It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
You don't vote on the person because they're democratic or they're republican... You vote on their morals and the goals they want to achieve. Party doesn't matter and the word associated with what party carries no significance.
*SID*You don't vote on the person because they're democratic or they're republican... You vote on their morals and the goals they want to achieve. Party doesn't matter and the word associated with what party carries no significance.
*SID*You don't vote on the person because they're democratic or they're republican... You vote on their morals and the goals they want to achieve. Party doesn't matter and the word associated with what party carries no significance.
Oh... I know. Most of the votes for Malloy were from dumbasses from Hartford and other big cities who have no idea what Malloy has done to the state of CT, as well as its gun owners. Whatever, he won by 1 or 2%, I think he realizes most of CT hates him.
"I'll just vote Democrat because that's what i've always done, and mommy and daddy told me to!"
Would of been nice to see the new gun laws in CT from this past year repealed.
.frenchyUh.. Definetly not afraid of homosexuals!!! Hahahahaha
Lol nice try ya dumb gooooof
this was in 2010, same race as this year, but this year had MORE RED.
I agree with you that Connecticut is not almost entirely democratic based on the results of the governor's election (Almost 50/50). However, a geographic map of how counties voted is a poor argument, especially because 8 of the top 10 (Including the top 5) of Connecticut's most populous cities voted democratic in 2010.
ANDR01DI agree with you that Connecticut is not almost entirely democratic based on the results of the governor's election (Almost 50/50). However, a geographic map of how counties voted is a poor argument, especially because 8 of the top 10 (Including the top 5) of Connecticut's most populous cities voted democratic in 2010.
Yeah, I know its a bad example, but that's just showing town by town which is republican or democrat, that's alot of red towns... You can always expect a large city to vote Democrat. Small town, hardworking people will most likely vote republicans, and the food stamp lovin city thugs will continue to vote blue #tru
*SID*I'm not saying they DO do this but they SHOULD.
yeah I know what you meant. Going in and voting all red or all blue without even knowing who the people are is far far far more injurious than not voting at all.
*SID*You don't vote on the person because they're democratic or they're republican... You vote on their morals and the goals they want to achieve. Party doesn't matter and the word associated with what party carries no significance.
I talked to a guy who voted for a candidate because he got a signed picture from him in the mail. He "didn't want to disappoint him."
Bombogenesisyeah I know what you meant. Going in and voting all red or all blue without even knowing who the people are is far far far more injurious than not voting at all.
This is what my roommate did (voted all democrats), and she's getting her PhD in political science, focusing on American Politics. People wonder why we are fucked....
.frenchyYeah, I know its a bad example, but that's just showing town by town which is republican or democrat, that's alot of red towns... You can always expect a large city to vote Democrat. Small town, hardworking people will most likely vote republicans, and the food stamp lovin city thugs will continue to vote blue #tru
.frenchyOh... I know. Most of the votes for Malloy were from dumbasses from Hartford and other big cities who have no idea what Malloy has done to the state of CT, as well as its gun owners. Whatever, he won by 1 or 2%, I think he realizes most of CT hates him.
"I'll just vote Democrat because that's what i've always done, and mommy and daddy told me to!"
Would of been nice to see the new gun laws in CT from this past year repealed.
Frenchy, why even live in an always blue state like CT? Why not make a move to the south or somewhere that better fits your ideology? If you really want to take your gun into a starbucks or a cracker barrel, go to a state that allows it. Simple.
.frenchyYeah, I know its a bad example, but that's just showing town by town which is republican or democrat, that's alot of red towns... You can always expect a large city to vote Democrat. Small town, hardworking people will most likely vote republicans, and the food stamp lovin city thugs will continue to vote blue #tru
There are a lot of things that are wrong with what you said. Disregarding the number of grammatical errors, reducing anybody who has ever needed welfare to a ' food stamp loving thug' is just wrong (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/); I'd love to see you try to support a family on that or minimum wage. Also, unless you own your own business (and even then it's questionable) truly 'conservative' tax policies have just shown to be hugely harmful in Kansas in Brownback's first term. The country isn't "waking up", it's sleepwalking off a cliff by reelecting Brownback and those who support his failures. The economy is growing, gas is cheaper, and the unemployment rate is below 6%. Look at the facts.
Anybody who thinks the republicans taking over the senate will help things is a retard. All this means is less women and gay rights, more disastrous foreign policy, terrible immigration policies, a worsened economy, larger wealth gap, worsened healthcare, more racism, less renewable energy, and an onslought on the environment, meaning increased global warming, which will devastate the ski industry
I honestly don't see the major benefit of it in the first place - but I'm not exactly up to speed on everything involving it at all.
The environmental review has been completed, they've done something like 17,000 pages of environmental analysis and the state department has stated that pipeline construction impact on carbon emissions would be negligible at best.
You guys are going to use the energy whether you buy it from us for cheaper or buy it from some other jerks for more. Meanwhile, we're going dig up the bitumen and sell it to someone - it might as well be you.
This is all basically an exercise in "we heard this has something to do with oil, which, we understand, is bad. This is our nuanced view on the issue."
Oh yeah, as far as the economic impacts, the project would apparently employ about 42,000 people in the US alone. Billions of dollars for the US economy. I just don't see how it isn't going to happen at some point, regardless, so why delay it and make it cost everyone more money for no good reason?
NickyToorAnybody who thinks the republicans taking over the senate will help things is a retard. All this means is less women and gay rights, more disastrous foreign policy, terrible immigration policies, a worsened economy, larger wealth gap, worsened healthcare, more racism, less renewable energy, and an onslought on the environment, meaning increased global warming, which will devastate the ski industry
NickyToorAnybody who thinks the republicans taking over the senate will help things is a retard. All this means is less women and gay rights, more disastrous foreign policy, terrible immigration policies, a worsened economy, larger wealth gap, worsened healthcare, more racism, less renewable energy, and an onslought on the environment, meaning increased global warming, which will devastate the ski industry
Holy shit...youre a fuckin retard. I could tell you why but you probably wouldnt understand because of your level of retard.
J.D.The environmental review has been completed, they've done something like 17,000 pages of environmental analysis and the state department has stated that pipeline construction impact on carbon emissions would be negligible at best.
You guys are going to use the energy whether you buy it from us for cheaper or buy it from some other jerks for more. Meanwhile, we're going dig up the bitumen and sell it to someone - it might as well be you.
This is all basically an exercise in "we heard this has something to do with oil, which, we understand, is bad. This is our nuanced view on the issue."
Oh yeah, as far as the economic impacts, the project would apparently employ about 42,000 people in the US alone. Billions of dollars for the US economy. I just don't see how it isn't going to happen at some point, regardless, so why delay it and make it cost everyone more money for no good reason?
J.D.The environmental review has been completed, they've done something like 17,000 pages of environmental analysis and the state department has stated that pipeline construction impact on carbon emissions would be negligible at best.
You guys are going to use the energy whether you buy it from us for cheaper or buy it from some other jerks for more. Meanwhile, we're going dig up the bitumen and sell it to someone - it might as well be you.
This is all basically an exercise in "we heard this has something to do with oil, which, we understand, is bad. This is our nuanced view on the issue."
Oh yeah, as far as the economic impacts, the project would apparently employ about 42,000 people in the US alone. Billions of dollars for the US economy. I just don't see how it isn't going to happen at some point, regardless, so why delay it and make it cost everyone more money for no good reason?
It's not the environmental impact on the construction that I feel is the issue here - rather the morality of the ultra heavy crude that bitumen is I guess? I have no idea really... It's in Northern Alberta, not the USA, and It's not like our country really gives a shit as to what happens elsewhere unless it directly causes issues for the government or corporations it governs.
as for what it would cost the country to employ those 42000... wouldn't the government spending that money on building or subsidizing green energy jobs do just as well at job creation?
I don't have numbers or anything in front of me here, but I'd imagine it would be a better plan for long-term feasibility in energy rather than a pipeline that will be a white elephant in the coming decades as fossil fuel dominance begins to taper off - even if in the short-term it might employ less, that same short-term mindset has just dug a deeper pit to bury everyone into. This is just my thought process here - Serious questions as to what the whole idea is behind the XL in the first place.
Besides... it seems to me that the cost of refining that absolute gunk from Ft. Mac would outweigh, or at least not be that much significantly cheaper than the higher cost of purchasing and shipping the much cleaner stuff from either Mexico or the Middle East... Again, thoughts here, not educated opinions.
Additionally... and this is just by the last few minutes of briefly skimming a few articles about it... but, isn't there already a pipeline built? Seems to me that everything I've read states that the XL is just to send more oil down to the gulf so it can be exported... I mean, the name of the fucking thing stands for "eXport Limited"
Phase 1-3 is already completely online as of January 21st this year... the XL seemingly is being made to bypass any midwest refineries for domestic use, and to send it down to the carcinogenic coast to be refined and exported elsewhere - I guess because of the already in-place infrastructure in Houston for refining and shipping, but also to make up for lack of WTOF exports in the last few decades...
