Welcome to the Richardson High School Message Forum.
The Message Forum is an ongoing dialogue among classmates. The goal is to encourage friendly interaction, including interaction among classmates who really didn't know each other. Experience on the site has revealed that certain topics tend to cause friction and hard feelings, especially politics and religion.
Although politics and religion are not completely off-limits, classmates are asked to be positive in their posts and not to be too repetitive or allow a dialog to degenerate into an argument.
Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Response" button to add your entry to the forum.
I will offer my comments intersperse in red within your post, reproduced below.
After dozens of similar posts, we ALL understand your bent toward "earning a living".
I don't know what you are talking about. What does this refer to? The Tiger Woods quotation? I thought it was great. Still do. None of us should feel entitled.Everyone should strive to do their best. I have often said that I have no right to complain about hitting a bad shot on the golf course -- I don't practice enough. It is an insult to someone who works hard to suggest that I should have the same outcome without the same effort.
Nonetheless with 50M + Americans on the dole, there are just as many legitimate NEEDS for hand-outs as hand-ups.
Yes, there are many people who are in need through no fault of their own. However, Woods's comment wasn't directed to or intended to reflect on people on the dole. He was talking about what it takes to excel. I think his comment can be extrapolated to any endeavor.
Also after years of enduring your arrogant inflexibility, including your refusal to appreciate that I (or others here) can teach you anything...it would be refreshing to read your posts of those who get undeserved hand-outs...but subsequently pay-it-forward.
Arrogant inflexibility?? Hmm. I'll have to think about that. At the very least, I can add it to the lists of insults you've hurled my way. You may not even have recognized the insult folded into a complement in your post #25446: "Firstly while 'between homes' in moving from the Dallas suburban life to the City life, it was a sobering experience to enjoy the warmth of the Cordell's hospitality vs. his colder persona here often portrayed on the Forum!" I actually received three emails objecting to your specifying that I have cold persona. It was rather gratifying to receive those emails.
Regarding your allegation that I don't think anyone can teach me anything, I think you are badly mistaken. I spent a whole career that as a scholar, which requires constant learning. However, after Martha read your post, and knowing that we had invited you into our home for five nights, she said to me, "Will you never learn?"
Also, your snarky comment to me regarding Steve and Tommy is unproductive, and needs to be deleted.
You mean you were serious?? I thought you were joking since Steve made it abundantly clear that he had no interest in teaming up with Tommy. Do you really feel that you have all the answers for others' relationships? Are you successful in your relationships?
In my view and from their many posts over the years, both of these friends "appear to do very well" when they actually invest in a breakfast together to refresh their fellowship...political differences aside.
So, you really think you know what is best for Steve?
Obviously this is none of my damn business.
At the very least, I don't think it is appropriate for you to provide this type of counseling in a public forum, putting pressure on one of the principals to respond to your suggestion.
And yet at this time in their friendship, there is a mutual necessity and excellent opportunity to leverage their re$ources toward a new shared adventure in life at age 70!
I took the risk to move to a Midrise apartment...and am happy for it.
I'm not sure that leasing an apartment makes you qualified to give good advice to others about whom they should live with.
Lastly as a cautious reminder, this Forum (like most online communities) has become the dumping ground for human emotional joyless expression.
Once again, you insult the Forum, which is an insult to those who post and those who read, although I strongly suspect that it was intended as an insult to me. I can't emphasize enough that there is at least one other site that would welcome your commentary and especially your insults of me. To be perfectly candid, though, this business of lashing out when you are angry at me reflects much more on you than on me.I thnk you should have figured that out by now.
Let's feed ourselves a healthy Daily Bread, before drifting back to our complacent addiction of mindless posting here on the RHS Forum.
Combining an insult with a religious reference?? Again, it is an insult to me, but also to everyone else, except maybe to you. Do you really feel that your posts are somehow above the typical "mindless posting"?
Really, Lance, you should find another social media outlet that meets your standards and provides you with greater opportunities for self-actualization.
Your opinions and relgious teachings are fine. They do not bother me at all.
