HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » freshwest » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 53,661

Journal Archives

No, and photos of the president should be public domain, and not used by media outlets for profit.

After all, we are paying for them and always have. Sounds like more privatization to me, and they will use anything to get that money.

Making something look like a scandal when there is none, is a common practice to claim that private interests can do it better or that there is a crisis when there is not one.

This article is a particularly blatant attempt to use the senstibilities of the public regarding civil rights or Constitutional rights when nothing is being violated. One must always think to the profit motive when one reads these stories.

Yes, they will lie, they will smear, they will contort logic to get those contracts. I've seen this pattern repeated in each privatization scam.

And the private sector media does not always do a better job, think how they are constructed and who owns them. They often edit video to cut out the full story of Obama interviews, photos and words. They have been caught doing this so often it's poisoned the thinking processes of Americans.

Obama has bad a good deal of obstruction, and even a news blackout when he has put forth ideas. We are being forced to go to networks what are biased and to private sector media to get any of his speeches or words, and they often try to extract payment for getting transcripts or using the images they get a hold on, denying us the right to see or hear or read the words the President for their profit.

If there is any propaganda going on with it, it's from media, not the White House. They are complicit in every anti-progressive/ liberal game played on us. Think deeper, look to the advantage, not what they say, think twice, thrice. Not on the words, the meaning. Or be screwed again.

Why, why, why doesn't he just do it already? The suspense is killing me! But about that oil...

Now we know. Or think we do...

Thanks. From another Hitch fan (for the most part - that Iraq thing - whew.)

No it doesn't. It's just more Segretti politics in the media. Expect more for the next 11 months.


The OP won't respond to history, general knowledge of how the business works, facts disputing nor to the lack of logic in claims. A discusion isn't the point of the OP.

Skinner says: 'You own what you post.' Allow the smear to stand. The reputation being earned on this thread is the punishment meted out at DU.

Let it go.

You claim '...there are NO other pipelines on the books besides KXL... What is Canada doing then?'

Just a brief slice of the history of Canadian tar sand - bitumen -dilbit pipelines that are already in existance:



You cannot prove that the discussions are not about an already deteriorating pipeline that has been in operation for decades. It is supposition and not even logical to assume there isn't anything else on the books.

Why make such a claim?

As far as 'What is Canada doing?'

Isn't that obvious?

They are doing what they have done for decades. They are selling their resource, and these mixtures have been flowing throught the USA for decades, per the articles I linked but you didn't comment on.

Canada and Mexico are the two countries we import the most oil from and have for decades. There is nothing new going on here. The infrastructure is there, and this entire country is criss crossed with pipelines of all kinds and always has been.

Not that I like it, and have more than once protested new ones. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with wholesale disregarding the facts to make a smear based on opinion that doesn't meet the test of logic or history or facts.

To ignore what is already in place, in order to make the accusation you are making, is not credible.

JMHO. Good luck on your next OP.

Just following Albert Einstein's saying:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

~ Albert Einstein

Although the prophecies quoted here have the same success rate as those of Pat Robertson.

Just sayin'

It's a new week. This will last until he makes war on Xmas again.

Since Christmas trees are pagan symbols. Surely, Faux News will give us all the sordid details. Stay tuned for the next horror.

Just in case you or others missed this story, here are more links:






Sorry if this is not what you are talking about. But it goes with the OP topic, which I think you mean.

I remember it. The one that flooded a neighborhood in Arkansas:

6 Things You Need to Know About the Arkansas Oil Spill


1. Not Your Average Crude

InsideClimate News reported shortly after the spill that an Exxon official confirmed the pipeline was "transporting a heavy form of crude from the Canadian tar sands region." Specifically, it has been identified as Wabasca Heavy, Lisa Song writes, "which is a type of diluted bitumen, or dilbit, from Alberta's tar sands region" although you won't hear any Exxon folks calling it tar sands.


2. Not Your Average Pipeline

The Pegasus pipeline running more than 850 miles between Patoka, Illinois and Nederland, Texas, is 20 inches in diameter and was built in the 1940s to carry crude from Texas to Illinois. But in 2006 the flow was reversed in order to carry Canadian tar sands to Texas. As Ben Jervey wrote for DeSmog blog, the flow was reversed to "help relieve the tar sands crude bottleneck in Cushing, Oklahoma. (The same reason given by proponents for the construction of Keystone XL.)"


3. Tax Exempt?

Who's footing the bill for the cleanup? The government has an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that companies which transport oil must pay into. But, as it turns out, the bitumen that Exxon was transporting in its pipeline isn't oil by government standards. Erin O'Sullivan writes for Oil Change International:

In a January 2011 memorandum, the IRS determined that to generate revenues for the oil spill trust fund, Congress only intended to tax conventional crude, and not tar sands or other unconventional oils. This exemption remains to this day, even though the United States moves billions of gallons of tar sands crude through its pipeline system every year. The trust fund is liable for tar sands oil spill cleanups without collecting any revenue from tar sands transport. If the fund goes broke, the American taxpayer foots the cleanup bill.


to xchrom:


One of the claims made at the time of the spill was that the Keystone pipeline was to replace this one which is 30 years old and likely to leak. It's been going through for longer than some think.

What a great piece from a southern progressive! Thanks, applegrove!

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »