To the Editor: Latta thanked for pipeline vote
Written by Anderson Lee   
Wednesday, 01 February 2012 09:32
I'm don't follow the logic of Mr. Pretzer's Jan. 25th letter regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. His criticism of Congressman Latta lies in the fact that Latta wants to help "companies eager to increase their profits."
Are we to understand then that corporations ought to seek a decrease in profits? These companies employ many people, and increasing profits means greater job security for the workers as well as potential for creating new jobs.
Mr. Pretzer goes on to argue against the pipeline on the basis that it might not create as many jobs as projected. So what? Suppose we anticipate 10,000 new jobs but it only creates, say, 3,000.
That's still 3,000 jobs that don't exist now, and a step in the right direction.
Then there is the matter of President Obama's claim that the 60-day deadline for a decision is too short.
This is coming from the same President who rushed a vote on the Healthcare Reform Act before legislators even had time to read the bill. Moreover, this pipeline has been in the works for years and exploring it's potential should have been a priority for this administration all along.
As for the environmental concerns, I would point out that Canada is going to drill and transport the oil regardless of what gets decided. If we don't buy it, another country will. Consequently, somebody somewhere is going to build the infrastructure necessary, and then that country's environment would be disrupted.
Opposing environmentalism is not tantamount to being anti-nature. Most non-environmentalists do in fact care about the planet. At the same time, we believe that American ingenuity and technology can overcome the obstacles and minimize the impact while reaping the benefits to the economy and the nation's energy supply. Thank you, Congressman Latta, for supporting this investment in our future.
Anderson Lee
Bowling Green
 

Comments  

 
# 2012-02-01 10:44
Great letter. If more people understood the anti-business nature of this presidency and the damage he has done there would be outrage. Instead they blindly listen to what they are told by the left.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-01 14:35
AGREED - Good Letter Mr Lee!!!

Be ready for Pretzer, OG, Brutus, Chris and the hand full of "Liberals" in the area to "regurgitate" the Liberal Agenda in response to our SUPPORT of Congressman Latta.

They are "oppressed" and feel threaten by the Common Sense thinking of the MAJORITY of us in Wood County.

Soon, we will be reading how the "mild" winter, we are having, is the fault of "global warming", even though this winter is NOT even amony the warmest Winters on record for our area.

In the 1800's, we had at least 10 warmer winters than this one, yet the "Liberal/Enviromentalist s" will swear our current mild winter is DUE TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE????

DAH!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 01:10
Ruralguy--I know you are in the majority in Wood County by implying that global climate change is somehow a hoax--but if 97% of credentialed climatologists agree that it is real and caused by human agency, it isn't a liberal conspiracy. You kind of flushed your credibility on this one, and did so without prompting and with goading. It would be wrong to attribute a region's higher-than-normal weather conditions to global warming, because such things depend on planet-wide measurements over a number of years, and there is settled consensus on the matter. Latta doesn't understand science, nor does he support the work of the universities in his district, but he does understand marching orders from the oil and gas industry. As you do, too, I guess.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 09:39
Quoting Christopher Williams:
97% of credentialed climatologists agree that it is real and caused by human agency, it isn't a liberal conspiracy.

Chris:

Sorry, I disagree.

Not sure where you obtained that statistic, but Climate Change has been occuring since the beginning of time and will continue with or without "human agency".
Do these same climatologists attribute the Black Swamp disappearing or the melting of the Glaciers and creation of the Grand Canyonto "human agency"?

Should it surprise me that 97% of climatologists take a Liberal thinking view on this issue? No more than someone saying that 97% of College Professors or Journalists/Media are Liberal in their thinking.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 14:54
Actually, the Black Swamp was drained. By humans. The glaciers are melting because of holes in the ozone. Holes created by CFCs. Which were created by humans.

Denial will not save our grandchildren.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 17:42
Right!

The glaciers that melted and created the Grand Canyon and numerous other examples around the world were the result of human interference?

Give us a break!

You need to review some more history of this area and the world?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 15:39
3 courses in geology at BGSU have indicated that YES, the glacier are melting at an EXPONENTIAL rate that can only be anthropogenic. Not much real history out there in the country, ruralguy, you should consider a college course, if you can tolerate critical thinking.

Your grandchildren are going to be intimately familiar with the material you are neglecting.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-04 10:07
Been there Done that!