But I believe your idea of what David's forum is about....is not in sync with his idea of what he wants it to be. I could be wrong. What I'm writing is only what I feel is true. I think YOU feel the forum should be what YOU wish it to be.
Does that make any sense to you?
You say that I have spent years "sparring" with Tommy. I think I've spent time mostly kidding with Tommy, with a few times of seriousness. I think you have spent even more time than me, "sparring" with Tommy, with some seriousness thrown in, and I can ask you the same question of..."To what end?"
Tommy, it seems to me, is a 'kidder' and a keen fellow of honed humor, not wanting to be 'too serious' at many times to the public. Maybe he keeps his serious moments for intimate periods of his life, and it is not for us to interfere with how he conducts his life. To each his own, I say.
When I went to Texas Tech in 1974 after being a bell captain in Dallas, they took me on probation. I've told this story before, so if you.ve heard it let me just bring Kurt up to speed. The second semester I got a Chevron scolarship and that summer was invited to work for Chevron for a big salary for three months at Snyder in the Canyon Reef Operating Company. SACROC.
I showed up there being a Junior in PE and they had about ten engineers that they seated at a conference table. Computers and Fortran was just getting started, so they had us updating production curves on semilog paper in big books for each well. For 8 hours a day we sat there and drew the dot and connected the line with a No. 2 pencil. We were getting paid big bucks like near a $1000/month. At the end of two weeks I went in to the engineer that supervised us and told him that I had met a couple of high school girls at the Dairy Queen and I would bring them down and supervise them. Twice as much work would get done. I would check on them twice a day, pay them out of my salary and keep the difference. The added benefit is that they had a lot better penmanship and would do a much more precise job. I would go out in the field and watch the drilling and workover rigs and try to learn something useful. He said, "So you're not happy with the job." I said, "That's right and I've got better things to spend my time on." He told me to be there on Monday and I would begin helping the engineers as a tech on their computer doing economic analysis on their proposed workover jobs.
The rest of those idiots did the same thing all summer with the exception of a field trip or two. After work every day I went to the drilling rigs and asked questions and watched operations. I also found some great ponds to fish in out on the leases. At the end of the summer the boss asked me if I had any clean clothes. I said yes, He said here is a ticket to Denver for tomorrow from the Lubbock Airport and I will see you back here Monday morning. I inteviewed with the Central Region drilling department and they offerred me a job when I graduated in December in Denver. I was the only one hired from that summer group.
One thing I noticed at SACROC, was that they had several engineers that had been working there ten to fifteen years. Then they had some really bright young guys that would work there a couple of years and then head off to another assignment. I made a mental note that I was going to learn everything I could at Chevron, and as long as I was moving up and getting offers of other assignments I would stay. If it looked like I was going to be permanent somewhere, I was out of there. They did not call it that at the time, but I was witnessing the Peter Principle in action. Everyone got promoted up to the level of his own incompetence, In Denver I went from Drilling Engineer to Production Engineer to Reservoir Engineer attached to the Chief Engineer of the Central Region. At that point they made me angry when the V.P. passed down that he was upset that I was eating at the Denver Petroleum Club on invitation of a Hallibuton saleman at the same time another company was feeding him. They also would not let me go to the field for a visible inspection of the project I was making recommendations for, and they implied that since it only took me half the time to write my study that I must have done a less than credible job. They made me wait three months to turn in my proposal that I had completed in three months instead of six. That was three months I cooled my heels and found a job with an independent where I observed all different aspects of forming an oil company. Chevron offerred me a job in London in the North Sea or a job with Saudi Aramco to try and keep me, but the die was cast. I knew since I altered my own trajectory, they would hold that against me from now on. It has never set well with me, taking orders from corporate big wigs. So, I traded a chance to maybe be a Chevron VP for a less than secure entrepeneural chance of running my own company one day. I would not change a thing, but I do regret leaving the $17,500 retirement package that Chevron was matching one to one in Chevron stock. I would have vested in their match in another year and a half. I don't want to even contemplate what that little bit would be worth today, but I can imagine you have a pretty large nest egg.
Babylon Bee has determined why we are all predestined to be sinners. They say a study shows 100% of men will eat any fruit given to them by a naked woman.
Here is how my relationship with Tommy goes. When I write something particularly disgusting and demeaning about him, I call him on the phone to make sure he visits David's site to read the awful things I said about him. He normally does not look at this site as often as he once did. I think he does me the same courtesy, and we just laugh and laugh, all politics and religion aside.
Other than that, there are some nasty things we could say about some other folks and we laugh about those, too, but do not post them because others do not often see the humor when you mention their funny idiosyncracies that Tommy and I see in ourselves. Some folks get mad at the prospect of us even communicating. This is probably an unhealthy relationship we have, but we are too dumb to know any better.
You two guys are nuts, similar in some ways, so I guess we can say you two deserve each other.
I suppose you keep each other entertained. I enjoy watching you two dig yourselves into substantial do-do at times, and then further viewing the end result.
You, Steven Roy, are a joy, while Tommy, I think, is a piece of work beyond my understanding. He's obviously many levels above my plateau, or, I guess, my pay grade.
David,
I choose "i." Biden is, as you once said, "just plain stupid," and he has dementia, as well as needing glasses to keep from squinting while reading the cue cards before him. (Biden continually looks like "Walter" who speaks by way of Jeff Dunham, the ventriloquist.) The predicament Biden is in presently was not even of his own making, which is REALLY an unbelievable bunch of crap! Obama and his former staff have pushed him into this mess, repeating the same mess they had previously, when they were all working together the first time around! It's inconceivable that they are such fools, and that's not saying what I really wanted to say.
Why do you think Obama chose Biden as his vice president in the first place?
I have my hunches, but I want to hear what you guys say.
OK, I get it, you don't like Biden or his handling of the situation (all out war) with Ukraine. You call him stupid, a day late and a dollar short, etc., etc. You have all made yourselves very clear on your feelings, and I understand. So....
I have a question for any of you...
What would you do? Enter the war with Ukraine? Bomb Russia? Give the Polish our fighter jets?
Please be specific. I would like to see an end to this conflict and the suffering of the Ukrainians. I would also like to avoid two specific things: World War III and nuclear weapons. I also think it prudent to avoid pissing off the Chinese. So your suggestions would be welcome.
As for the price of oil and the supply..... I think Keystone is dead. The Canadians gave up and shut it down on their side. Not happening. I also think that ramping up our production will take time, months and months. Not in the immediate future will we see gasoline or natural gas go down. A year or two maybe...
I think Biden should have given Ukraine weapons and bombers BEFORE the Ukrainian mess erupted, at the time Putin's forces entered the country. We had plenty of time to recognize what was about to happen, and we just sat here doing nothing, because Biden is spineless and hates conflict, just like Obama. Consequently, we now face bad options in Ukraine, as well as China and Iran, where Biden is trying to resurrect the old Iran nuclear agreement. You say the time has past for the finishing of the Keystone Pipeline. Well I say the time is past to try to get Iran to stop their march to having nuclear weapons. We already know that they are just a few tiny steps away from having what they desire, and we found out that they never even adhered to the original agreement with Obama and the European co-signees. They are just like all the rest of the leaders in that part of the world. They are liars and cheaters and despots who are evil. Only a few of the Middle East leaders can be trusted, in my opinion, and even those few should not be fully trusted until they can verifiy their intent, by their actions. (Just as Reagan explained to us all-----"Trust, but verify.") When we tried to have those initial "inspectors" actually inspect the Iranian facilities, the Iranians wouldn't let them enter certain places that we held in suspicion. Why? That was not suppose to happen! But it DID happen, leading us to more or less understand that they were NOT complying with the initial agreement. I was not surprized, nor were most Americans. Most of us suspected that they would lie and cheat and continue their evil path.
Now, at this point, Biden is trying to get the foul deal going again, which, in my opinion, and most everyone elses opinion to which I speak about this issue,.... is crazy, and will cost our country a whole lot of money again, just as was paid out in midnight air flights, to Iran, previously. In NO WAY should we be paying money to those Iranian mullahs! They are totally nuts, viscious, and evil. And they DO NOT intend to comply with that old, stupid deal. They will have their nuclear bomb very, very soon, as we will witness, and they will try to level Israel as soon as they can. However, Israel is watching their (Iranians) every move, and I predict that Israel will bomb the heck out of them before they bomb Isreal. That may actually be the beginning of a World War, which is horrible to think about.
Getting back to your questions, I don't think the Keystone Pipeline is dead, but I've heard that it will not be easy to start the whole thing up again, so at some point, I figure we will just have to stick it out and rev it up again, to benefit the whole country, no matter how much it costs to get it all together and running. It was extremely nuts to shut it down, just because Biden and all the environmentalists want GREEN energy projects. Even with those projects running full speed ahead, our country STILL will need petroleum for a long while, (petroleum-made products are in every facet of our daily living) and the petroleum WE produce is highly MORE CLEAN than what the Russian or Venezuelans or Mexicans produce. What they sell is considered DIRTY OIL and their production processes are much more dirty and environmentally harmful to the earth, than what we do here in our country. So why are the environmentalists griping so much about OUR oil companies? Environmentalists are not thinking straight, and are foolishly spreading false fear to the world. Tackling the environment should be done carefully and with cooperation of ALL countries, which include China, India and Russia. They should not be given a pass just because they have ongoing problems in their countries. That reasoning is BS, in my opinion. ALL countries MUST participate, because OUR country and a few European countries, CAN NOT just give our money away to big environmental programs, as that would substantially pull us WAY down in our standards. These GREEN programs are designed to usurp our wealth, or REDISTRIBUTE our wealth to the rest of the world. It's not fair at all, and it won't work the way they think, anyway. I'm willing to bet that it won't work, but will just fatally hurt our country beyond repair. And that is the aim, I feel, of the whole scheme. The aim is to bring down the US, since so many around our world think we are too rich, selfish, and undeserving of what we have earned over our history. They want to bring us down and consume us (our country) when we no longer have our usual strength to fight them off. Hopefully, I will be dead and buried before that happens. The idea of it makes me sick. I fear for what my kids and my grandson face, unless we can get back on the right track in our country immediately. I'm not sure but that it is already too far gone in the wrong direction.
I could say more, but I'm tired and frustrated. I need a stiff drink.
Stiff drink? Oh, how I wish.... I am off the sauce. I have been for quite a while. It was discovered that I have AFIB and another heart issue Supraventricular tachycardia. I am on blood thinners and a beta blocker. Turns out alcohol, stress and chocolate (not necessarily in that order) are triggers. Nothing like 200 beats per minute heart rate to get your attention, so basically I am not in the mood for a glass of wine or a piece of my favorite, dark chocolate...well I really am, but I scared to try it. Sigh, sometimes I need one, so I can relate to your wanting it. More power to you. Slainté!
Back to Biden....hindsight is 20/20. Shoulda, woulda, coulda...
It is easy to point out flaws once we know what will happen because it already happened. A few days before the invasion, we got a call from our financial advisor, who declared with complete confidence that Putin would not invade at all, it was all a big bluff. Boy was he wrong.... Besides, would Congress really have let Biden stock Ukraine up with massive weapons last year, or even this year before the invasion? Would Mitch McConnell and the rest have cheerfully handed over a few hundred million to the Ukrainians after the stink they made of Biden's son and the "corrupted" government over there? I think they would have vetoed anything Biden suggested just out of spite, thats' my opinion. The only reason they are now is because it is affecting a global economy, and the EU is sticking their collective necks out going without Russian oil and gas, and gearing up NATO. To turn down the bucks now would make them look really bad.
Tar sands. Do you know what that really is? Nasty sticky, really nasty oil, that is really hard to refine, and equally nasty to clean up if it spills. Keystone would have hauled that crap here. Seems if we don't have to see it smell it or if it isn't on our land, we are OK with that. I am not. I am glad it as trashed. That is where it deserves to stay. Weaning off of the nasty stuff, oil. It will take time, effort and sacrifice, but it should be done. It's a habit, like needing alcohol.
It seems a great number of people (including Fox News) continue to focus on the completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline and how it would have tremendous impact on our energy independence. My understanding is this is not correct, at least as first proposed. The pipeline would take crude from the oil sands in Canada and also pick up crude from Montana and North Dakota. It would transport the crude to refineries on the Gulf Coast which are capable of dealing with heavy oil. My understanding is the result was intended for export, not for the US market.
First, did I miss the boat here? Second, if not, why do people keep fixating on this project vs. all of the other plays we have within the US?
As Janulu suggested, the U.S. should have been arming Ukraine to the teeth as soon as Putin started moving to the border, and that includes moving the MIGs from Poland and sending US planes to Poland. Biden should never have said that we would never send ground troops in, even if that was how he felt. He was speaking to the left wingers in his party when he should have been more concerned about what he was communicating to Putin and the rest of the world.
He should have taken Poland up on their very recent offer to move MIGs to Ukraine instead of nixing the deal. Ukraine is being decimated and Poland is picking up the "wretched refuse". I have heard Biden Administration mouthpieces say that the MIGs really wouldn't help much. Well, Ukraine thinks they would, as does Poland, and Poland is more in the line of fire than we are. So whom do you trust -- the people who are fighting or the people who are afraid of Putin?
I'm not sure about a no-fly zone. I simply am not knowledgeable about the impact. But Biden's response is that Putin wouldn't like it. Does it occur to Democrats that Putin should be worried about what the President of the United States would or wouldn't like? Putin is a bully. He will keep pushing until he gets push-back.
Obviously, I am going to disagree with most Democrat politicians on philosophical grounds, but that doesn't mean that I think they are mentally deficient. For example, I disagreed with Obama on almost everything, but at least I thought he was bright guy. Not so with Biden.
I heard part of his talk to Democrats last night. He seems to be stuttering on the P sound. That's not intended as a joke.
What are “tar sands”? “Tar sands” is another name for what is more accurately known as “oil sands,” and are a fossil fuel resource. It is composed of sand, claw, water, and bitumen, which is an oil that is black and viscous. Bitumen is thick oil that doesn’t flow, and for this reason, people (incorrectly) started to commonly call the “oil sands” the “tar sands.” Technically, though bitumen and tar are similar, they are not the same.
The sands can be mined, and then processed, to remove the bitumen. Once processed, then bitumen can be then refined into oil. It is a complex process of extraction and separation that is often harvested through strip mining and underground heating.
Most of the world’s oil, an estimated 2 trillion barrels, is found in the bitumen of tar sands. Accessing this resource allows us to continue building our society while maintaining our current lifestyle. On the other hand, the mining, extraction, and separation process can have a detrimental effect on the environment.
Here are the pros and cons of “tar sands” to consider.
The Pros of Tar Sands
1. It provides a localized economic benefit.
Tar sands that were found in Alberta have helped Canada become the #1 foreign supplier of oil to the United States. This has helped the US become less dependent on OPEC products, provided an economic boon for Canada, and provided communities in Alberta with numerous jobs that wouldn’t be present if the tar sands were not being harvested.
2. It is a secure source of energy.
Although tar sands are not an unlimited resource, they are a relatively stable one. Even in the times of an economic downturn, mining the tar sands and extracting the bitumen continue to provide jobs, generate profits, and keep families from becoming financially desperate. With the largest reserves found in Canada and Venezuela, the bitumen is a relatively secure source of energy for those who depend upon it as well.
3. Environmental changes can be repaired.
For the Alberta tar sands project, the materials that were removed from the site so the mine could be effective have been kept in reserve to restore the land once the bitumen has been completely harvested. Although this won’t replace the trees that were removed, the topsoil and other vegetation has been held in reserve so it can be replaced.
4. Recipients of tar sands experience economic benefits.
Workers in tar sands operations can earn an excellent wage. Many operations have a lack of workers, which means current employees can ask for higher wages and receive them. In the US, where tar sand bitumen is routinely processed, many jobs are created because of this product as well. Just one expansion project in Indiana, for example, that occurred in 2009 created up to 1,400 unionized pipe fitting jobs.
5. Land preservation efforts can occur simultaneously with tar sands operations.
One company involved in the Alberta tar sands operation, Syncrude, spends more than $100 million annually on land restoration efforts. Some of the lands which have been reclaimed have been fully certified by the Canadian government.
6. It fits into existing systems.
Because the bitumen from tar sands can be converted into crude oil through its processing, it can fit into our existing energy infrastructure quite easily. This helps to keep costs down and doesn’t require any changes to societal infrastructures to use the energy resource.
The Cons of Tar Sands
1. Clear-cutting is often required to access deposits.
In the Alberta tar sands operation, most of the operations were to clear the land so that the actual deposit could be accessed. That meant trees had to be clear-cut from the area. Topsoil and other vegetation had to be removed as well. This resulted in a change or loss of habitat for local wildlife over the course of the operation that may not be able to recover.
2. Extracting bitumen from tar sands is carbon-intensive.
The emissions from the average tar sands operation are up to 15% higher than in standard crude oil processing procedures. This increase is due to the depth of the oil in tar sands and the separation process that is required to separate the bitumen from the other components.
3. Dependence on tar sands may just prolong the inevitable.
At current oil consumption rates, the reserves that are found in the global supply of tar sands will last for about 2 more generations. Without a change to other forms of energy, or the discovery of new crude reserves, many societies will be faced with a tough decision in about 40 years about what to do for their needs to be met.
4. The waste products from tar sands are highly toxic.
Once the bitumen is separated from the clay and sand, the remaining soil is highly toxic. To keep it out of groundwater tables, the leftovers are pumped into tailing ponds or waste areas. This process uses a lot of energy that is not always calculated into the final benefits of using tar sands and it causes several toxic ponds to be located all over the landscape. These ponds will likely remain even after a tar sands operation ceases.
5. Leaks from tar sands operations could harm people and animals in the region.
In 2008, a large flock of ducks landed in a tailing pond in Canada. Over 1,600 of them drowned because of the toxic exposure they received from the water of that pond. The Miklisew Cree First Nation tribe believes that leaks from tailing ponds and other tar sands operations is increasing the risks of developing rare and significant cancers in their population.
6. It takes a lot of water to run a tar sands operation.
For the Alberta tar sands project, it takes up to 4.5 gallons of freshwater to be able to produce 1 barrel of oil. Even when operations are highly efficient, it still requires 2 gallons of freshwater to produce a single barrel of oil. In times of drought or famine, using water to produce oil products instead of growing crops or providing the resource to those in need raises ethical questions.
7. Methods of extraction which do not involve strip mining are even worse for the environment.
ConocoPhilips uses a heating method to extract bitumen from tar sands. They expose the bitumen to steam so the product is softened and this allows it to be pumped to the processor. Then the water is recycled so it can be used for steam again. Although this process is friendlier to the local habitat, the burning of natural gas to create steam increases the emission risk by another 10-15% over traditional crude extraction.
The pros and cons of tar sands show us that short-term gains happen, but at the expense of long-term problems. We must work to find a solution that will limit emissions and habitat damage to benefit from this natural resource. If we cannot find this solution, we may run out of bitumen one day and leave a more polluted planet for future generations.
I agree it would have been great to arm Ukraine ahead of the invasion. Hindsight is 20/20 like I pointed out to Janalu. I was looking for some wisdom as to what to do now, aside from starting World War III or wondering if we upset Putin and China by starting a ground war, or an airwar it would cause Putin, a maniac, to set off a nuclear weapon.
Biden stutters. It is unfortunate. As for him being stupid, that is a matter of opinion. My best friend stuttered. It was not a reflection of her intelligence.
I think Trump is dangerous, frivolous and more interested in himself than America.
