Matt Wuerker for November 03, 2011

  1. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 12 years ago

    Wow. When did “astro turf campaign” pop up as the opposite of a “grass roots campaign?” I like it, but I’ve just started seeing it around!

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    ARodney  over 12 years ago

    Regardless of your desires and this pipeline, we’re getting it where ever it’s cheapest. And the Canadian tar sands oil is extremely expensive where it counts — in carbon added to the atmosphere, in which middle east oil is cleaner. One of these days, and it won’t be too long, we’re going to really regret that we allowed energy companies to turn climate change denial into a conservative article of faith.

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    OneBadDog2000  over 12 years ago

    @motivemagus The term has been around for a number of years, it came into the popular vernacular in the early part of this decade. There are companies that specialize in creating these types of programs as is the intel community.

     •  Reply
  4. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 12 years ago

    It’s a bad idea that’s been “in process” for quite some time. That the whole thing has smelled very, very bad since early in the last administration shows that our “system” has serious need for revision and correction. CONSERVATION is the best way to eliminate our dependence on “foreign” oil, and tar sands ARE one of the worst alternatives. Natural gas from “fracking” may indeed be even MORE dangerous.

    The ‘toon does call it right, it’s still about the INFLUENCE BUYING AT THIS POINT, not “oil”. BTW, they’re planning to ship a slurry to Texas for refining, NOT “OIL”!

    That even “alternative energy” is almost entirely in the hands of what we used to call “oil companies” and now call “energy companies” is another aspect of “influence”.

    We will continue to require oil, coal, geothermal, hydro, and yes, nuclear for quite some time to come. That is by all sides a “given”. The question is whether we ever intend to “smarten up” and do it in a diverse, conservative, and sensible way, with safeguards, or continue the same “trash it as we go” philosophy of our first hundred years of dependence on petroleum. We do have alternatives, and only those profiting the most are crying “change is dangerous”, as long as they may lose profits, that’s the only “danger” they see.

     •  Reply
  5. Crab hat rear
    Crabbyrino Premium Member over 12 years ago

    Slurry NIMBY, thanks. When will we get off “oil” ? When there isn’t any money in it. Period.

     •  Reply
  6. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 12 years ago

    Stop lying. Liberals and progressives are doing more to promote the development of alternative fuels than the entire rest of the US put together.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    feverjr Premium Member over 12 years ago

    As of August 8, 2005, Public Law 109-58 has suspended the royalties that companies pay to take oil out of the ground or offshore. So we are essentially giving our resource away free. Ever wonder why oil companies are in such a hurry to drill here, it’s free so take it. At the rate we are pumping it, our country should finish off the reserve in 8-10 years. Then we will be totally dependent on foreign oil.-———————-As for the pipeline… the oil companies have been notorious for having problems and walking away from them. We need safeguards and a superfund that can handle the worst case scenario.

     •  Reply
  8. Granny
    MaeRiot  over 12 years ago

    Well… it takes money to make money.

     •  Reply
  9. Infantry
    aguirra3  over 12 years ago

    Maybe we can compromise; we can put solar panels and windmills all along the pipeline.

     •  Reply
  10. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 12 years ago

    You’re obviously talking about ONE company. Don’t you be such a rube — go read something about the facts. The US led the effort to develop solar power AND wind power, but after Reagan cut funding, it all went overseas. Now the leaders are Germany, Japan and China — and it all comes from OUR technology, which we let fall behind.Companies that make serious money from this include Siemens (#47 on Fortune’s Global 500), ABB (#304), and GE (#16) — which are obviously extremely successful. GE was a latecomer to the game, but Immelt committed them to jump in. So who’s the rube?

     •  Reply
  11. 23878 slide
    tcity  over 12 years ago
    Canada IS a foreign country, dumbass.
     •  Reply
  12. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 12 years ago

    And once again, a counterfactual statement. Try to read the note I wrote DIRECTLY ABOVE YOURS…

     •  Reply
  13. Jollyroger
    pirate227  over 12 years ago

    As I said before, I hope you enjoy oil with your wheat. Mmmmm.

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    Ronald Johnson  over 12 years ago

    The main idea and principle for the Defense Department and Energy Department for years since the Eisenhower administration was to use up the world’s resources of oil reserves (PEAK OIL) overseas before America’s resources are used up first because the nation whose oil and energy’s resources are used up first and becomes dependent on foreign sources of energy is no longer a SuperPower but a dependent power who can be “black-mailed” like we were in the 1970’s during the Mid-East oil crisis and strike. Why would we want to use up all our American sources.? We can only produce 3 to 4% of the world’s resources anyway?

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Matt Wuerker