I currently have 3 College Degrees, so I think I can tolerate your ego and "critical thinking"?

Question may be can you handle the "critical thinking" while maintaining some "common sense" and "logic"??

As I stated earlier, Climate Change has been occuring since the beginning of time and will continue with or without "human agency".

Many areas of the world would not be inhabitable today, if not for the changes in climate over the past several thousand years?

My granchildren will be fine as long as the "liberals" DON'T SPEND them into a Government Debt that their generation can not survive? That will be the major problem facing their future.

If we allow the Democrats to continue down this Socialistic path, our grandchildren will have difficulties.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 09:00
Having 3 college degrees is wonderful, but if none of your coursework prepared you to understand the issues of geology and climatology, then you still can't claim superior knowledge about the subject. Each and every point you make about climate change has been debunked or shown to be a misunderstandin g by credentialed science. Oh, and debt, "Democrat," and "socialism" are not, in fact, synonyms. Doing nothing to combat anthropogenic climate change is only going to create serious crises down the road (as Dr. Vincent has demonstrated with regard to diminishing water resources in Tanzania and even the Great Lakes). Why do you think the Chinese--the biggest emerging consumer market--are trying to corner the international market on the much-derided "green" technologies?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 16:39
The difficulties will be finding suitable drinking water and staving off disease from environmental pollution. Your economic worries show where your priorities are. I doubt that you learned critical thinking with your degrees. What were they business or marketing?

Truly, your grandchildren will never forgive, should never forgive. It is not about liberal or conservative as much as you would like it to be. There is no socialism in the US, look up the definition sometime. Even the democrats are staunch capitalists. ANTHROPOGENIC climate change is a a new and real fact that you are refusing to deal with.

...will never forgive...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 07:19
Must be three worthless degrees that have not served you well. They never taught you how to form a theory or analyze one. One of them must be a degree in denial with a minor in burying your head in the sand.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 11:10
Quoting BGSU ALUM:
Not much real history out there in the country


Now that may be the MOST nieve statement that I have read in these posts?

If you really believe that statement, then there in lies your problem with understanding this issue.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-06 11:57
Are you saying that the rural AM-radio bumpkins know history better than the academics at the university?

wow.

SOMEONE sure is naive (sp).

You better go, I heard your grandkids coughing.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 16:23
To be credentialed, a climatologist must test theories through the collection and analysis of data, and, if engaged in direct research, publish these findings in peer reviewed journals. It is not opinion; it is science. Science is neither liberal nor conservative. The figure (which may be off by one or two percentage points) can be found in any number of sources that report research on climate science. It isn't hard to find. The only people who dispute this are reps of the oil/gas industry and some scientists who have no specialization in climatology who are payed to put their PhD behind the bogus claims of the fossil fuel industry. As to your comments about college professors/journalists, you would have to be more specific about what you mean by "liberal" in order to say anything meaningful.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 16:31
Ask Bob Vincent of the BGSU geology department, whose research specializes in climate issues, why he doesn't think global warming is a hoax and why he feels it is directly attributable to human agency.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 14:19
Quoting Christopher Williams:
Ask Bob Vincent of the BGSU geology department, whose research specializes in climate issues, why he doesn't think global warming is a hoax and why he feels it is directly attributable to human agency.

OMG Chris! Just imagine for a moment, just WHY Mr. Vincent might "think", Climate Change isn't a hoax? Could he possibly have a "dog in the hunt"? Of COURSE he does!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 17:08
So, in addition to impugning Dr. Vincent's character, you are saying that the opinion of a geologist who specializes in climate/earth issues is illegitimate? Does that mean that the opinions of any specialists are especially illegitimate when it comes to their specialty? This may be the single most brain-dead thing you have ever said on this forum.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-04 08:46
You also clearly don't understand how the scientific/academic world works. To build a long career, as Dr. Vincent has, you have to publish in peer reviewed journals, conduct experiments, and test your hypotheses against facts as they change. There is nothing "political" about it. As I have said many times previously on this forum, the most ridiculous overreach of the modern American right is the reclassificatio n of scientists as "liberals," which they do whenever scientists come up with observations that run counter to the manipulative concerns of the oil/gas industry that contributes so heavily to their election coffers (or when they come up with ideas that trouble the right-wing religious base, such as evolutionary biology).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-04 13:46
Dr. Vincent is a highly respected first-class scientist, "Harry." Have you EVER looked at his CV? I have. Do you even know what CV is?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 11:48
I am fairly certain that most of the readers here know what a "CV" is.

A Curriculum Vitae (CV) is NOTHING more than a long version of a person's resume.

Your EGO is showing, not only is your "Pen Name" - (BGSU ALUM), but now in your "better/smarter than you" postings?

Please, spare us your ego, just share your thoughts/opinions.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-06 11:51
I'm sure Harry will appreciate your explanation with bad use of caps. If you would share your thoughts & opinions without ego yourself, we may take your radical extreme-right rantings of ignorance more seriously.

Back to the point, do YOU know anything about Dr. Vincent or can you cite ANY climate scientist who refutes his work?

...didn't think so. I don't need an ego to know what a CV is, but you obviously do.

As it turns out anthropogenic climate change is real, oil has peaked, and for-profit economic policies are never going to help. Denying science or scientific endeavor in lieu of political ignorance will not help future generations. shame shame.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 13:57
You have proven my point loud and clear?

Given time, your maturity level might improve?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 07:21
Questions of maturity aside, what point of yours did ALUM prove? The original point _I_ made was that careful consideration of the work of a local scientist might put some humility into the climate skeptics. Harry then claimed that Dr. Vincent had a vested interest in his outcomes and thus his research was more or less junk, a statement that displayed appalling ignorance of scientific method in general and Dr. Vincent's work in particular. Unfortunately, it also shows how much the spin placed on the scientific community by outsiders with a vested interest in discrediting the research can, with the eager help of conservative media, hold a sizeable chunk of a gullible public in thrall, even to the point of thinking 95-97% of the specialist community are liars and con artists.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 12:15
I believe I stated in my 1st Response to you, in this blog, that; "Climate Change has been occuring since the beginning of time and will continue with or without "human agency".

As for Vincent, I am NOT familiar with his "work" NOR have I seen you or BGSU ALUM post any "Specifics" of his work/opinions, to give a response?

As for, "what point of yours did ALUM prove?" She (Alum); I was stating that SHE again lived up to my view of her when I said, ("Your EGO is showing, not only is your "Pen Name"-(BGSU ALUM), but now in your "better/smarter than you" postings?)

Change in the World's Climate is and will Always Continue to Change and has been changing since the beginning of time. I DON'T buy into the idea that it is something that has ONLY evolved in recent time. That's ALL!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 15:40
Sure, it is always changing. The DEFINITION of change includes 2 things: direction and rate. Currently it is changing in an increasingly unbalanced direction at an EXPONENTIAL rate. This is directly due to human agency. Denial will not save our water supply.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 16:33
I think you know that by putting the word "work" in "scare quotes" you are implying that you are withholding judgment as to whether it is legit or not, which is too bad. It also puts your spat with BG Alum (sorry; I was unaware of her gender) in a slightly different delight. Anyway, here is his bio at the BGSU website: http://personal.bgsu.edu/~rvincen/background.html

He speaks frequently at Rotary and Kiwanis events. But his work has led him to investigate water-table and temperature related issues (such as the Great Lakes algae bloom). These issues are directly related to RECENT global warming issues. He's crunched the data and will talk about it. And, while obviously climate change has been happening since the beginning of time, it has been accelerating recently.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 19:00
Thanks for the obvious? I have read the BGSU bio on him, but that does NOT give much detail on his work, other than to highlight his background and show areas where he has participated etc.

What I was saying is that I am NOT familiar with the Specifics/Findings of his work, thus I am not in a position to either support or refute his work.

Obviously, I am totally against people who do not respect our water supply and polute it or trash our environment.

My point from the beginning is that I do not believe that climate change is something that only happened recently. It is an ongoing event that is going to continue through the end of time.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 19:03
(cont)

Chris, I would assume that both you and Alum, like my family, recycle. I would conclude that the vast majority of Wood Cty residents also recycle.

Since the "majority" of Wood Cty is Republican, one would have to conclude that the "Right" is NOT anti-environment as many liberals would like people to believe?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-09 08:59
not sure what recycling has to do with the bigger issue. For the record, I HAVE heard him present his most recent research in person; I serve on a couple committees with him. His research directly links degradation of water supply in the equator regions and changing Ph levels in the Great Lakes with anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, he is concerned that it may be happening at a more rapid rate than is widely publicized. Global warming skepticism is nothing at this point other than highly effective political demogoguery subsidized by the fossil fuel industry.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-11 05:30
Nice of you to take time out from commenting on LTEs to participate on committees. They were obviously looking to to include someone who knows everything about everything.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-12 08:32
Are you annoyed by my existence, M1ke? Still mad that i had the nerve to say that American Culture Studies was a useful major?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a certain range of topics about which I am passionate, one of which is the legitimate work of my colleagues and myself. You on the other hand, are not stopped by your ignorance from posting snide stimulus-response right wing remarks. Contempt reflects back on the one who voices it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 10:24
More maturely: where is that citation refuting Dr. Vincent?

The silence is deafening.

You prove my point every time you post. Even when you don't. Being wrong is just being wrong. No amount of debate changes that status.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 16:46
I'll take the bait further on the "Liberalism" of college professors. Science professors are not, on average, significantly more politically liberal than most people, though they tend to prefer libertarianism to culture-conservatism. Conservatives, however, TEND to be very distrustful of ambiguity, prefer clear and distinct ideas and definite truths. They also tend to generalize from isolated cases about things they dislike, even when rational analysis argues otherwise. Some feel that the higher "truth" of scripture must always trump data and rational analysis. Historians, philosophers, literature, arts, and cultural studies professors have to be comfortable with ambiguity and suspicious of absolutes in order to do their job professionally; that's what critical thinking is.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 09:41
(cont)
Study the climate for NW Ohio since the early 1800s, when they began keeping records, and you will see that today's weather is not much different than it was, on ocassion, in the era.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 16:27
As I said, in shorthand above, tracing weather patterns in a specific location or time of year says little about climate change. Climate change data has to account for global conditions and many other measurements, which is why responsible scientists are hesitant to attribute this warm winter to climate change in general. Weather is not climate. But you can be sure, the first March snowstorm to hit the east coast will have people in the media squawking "climate change is a hoax!"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 01:23
I'd also add that it is insulting to any of the people you name--and any intelligent readers of this blog--to suggest that opposition to Latta is a product of "regurgitation" of the Liberal Agenda. While I sometimes find opinion media entertaining, i don't get my basic information from there, and unless you argue that published sources like Scientific American are "liberal," you are barking up the wrong tree. It is almost as braindead as Rush's recent assertion that America would be a solidly conservative country if it weren't for "liberal media bias." It's also absurd to suggest these people can't think for themselves when your comments here and about Solyndra could literally have been cut and pasted from conservative media sources.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 11:06
Quoting Christopher Williams:
It's also absurd to suggest these people can't think for themselves when your comments here and about Solyndra could literally have been cut and pasted from conservative media sources.


So what part of "the Energy Dept put out $535 Million of your and my tax dollars in Loan Guarantees" is false???

It is either a fact or not? Do the homework and you will see that it is FACT!

How is that a cut and paste from conservative media sources???
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-04 07:30
BTW, the Solyndra loan was part of a $36 billion program. They were one of the first companies to receive the loan, but they did not go belly up until 2 1/2 years later, are the only company of their size (or with a loan that size) to do so, and this happened primarily because of competition from the much-more heavily subsidized emergency Chinese solar panel industry. Republicans are using Solyndra--despite being only 1/70th of a by-and-large successful program--to discredit the entire alternative energy industry and government support of it, as well as to discredit the whole industry. The effort has been underwritten--as so much else these days--by the oil/gas industry. The emphasis on Solyndra, and the highly debatable assertion that it may have been criminal, is what is cut and pasted.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 08:44
I meant "emerging," not "emergency"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 09:06
Chris

I wonder if you will be holding on to this same biased view once Congress is done investigating the handling of Solyndra by this Administration. I am of the belief that once ALL the "Facts" come out there will be some vacancies in the current Administration.

Currently this Administration is stone walling the relase of realted materials, not only with the "Solyndra Debacle", but also with the Holder "Fast and Furious" screw up.

Oddly enough, the Obama Administration is attempting to use the "Failed Defense" of the Nixon Administration for NOT releasing the materials that have been subpoenaed by Congress, in both the Solyndra and Fast and Furious case?

DAH, Talk about poor judgement!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-06 08:10
I really don't have a dog in the hunt with the particularities of Solyndra. Of greater concern, though, is how the right is using the problems with Solyndra to discredit any efforts with regard to alternative energy technologies. And it is no surprise that the Koch brothers (through their SuperPAC Americans for Prosperity) are so energized on the issue. It is the old ploy of using the one failure to discredit the whole program. Yet there is no point in having special loan guarantees if a program is risk-free. It is not unlike using an anomalous after-crash problem with one Chevy Volt to discredit government investment in electric vehicle technology. It basically boils down to people saying government should play no role in helping technologies that are not yet economically profitable.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 13:55
I have a feeling that when all the "facts" come out on both the "Solyndra Debacle", the Holder "Fast and Furious" problem, all of us will see things in a different light?

I look forward to our opinions then?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 07:28
Even if the Solyndra problem is the scandal some are trying to make it out to be--and the jury is absolutely still out on the matter--it doesn't change whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, or whether the U.S. needs to be promoting alternatives to fossil fuels before the industry has achieved profitability. Not only do the vast majority of climatologists agree on this, but even some funded by climate skeptic activists (like the Koch brothers) have reached the same conclusions. Fast and Furious is a completely separate issue. But it is a tired old tactic of the right to use the exception in order to discredit the rule, even if the rule is based on none of the things that created the exception.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-01 20:31
One: The NY Times in a story listed Bobby as one of the ten *worst* legislators when it comes to the environment!

Two: Bobby isn't allowed any common sense, because he's nothing more than a toady to the 1%ers in this country!

He has a little orange-faced Lord and Master named John Boehner, for whom he's chief water-carrier, butt-kisser and boot-polisher.

Third: The pipeline was to through a *major* aquifer. Who's going to pay to try and decontaminate it when the pipe ruptures.

Fourth: The oil was to go to the overseas market and NOT for US consumption! Why else was the line ending in Houston when there are refineries along the way?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 14:51
Nobody reads the NY times except for a few kooky liberals. The only good use for the NY times is to line your pet's cage. My worst legislators list includes names like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Brown, Kaptur.

2) Liberals have no common sense and are the minority in this country even though their arrogance tells them otherwise.

3) Maybe we should forget oil which we all use and dump more billions of tax dollars into more Green Joke successes like the Obama Motors Chevy Volt and Solyndra.

4) Obama's BP contributors didn't approve of it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 17:13
As I said, people who throw the words "kooky liberal" at anything they disagree with are likely to chuck away any political advantage they may think they currently hold.

2. "liberals have no common sense" is not really a conversation-starter is it, Nino? First, define "liberal." Then, define "common sense." I dare you to find any real example of the former who possesses none of the latter.

3. The Volt is not a "Green Joke." You have just been cutting and pasting from Foxnation or other internet blog, haven't you?

for that matter, based on your posts, you can't tell the difference between opinion media and journalism and factual reporting.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 07:31
The Volt is a joke since the original proposed Volt was an all electric car and the production model has a gas engine. Don't worry Honda and Toyota will come through with a better alternative to what the backwards thinking american corporations can produce. Just look at the Nissan Leaf.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 17:20
Have you ever actually read the NY Times, Nino, or do you just echo what people on the right say about it? So kooky liberals are those who seek out research journalism and detailed reporting. If that is your definition of "kooky"--which is a definition you could widely find among the college professors and other educated professionals who live in your community--then I suppose you find kooky anybody who does not share your level of ignorance?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 11:05
Come on Chris, even you would have to admit that the NY Times has a "liberal bias" (definatley NOT a conservative slant) to the majority of their articles?

I don't know many people who would consider the NY Times as the "independent/unbiased" meida source?

Careful, you are letting Nino get to you and are showing your frustration by referring to her "ignorance"? Not like you?

By the way, I know a number of professors and "highly educated" people, who many would refer to as "kooky". I guess it would depend on the connotation with which it is used?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-06 08:19
Fair enough. But I would say this about bias: it is inescapable, perhaps, but the key is transparency, that the individual journalists reveal clearly their "subject position" as they are gathering information. The bottom line is: does the NYTimes report things that run counter to a particular ideological narrative? All the time. Do Newscorp publications/networks? Not so much. Even the NYT editorial page shows diversity and independence. Does the WSJ? Does the NYT employ first-hand journalists who do investigative research around the world at great personal risk? Absolutely. Does Fox News? No, because it is a money-loser and would fail to entertain/flatter its most loyal customers, who really could care less about anything outside their own world.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 17:58
Marlene,

Do you really think your "condescending" style of name calling causes anyone to take anything you have to say "seriously"??