NickyToorAnybody who thinks the republicans taking over the senate will help things is a retard. All this means is less women and gay rights, more disastrous foreign policy, terrible immigration policies, a worsened economy, larger wealth gap, worsened healthcare, more racism, less renewable energy, and an onslought on the environment, meaning increased global warming, which will devastate the ski industry
This result is mildly pleasing to me. I'm really excited for them to bring back traditional marriage but terrified of what they might do in the war on drugs.
ScaredwhiteboyThis result is mildly pleasing to me. I'm really excited for them to bring back traditional marriage but terrified of what they might do in the war on drugs.
They can't bring back 'traditional marriage'. That's in the hand of the courts. Congress can't do squat about that. #dealwithit
also, I find the 2016 senate map to be pretty crazy.
This whole thing could TOTALLY flip in 2 years. Only like 8 Democrat seats up for election - all of which are strong incumbents in blue states... (except maybe Colorado, but in a presidential election year, the turnout will be massively higher, which isn't really good for Republicans in left-leaning tossup states like CO or even Nevada)
All while there are like 24 or something republican seats up for grabs... If the Democrats take like 4 or 5 and win the presidency again, we're back to where we are before yesterday... So really, I wouldn't get excited or dismayed about anything here, anyone.
DingoSeanIt's not the environmental impact on the construction that I feel is the issue here - rather the morality of the ultra heavy crude that bitumen is I guess? I have no idea really... It's in Northern Alberta, not the USA, and It's not like our country really gives a shit as to what happens elsewhere unless it directly causes issues for the government or corporations it governs.
as for what it would cost the country to employ those 42000... wouldn't the government spending that money on building or subsidizing green energy jobs do just as well at job creation?
I don't have numbers or anything in front of me here, but I'd imagine it would be a better plan for long-term feasibility in energy rather than a pipeline that will be a white elephant in the coming decades as fossil fuel dominance begins to taper off - even if in the short-term it might employ less, that same short-term mindset has just dug a deeper pit to bury everyone into. This is just my thought process here - Serious questions as to what the whole idea is behind the XL in the first place.
Besides... it seems to me that the cost of refining that absolute gunk from Ft. Mac would outweigh, or at least not be that much significantly cheaper than the higher cost of purchasing and shipping the much cleaner stuff from either Mexico or the Middle East... Again, thoughts here, not educated opinions.
DingoSeanAdditionally... and this is just by the last few minutes of briefly skimming a few articles about it... but, isn't there already a pipeline built? Seems to me that everything I've read states that the XL is just to send more oil down to the gulf so it can be exported... I mean, the name of the fucking thing stands for "eXport Limited"
Ughhh so much to address that's wrong but so little time. First, just so you know on the map thing, the phase III / IV expansion would approximately double capacity. It's basically half-done.
"the morality of the ultra heavy crude that bitumen" Why is there a morality issue here? First of all, if there's a morality issue it's paying for oil exported by dictatorial countries that treat women like goats, which money can then be spent on executions for homosexuals. Second, if you understood the process for bitumen extraction, it's open pit mining, full stop (literally it's shoveling sand). The tailings are less harmful than mining tailings but no one's really picketing the mining industry because it isn't marketed as well or easily (oil = bad). Third, sorry guys we're going to mine it all anyway, we can sell it to China or you, might as well be you.
The pipeline has seen six separate mandatory environmental studies and been subjected to the most rigorous environmental review in the history of pipelines, by kind of a large margin.
"as for what it would cost the country to employ those 42000... wouldn't the government spending that money on building or subsidizing green energy jobs do just as well at job creation?"
Spending it on anything would do just as well at job creation but a) it would be the government spending the money rather than the oil industry and b) this is sort of like suggesting you create jobs by having 42,000 people build a dam without any tools. It'll take way more people! More jobs! Who cares if it's a waste of money? Also, c) if you think the government isn't spending wads of cash on renewable energy incentives and development you're insane. But that stuff simply can't take the reins yet and it will be a gradual handoff over the next, oh probably the rest of our lifetime more or less.
"it seems to me that the cost of refining that absolute gunk from Ft. Mac would outweigh, or at least not be that much significantly cheaper than the higher cost of purchasing and shipping the much cleaner stuff from either Mexico or the Middle East"
You'd be wrong. This is a massive cost savings. This is the oil industry, if it wasn't profitable they wouldn't be doing it. It's in fact so profitable that notwithstanding that the cost has increased by about two and a half billion dollars, literally everyone still wants to do it. Also, you're worried about the environmental impacts of a pipeline (spills easier to prevent, easier to minimize and easier to clean up) but you're okay with shipping more oil from the middle east in tankers? That's a red herring though, it's really just dollars and cents... basically the cost of the crude is reduced according to the grade, no biggie, nobody in Fort Mac expects Brent pricing for their stuff.
