated to benefit his interests. It's like saying when Bill Clinton locked up the largest clean coal reserves on the planet in Utah (a vast desert wasteland) was just "bureaucracy as usual" and it had nothing to do with the Riati family who just happened to directly benefit from Clinton's EO. The ceremony was held at the Grand Canyon, which Clinton's co-conspirators used as a backdrop to convince the public it was done to save it from destruction. It is true the word conspiracy can also be used for legal activities as it applies to both illegal and harmful activities. Conspiring to commit illegal activities is illegal. All other conspiracies are legal. Most often when activities are widely viewed as harmful they are made illegal. Harmful when applied to legal activities is highly subjective. Most often when the word conspiracy is used in regards to a legal activity its to create a stench to advance a personal political agenda. Of course as we all know our own stench does not stink. Other than the fact he is one of the richest men in the world (which obviously invokes a lot of jealousy) I haven't heard anything but innuendo and an inapplicable analogy. I have made no claim that there are not questionable motivations behind delays to the pipeline, I merely made the statement that the fact there will be bureaucratic delays as a matter of course, questionable motivations or not. The fact there is expected to be bureaucratic delays is not evidence of a conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 30, 2015 2:28:49 GMT
Icefisher,
You are a little naive if you think political contributions do not come with strings attached. All you are doing is arguing semantics. Conspiracy, collusion whatever you want to call it.
The Warren Buffets, Goldman Sachs, Koch brothers etc. use their money wisely. Never more so than in the post Citizens vs. United and Super Pac era we now live in.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2015 5:33:12 GMT
Icefisher, You are a little naive if you think political contributions do not come with strings attached. All you are doing is arguing semantics. Conspiracy, collusion whatever you want to call it. The Warren Buffets, Goldman Sachs, Koch brothers etc. use their money wisely. Never more so than in the post Citizens vs. United and Super Pac era we now live in. Effective lobbying is not a lot different than going into a bar and buying a round for the house. Usually works out pretty well when some hard head bully decides he wants to take your head off in the same bar. Its also implied you are pandering your vote if you make a politician aware of what your interests are so we are not talking about any exclusive territory here. I happen to do that quite often so obviously I must be a conspirator! Its seems to me it might be worthwhile to be a bit more selective with the word so that retains at least a shred of a unique meaning. What I think is naive is for someone to believe they understand the political motivations of every successful businessman.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 30, 2015 12:44:25 GMT
Icefisher, You are a little naive if you think political contributions do not come with strings attached. All you are doing is arguing semantics. Conspiracy, collusion whatever you want to call it. The Warren Buffets, Goldman Sachs, Koch brothers etc. use their money wisely. Never more so than in the post Citizens vs. United and Super Pac era we now live in. Effective lobbying is not a lot different than going into a bar and buying a round for the house. Usually works out pretty well when some hard head bully decides he wants to take your head off in the same bar. Its also implied you are pandering your vote if you make a politician aware of what your interests are so we are not talking about any exclusive territory here. I happen to do that quite often so obviously I must be a conspirator! Its seems to me it might be worthwhile to be a bit more selective with the word so that retains at least a shred of a unique meaning. What I think is naive is for someone to believe they understand the political motivations of every successful businessman. I am ok with the term "effective lobbying". Whatever you want to call it, its cash for influence and it almost always is not in the taxpayers best interests.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2015 19:56:15 GMT
Effective lobbying is not a lot different than going into a bar and buying a round for the house. Usually works out pretty well when some hard head bully decides he wants to take your head off in the same bar. Its also implied you are pandering your vote if you make a politician aware of what your interests are so we are not talking about any exclusive territory here. I happen to do that quite often so obviously I must be a conspirator! Its seems to me it might be worthwhile to be a bit more selective with the word so that retains at least a shred of a unique meaning. What I think is naive is for someone to believe they understand the political motivations of every successful businessman. I am ok with the term "effective lobbying". Whatever you want to call it, its cash for influence and it almost always is not in the taxpayers best interests. I would say that's a healthy attitude. I voted for McCain because he is a good guy and did not vote for Obama because he is not one, period in terms of the amount of homage they give to cash for influence. I am not legally defined as a lobbyist, primarily because I do not get paid as one. But I have intimately been as close to being one as one can get without being required to register as a lobbyist. I have been in most of the legislative offices in Sacramento and Washington DC at one time or another talking either to elected representatives and senators or their staffs. I don't say that to brag, I say it to say that if I could have done that anybody could. I am certain of that as neither I nor the coalitions I have represented or worked for are campaign contributors. The problem with limiting campaign contributions is then only rich people can afford to run for office. Laws are so strict on privileged access that hardly anybody violates them (e.g. demanding