I doubt that Very Much!

If you have a desire/need to post on these blogs, Please have the courtesy to just give your opinion/thoughts and leave the "childish condescending", sometimes slanderous, name calling out of your posts.

They not only make you look bad, they make your whole "liberal viewpoint" look like a joke!

A little Maturity, on your part, might be usefull in getting readers to consider your opinions more seriously.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 00:53
Well, my dear... the minute you start having an open mind and consider our opinions instead of listening to bloviated banal blowhards like Lush Limburger and Lyin' Cryin' Dreck, Shammity, ad nauseum maybe you'll get some respect.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 13:52
NO real response necessary as You have again shown your inability to avoid your "condescending, immature, childish" style.

You should really try to liken yourself to Chris, as he is able to make his point and do it with class and style! As a result, most people take time to read his posts and at least consider his view point.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 07:27
The pipeline extension was proposed since most of the line is already there. The company wanting to build it looked at this as a cheap alternative to gain access to an existing port so they could export to the world market. Also since it is a Canadian company they could avoid upsetting the eco system in their home country by going through ours. I am happy they were denied.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-01 23:29
Your grand-children will NEVER forgive you.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 00:27
Very good letter! The Democrats had their chance to prove themselves with their super majority from 2008-2010, the republicans could not block anything then. The Democrats failed the country and it showed when many liberals got canned in 2010. Christopher and the other kooky liberals that comment here had better get use to it because in the 2012 elections Obama will be getting canned too. It's time to take America back!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 08:30
Nino, there was no supermajority from "2008-2010" as you indicate. The President did not take office until Jan 2009, did not have 60 filibuster-proof democrats+indie s in the senate until Al Franken was seated, did not have Ted Kennedy available consistently before his death, one of the indies (Lieberman) voted more reliably with Republicans, as often did Ben Nelson, and Scott Brown took office in Jan 2010. You have a completely simplistic view of how our government works, spoon-fed to you by the media you parrot (intentionally or not). There is nothing "kooky" about me unless you completely believe in the fact-free alternative universe that conservative media, the oil/gas special interests, and conservative politicians have created for you.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 14:27
Reality check, Christopher. The Democrats failed working together when they had the chance. Stop blaming the GOP. People are more informed now and don't fall for liberal propaganda. That's why more of your party will be getting canned this year.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 17:14
So you are not going to admit that you made a factual error in your statement about supermajorities ?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-04 13:48
Nino probably has to look up the definition of "super-majority" now. I wonder if he'll learn ANYTHING....
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 17:23
BTW, considering everything you post seems cut and pasted from conservative propaganda, I don't think you know what propaganda is. I should add, "people like Nino listen more attentively to their marching orders from conservative media figures like Rush, Glenn, Hannity, and Fox 'n Friends and are now prepared to reject any fact-based news and information as liberal propaganda, and will be prepared to go into open revolt when their party doesn't win as handily as they think they will."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 17:38
Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009. Scott Brown was sworn in on February 4, 2010. This gave the Democrats 58 seats. The two independents voted with the Democrats about 80% of the time - and even more when the issue involved huge debt increases. During this seven month super-majority period, the senate passed the stimulus (without reading it), and ObamaCare ("we will have to pass it to find out what's in it.")

To blame the lack of cohesive movement on the Democrat side on anything other than a lack of organization is disingenuous. Mr. Chappaquiddick should have had himself replaced - but his party would rather lose votes than do that! The Democrats inability to control Ben Nelson is their own fault. Blame, blame, blame!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-09 09:05
Whatever. The parties until the anti-war movement of the 1960s and Nixon's "Southern Strategy" of the late 60s/early 70s were grand coalitions with an overlap in the middle. In the past 15 years they have hardened ideologically and the right, particularly, has sought to purge moderates running for national office. Forcing the Senate to have to have a supermajority in order to get anything accomplished is abuse of the filibuster rule when practiced by either party; it has been invoked more by this last congress than any in history, even to block routine appointments, to the extent that it forces the senate into an unconstitutiona l state of affairs. You have to have a simplistic view of things to blame either party for not being a monolith.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 08:33
And if Republicans ever bothered to look outside their own self-constructed bubble of echo-conservatism, they will notice that Obama may well not get canned, especially given the two highly flawed front-runners who are vying for the privilege of trying to unseat him. And conservatives like Nino who call moderate liberals (and the moderate conservatives who sometimes agree with them) "kooky" may pave the way to actually losing the House.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 11:27
Nino -- From 2008-10, the Democrats did not -- I repeat... NOT have a supermajority in the Senate! The DNC had 58 senators, which included Independent Bernie Sanders.

The *only* way to get around the 60-vote cloture (ie ending debate and allow a vote) rule imposed on the Senate by the GOP during the Bush regency, the Democrats had to convince Joe Leiberman and/or some of the moderate GOPers left in the Senate to cross the aisle and vote for cloture!

Stop listening to know-nothing, lying blowhards like that drug-addled Lush Limburger, and maybe reality will open up your eyes.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 14:21
Lol! Always some excuse for democrat failure. Take a real close look at what Obama had promised us for hope and change. Very little accomplished. Unemployment still high after all his so called shovel ready jobs were gonna fix it, Out of control spending, and Scandals like Solyndra and Fast and Furious. The list is never ending of failure. Four more years isn't going to fix it, time to can Obama this election.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 08:51
um. Nino: you were the one who brought up the "super-majority" argument. Marlene, like I, simply was pointing out your error, not inventing an "excuse." Your premise was wrong; period. Republican leaders simply salivate when they can count on politically simplistic, easily manipulated and led people like yourself. But relying on an "alternative reality machine" based on the conservative blogosphere/echo-chamber is a very risky strategy in a general election. It is about betting on the ignorance of the American people. Oh, and as much as it might surprise the ridiculing Republicons, voters in 2008 were more motivated by real policy differences than by the fluffy "hope" and "change" mantra.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 18:30
Quoting Nino:
Lol! Always some excuse for democrat failure. Take a real close look at what Obama had promised us for hope and change. Very little accomplished. Unemployment still high after all his so called shovel ready jobs were gonna fix it, Out of control spending, and Scandals like Solyndra and Fast and Furious. The list is never ending of failure. Four more years isn't going to fix it, time to can Obama this election.