"Seems to me that everything I've read states that the XL is just to send more oil down to the gulf so it can be exported."
The answer to this repeated false claim has been pretty blunt from TCPL: "Mr. Thompson and Mr. Findley’s piece also erroneously suggests that Keystone XL is about exports. This is categorically false. Keystone XL is designed to serve U.S. refineries in the Gulf Coast, period. We have said repeatedly that not a drop of crude oil from Keystone XL will be exported."
Moreover the US State Department concluded that US exports are not dependent on pipeline development, whether the thing is built or not. Crude exports aren't even economically feasible at this point because of transportation costs. Some of the refined stuff might go outside the USA, sure, but that completely misses the point of US refined product and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the entire industry.
The problem is that the industry is pretty complex and people just seem to have this knee-jerk negative reaction to anything involving oil or the oilsands, so it works when you compress these issues into thirty second ads which are universally misleading. But anyway, my point remains, I don't see this simply NEVER happening, so why delay it and push the cost up? You can have it for this price or more later.
14 years of democrats bankrupting our state and being sent to prison. Finally they realized we needed real change. Was at a election result banquet for the R rep running in the 103rd (and we fucking lost it to a woman who's husband has 13 heroin possession charges, faked her degree from a degree mill and made up complete lies about other politicians to give herself the edge. fuck champaign/urbana)
We still had an amazing night when the governor race had all of cook (chicago-land) reporting in and only 3% spread between the two. We knew red would drowned out the rest of the state and we took it! So happy to have been a part of these elections (and I'm getting paiddddd)
didnt read thread but wanna know how politics work?
"Republicans ruined America, we need Democrats!"
"Democrats ruined America, we need Republicans!"
and repeat.
Phil-X-14 years of democrats bankrupting our state and being sent to prison. Finally they realized we needed real change. Was at a election result banquet for the R rep running in the 103rd (and we fucking lost it to a woman who's husband has 13 heroin possession charges, faked her degree from a degree mill and made up complete lies about other politicians to give herself the edge. fuck champaign/urbana)
We still had an amazing night when the governor race had all of cook (chicago-land) reporting in and only 3% spread between the two. We knew red would drowned out the rest of the state and we took it! So happy to have been a part of these elections (and I'm getting paiddddd)
At least you're not Kansas City, Republicans fuck that up big time. Lol at saying she made things up about her competitor they all do that.
DingoSeanFrenchy, why even live in an always blue state like CT? Why not make a move to the south or somewhere that better fits your ideology? If you really want to take your gun into a starbucks or a cracker barrel, go to a state that allows it. Simple.
Eventually sir, eventually.
*CUMMINGS*There are a lot of things that are wrong with what you said. Disregarding the number of grammatical errors
Please show me where I made errors in my grammar. You're taking it too seriously buddy.
.frenchyYeah, I know its a bad example, but that's just showing town by town which is republican or democrat, that's alot of red towns... You can always expect a large city to vote Democrat. Small town, hardworking people will most likely vote republicans, and the food stamp lovin city thugs will continue to vote blue #tru
.frenchyEventually sir, eventually.
Please show me where I made errors in my grammar. You're taking it too seriously buddy.
I will, since you asked. In the first sentence, "its" should be "it's". "Democrat" and "Republican" should be capitalized in that same sentence. Including "that's alot of red towns" at the end of the first sentence should either use a semicolon or be an entirely separate sentence; it's an independent clause. "Alot" is not a word; it should be "a lot". "Republicans" in the second sentence should be capitalized. "Lovin" in the second sentence is also not a word; you could argue for it if you were typing the entire sentence in Ebonics or some other sort of cultural misappropriation but that's another issue entirely. Finally, you don't include a period at the end of the second sentence. Happy?
elindeWhat happened to rebellious, fuck the system-left wing punk skiers? I miss that. It's starting to look like NS is a young republicans forum.
It's mainly due to the amount of wealth requisite to ski regularly that this phenomenon exists.
elindeWhat happened to rebellious, fuck the system-left wing punk skiers? I miss that. It's starting to look like NS is a young republicans forum.
So...could you please explain how "fuck the system" mentality is left wing? Last I checked, the side that says "fuck the system" are the Republicans, and most of the other sadly miniscule and forlorn parties. Democrats are all for "The System". With the exception of marriage equality, more of a tough stance on drugs, and the occasional radical conservative that hates the fact that women can choose whether they have a kid or not, the Republicans are the one's saying fuck the system.