quid pro quo). And of course elected officials are under a microscope as to their actions by the public. Then there is the fact that whats good for business is good for America and what is good for the taxpayers is also good for America, businesses are in both categories as are everybody with jobs. IMO, our biggest problem is wealthy people and do gooder causes that are remote worries for the less fortunate. Money and do gooder is probably the number one diversion from the legitimate role of government as its quid pro quo for the wealthy against the real and immediate needs of the less fortunate. Add in some ignorance which tends to surround remote issues and it can get really out of control. "Settled" climate science is evil as it attempts to milk those remote issues all the while deny funding to investigate its underpinnings. Its been a long time since I studied Buffet (as a college project). But in general when I studied him he was not much of a political animal. His political activities have grown with his charitable activities. And what I did learn studying him was he was not the type to try to wring blood out of a turnip. He did not invest on the basis of income but instead on the basis of the inherent abilities of the assets and industries he invested in. He was recognized 40 years ago as the very best in that area of knowledge. He is so rich and so diversified his response to a real competitive threat would be to invest in it and divest as necessary to do so. He has done that throughout his career. Its simply not the case that by training, or inheritance he is tied to any particular industry. Not to make him a saint but I think Buffet has a strong sense of morality and his wealth allows him to completely immerse himself into it. That also doesn't mean I think he is always right or even right most of the time in regards to political issues. I largely see him and McCain in the same political light that neither is beholden to special interests politically. I might very well vote for Buffet if he chose to run for executive office. I simply am apolitical when it comes to executive offices and look to the quality of the person running. A moral person will perform in the executive capacity in accordance with the law and in accordance with the health and welfare of the people and the nation. When that is not clear the risk of doing the wrong thing exists in both parties. When it is clear the moral person will always do the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jan 31, 2015 7:55:30 GMT
it's starting to happen over here more and more .. but they have to register everything they get .. lobbing is ok till theres cash involved ..then you might as well say it's cash for promises ..buying there vote ... you can see how much they took because once they leave office there givin a high paying job by what ever company they helped the most ..it's just wrong ..
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 4, 2015 19:57:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 6, 2015 1:50:58 GMT
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/06/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfastI put the link up first so you can read the remarks by President Obama first, and I ask those of you who read my post to please do so. What struck me as odd was his remark 'And lest we get on our high horse" as it seemed to be an apology, or rationalization, or justification. Can you imagine FDR talking to the country over the radio during one of his fireside chats telling the American people that...those Nazis guys, guys like Dr. Joseph Mengele, the experiments on children, the death camps, that, well, we've done some bad stuff too.... It seems inappropriate. I'm wondering if the President is out of touch? Yes, President Obama is out of touch in regards to how he presented this. One thing that has to be understood, is this is tribal warfare over there. This is the important thing that few understand. Syria is two tribes wresting for power. In Iraq, it started as 2 tribes wresting for power. When the US took out Saddam, it was a really stupid thing to do. His tribe, even tho Sunni, had gained the upper hand and ruled harshly. But as one woman in Bagdad stated right after he was killed, Saddam was OUR leader and even tho I didn't like him, you had NO right to kill him. The Kurds are another tribal force, fighting hard in the northern area because they sense that they will acquire more land and power. The Shiite, Badr Brigade, senses an increase in power over the Suni, and is actually coming to their rescue from the South. The Tribe in power in Jordan, and make no bones, it is a tribal power structure, has now been directly attacked by the burning of the pilot as he was a member of the Kings tribe. The main thing is the USA can help, but it is not advisable to put "boots on the ground". By doing so, we perpetuate weak tribes. The world needs a tribal victory in this fight. ISIS will disappear, because it has no allegiance to a tribe. In that area, that is not a prelude to success. That is why there are multitudes of foreign fighters in ISIS. The tribal nature of Iraq, Syria etc is not conducive to this type of battle. But there will be a strong leader emerge, unite the tribes and get rid of ISIS. That is what MUST happen. We can only hope the USA is aligned with the winning tribe.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 10, 2015 16:55:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 10, 2015 17:59:27 GMT
www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/business/energy-environment/climate-changes-bottom-line.html?_r=0It was 8 degrees in Minneapolis on a recent January day, and out on Interstate 394, snow whipped against the windshields of drivers on their morning commutes. But inside the offices of Cargill, the food conglomerate, Greg Page, the company’s executive chairman, felt compelled to talk about global warming. “It would be irresponsible not to contemplate it,” Mr. Page said, bundled up in a wool sport coat layered over a zip-up sweater. “I’m 63 years old, and I’ve grown up in the upper latitudes. I’ve seen too much change to presume we might not get more.”
|
|