Putin thrives on division, especially our divisions. Everytime a jounalist from a news media outlet cuts down one of our leaders to create division, it is broadcast on Russian TV and celebrated. The more we are united in our efforts to sanction, isolate and erode Putin's efforts the closer we get to helping Ukraine and the people who live there.
First, I'm not sure anyone would argue producing oil from Canada's tar sands is a clean process. In fact, it's probably the dirtiest process there is. However, it's my understanding that the Canadian corporations in charge of these fields intend to keep producing oil. It's really a matter of how the oil is transported to market. The pipeline is probably the most economical and environmentally friendly (vs. railroad cars and/or tankers). But the US decision to not construct the Keystone XL pipeline will not result in less oil being produced from the tar sands.
Second, your defense of Biden's affliction of stuttering (not a bad case at all) reminds me of President George W. Bush's "smirk". Looking back at pictures of Bush from a much younger age, it's apparent he had a slight facial deformity which caused his mouth to droop on the left side. However, I'm sure you can remember how the press would explode when he said something disagreeable and then "smirked". It seems folks have a propensity to mock leaders rather than rationally disagree with them.
Kurt. In my memory, mocking Presidents is an American comedic past time. My first remembrance is that First Family (Kennedy) album around 1962, then, Johnson's accent and ears, Nixon's shaking peace signs, Ford's stumbling, Carter's Beer brother (can't think of any charachteristic mockings for him off the top of my head,) Reagan's agedness, Bush's NEngland/Maine-ish points of light, and then, it seems, all bets were off. American media outlets were teeming with impressionist comedians. There were hundreds of comedians imitating Bill Clinton as he went through his "encounters" quotes...and W was imitated more than anyone, snide sneer you mention and all. I am not objective enought to think of a specific mocked Obama feature (ears?,) and Trump and Biden...they are seemingly without a mimickery limit.
My favorite mockery at this time is the way Tracy Morgan pronounces Puddin'
Sandra, I wasn't suggesting that Biden's stutter suggested low intelligence. I suspect it is from a combination of age and stress.
You'll have to get used to criticism of Biden. There was plenty of mocking of Bush's intelligence, yet he was somehow able to earn a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
Driving to visit with friends in southern Illinois yesterday, I listened to a really good interview with Princeton's Russian history scholar Stephen Kotkin. He explains a lot about Putin and despots in general. And gives a forecast of the sanctions' impact. You may listen by accessing The New Yorker Radio Hour.
You are correct, Canada will continue to produce oil from the Tar Sands. I found a map that illustrated where the Tar Sand region is in Alberta and also maps out where all the pipelines are. There are numerous pipelines coming out of Canada to the US. It seems we have lots of pipelines and plenty of existing ways to get Canadian oil to Port Arthur and beyond.
Also of note is this map illustrating the areas of existing mining, and proposed mining in Alberta, Canada. The video I posted early wasn't kidding when it stated the area was the size of Florida. It will take money to make this mining clean, big money. Money like that will increase the price of crude. Catch-22. Since profits are a higher priority, I doubt that will happen.
Also, I love Presidential humor, I just felt like picking on Biden for his stutter was like picking on Chelsea Clinton by Rush Limbaugh, when he compared her to a dog - she was 12 years old at the time. I think it is just plain mean. I suppose adult Presidents should expect comedians to pick on them, I suppose I am sensitive to speech issues, particularly stutters. I saw first hand what snide remarks do to individuals with stutters, it doesn't help their issue at all, but makes it worse. I suppose if you don't like Biden, making it worse would make you happy. Biden is no child and I am sure he is used to insensitive remarks about his speech issues. That doesn't mean I have to like it when it happens.
I am sorry about just now answering your question. I drove to Houston to watch my grandson compete in the mutton busting contest at the Houston rodeo. He was the only one to ride the sheep the whole distance out of all the competitors. He got more cheers than George Strait and the announcer said they had to pry him off the sheep at the end and that he was destined to be a bronc rider one day. Then he got robbed of the gold and diamond buckle over politics, but that's another story.
The Keystone Pipeline was just the pipeline that the Left chose to highlite because they were able to garner support from various groups against it. The truth is that Biden shut down every oil and gas pipeline including many that had a much greater impact but the left used the Keystone as it's bell cow. The reasons are that it runs through a large portion of the Lakota and Blackfeet Indian Nation so they got the Indians against it even though it would have provided them construction jobs instead of government handouts. It ran through Montana and the Edge of Nebraska in a beautiful sparsely populated though desolate landscape so they had the environmentalists on board. They emphasized the damage to the enviornment from the construction equipment, so they got the climate change nuts on board. The truth is that the Gulf Coast refineries that were going to receive this heavy crude oil were not running at full capacity because shallower crude zones in the United States where marination and biodegradation of the crude had occurred, were largely mature and produced out. The new shale crude and crude from deeper formations that were coming on line were a much lighter crude or condensate and did not have the heavy ends. You might have noticed that diesel that used to be cheaper than gasoline was now higher than gasoline as a result. The Canada crude had marinated and biodegraded over millions of years in porous shallow sands where production had not matured. Despite that fact, delivering the crude through the Keystone pipeline to the Gulf Coast refineries was cheaper than trucking it. The diesel fuel cost to truck the crude to the Gulf and deadhead back increased the cost of the delivered crude at the refinery. It is also a big myth that railroad or trucking crude is less dangerous and more apt to cause polution than using a pipeline. The spills the last couple of years in Pennsylvania and New York on train deraliments display that fact when they displaced the whole town and required an enormous expenditure to clean up.
The other pipelines that were shut in were even more important in driving up the cost of gasoline. The new rules on metthane releases have limited the amount of time that a combination crude oil and natural gas well can flare gas. Nobody thinks about the fact that one volcanic eruption like Mount St. Helens releases more methane than oil wells would release in hundreds of years. The pipelines to the Eagleford Shale, the Permian Basin and the Delaware Basin were full so new wells could not be drilled unless the operators had a way to put the gas produced down a pipeline. Private Midstream pipeline companies like Kinder Morgan, Energy Transfer, Energy Products Partners, and Williams Pipeline had foreseen this coming bottleneck and had built new pipelines to deliver the gas from these shale basins to reduce compression costs and increase volume. These were shut down along with the Keystone when some of them were already completed and ready to hook up. This is why leased acreage is not being drilled as Psaki blames the oil industry, because the wells cannot be drilled to meet the regulatory requirements.
Those were the major problems before we get to the fact that the Anwar area of Alaska was put off limits and offshore drilling leases were halted. Psaki says there is plenty of leased acreage undrilled offshore, but what she doesn't tell you is that the Federal Government makes you lease a whole acreage block which contains some good acreage and a lot that is just ocean floor that is unproductive. The offshore drillers have to add the cost of the uneconomic acreage to their cost of doing business, but they damn sure are not going to spend millions of dollars to drill an unproductive well just because they have it leased.
That is my view on the matter: So Biden and his Administration are trying to play the blame game with the oil industry. To hear the left talk, they have never ever made a miscalculation in their lives. Well, these unintended consequences fall clearly on the left's lack of knowledge on how the oil business works and they think they can lie and get away with it. It works on nearly half the voting idiots in this country.
Nice response to my question, but I think my main question is still open. Was the intention of the Keystone XL pipeline to flow crude for export only or for internal us in the US?
While we do have quite a few pipelines, most are running near capacity. That's why the Keystone XL pipeline was viewed as incremental capacity to flow crude to Gulf Coast refineries. I thought the refined products were to be exported and not used in the US.
I agree with you that all presidents are subject to mocking and humor. In fact, most handle the humor rather well and make it a "positive" rather than negative. My point on President Bush was that the press often seemed to interpret his facial expressions as sneers and smirks rather than recognizing his facial deformity. Likewise, those who dislike President Biden tend to interpret his stuttering as a sign of old age and dementia rather than a verbal weakness. Not fair in either case. And in both cases the interpretation is not meant to be funny, but mean spirited.