Hmmm. Let's see Obama ended the war in Iraq, that was the 1st war the USA was involved in, that the USA started for NO REASON. The war in Afganistan will be over for "US" next year. The US is not BLEEDING the 750,000 lost jobs, WE were bleeding when he FIRST took office. The list goes on and on. NINO better get ready for HUMBLE PIE, your gonna be eating a lot of it, when Obabma is re-elected.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 18:30
Nino probably has a Gingrich bumper sticker on his car people.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 00:55
More like a Santorum sticker....
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 15:09
ew. Sticky Santorum?!?!? Let's keep it clean, folks!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 08:47
Careful, ALUM, when you make light of that man. The hatred many even in the moderate center have for him is well-earned over many years on account of his social, religious, and political rigidity and his belief in big-government social conservatism. The naughty internet meme that was spawned was widely seen as a kind of "poetic justice." However, he is also smart, honest, consistent, and more articulate than his immediate opponents. That his honestly held opinions may be out of the mainsteam and even completely fictional will not matter to many in his party who can't rally behind Romney or Gingrich. If people want to stop him, they will have to do so with arguments and facts, not ridicule; Marlene's comment is actually an apt perception of where some on this forum are coming from.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-08 15:45
It's no problem. Opposing that kind of sick ideology with "arguments and facts" is quite easy. I'm not sure that facts and arguments mean ANYTHING to the close-minded sheep who follow that line of thinking. I remain free to ridicule them. A lot. A whole lot. A ridiculous laugh-fest of a lot of ridicule for what is certainly a dangerous and immoral ideology. Don't fear Chris: ridicule is only one of many methods to discredit this excuse for a man. All options remain on the table.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 09:58
That's funny nino. The country was headed towards the 2nd Great Depression, 1st one was also perpetrated by a Repub, and President Obama and that "super majority" diverted it, no thanks to the Repubs. Thank you President Obama and Nancy Pelosi!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 14:54
Lol! Yeh thanks Obama and Pelosi for making things worse! Pelosi was demoted as speaker last election for the wonderful job she did. Now lets see how Obama is rewarded in the next election when he's out a job.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 15:40
Do you seriously swallow everything you hear on AM radio? Sad.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 15:18
Do you really think Obama will be out a job, come next election? Seriously? Everyone has the right to vote and believe the way you want, and I don't mind if you hate Obama or love him (barely lukewarm myself), but are you seeing his opposition? Anyone who is a right winger, and is upset when Obama gets another 4 years at the next election has no one to blame but their own party! These guys are a complete joke, and if you really feel Obama will be out, you are seriously delusional. For a while Perry was a front runner, and the man can hardly read! I would bet that the landslide will be bigger than his first election.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-02 16:52
RuralGuy, for anyone saying that moderate liberals "regurgitate" liberal agendas, maybe you should review your statements about global warming. The 97% of climatologists is a fact, and for you to say that because in NW Ohio, our temperatures have not followed suit with global warming patterns? Bro that is just ignorant. You are aware that there is a lot more earth than NW Ohio, right. You are regurgitating the conservative agenda to a much greater extent. Next you will be telling us Evolution didnt happen.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-03 22:10
Does anyone here have any experience in the oil industry? Didn't think so. If you know anything about pipeline construction you know that until the entire route is approved you don't get permitted. Thank the Great State of Nebraska and it's Governor.The aquafer and enviromental issues can be addressed by placing a pipe inside of a pipe or running it above ground like they did in Alaska provided Nebraska agrees to a route. Canada doesn't want to run that line throught the Rockies. Oil Sands Crude is a pain to run, ask any old Sun Oil Toledo man. Too many minerals that cause embrittlement and spectacular fires. No new refineries planned so the jobs being quoted are way to high. Even with 5 or 6 points to start, 3-4 year construction,on ce it's built it takes a minimum workforce. Mr. Latta voted as told to vote, following orders that's all.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 01:03
Absolutely, DD! Not to mention that the pipeline could end anywhere close to a refinery closer to the Canadian border, but since the refined product is heading to the overseas market, that's the reason it was ending at Houston.

Right now, the US is *exporting* more oil than we're importing! Why? Profit, of course! If all the oil we're exporting now was solely for domestic consumption, prices at the pump would be *half* of what it is now, no doubt!

Speculators are the sole reason gas is so high right now. Curb them, and the price would immediately go under $3/gal!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-05 22:55
nino and ruralguy, here's something to read.
http://obamaachievements.org/list
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-06 13:52
Quoting brutus:
nino and ruralguy, here's something to read.
http://obamaachievements.org/list

Thank you very much brutus. I went to that site (http://obabaachievement.org/list), VERY accurate, and organized to display all the great things our President Obama, has done in his 1st of 2 terms. I know nino, and his similar type indiviuals will say "all lies", can't blieve anything the liberal journalists print to read. Oh well where's nino, with his response to your posting of "what President Obama had done so-far"?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-06 17:56
"Income floor for medical expense deductions for individuals age 65 and older (and their spouses) remains at 7.5% through 2016; Raise 7.5% floor to 10% for all others (1/1/13) (HCR) ref"

From the list. This means even less people will be able to deduct their medical expenses against their taxable income. This shouldn't be listed as an accomplishment. If it were to be done correctly, it would have been lowered. Now, if you don't spend over 10% of your income in medical costs, you may not be able to deduct, which means you are hit even harder with taxes.

Now, this doesn't seem like a positive accomplishment, but I guess that's not the name of the list. Several other items on the tax list aren't accomplishments , as they were planned sunset provisions.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 11:03
Good point by Nathan. I could be wrong, I'm not a tax expert. But it seem's this is a tax issue of ind. over 65, who need over 7.5% of their inc. in med bills (which isn't hard to do for anyone). If (7.5%) is the case, then these ind., then are abled to file a long form (itemizing their indiv. dedctns) when filing their yearly inc. tax forms. It also seems to me many republicans are being very critical of our President in their opinions of him. Instead of looking at his MANY accomplishments , these people look for "anything", they can to say "he hasn't done a good job", of being a good President for the American People. This is their right however, as a tax-paying American citizen. I won't take that away from them however. These people need to make themselve available for debates,and respect the the people who don't agree with them.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 11:03
Good point by Nathan. I could be wrong, I'm not a tax expert. But it seem's this is a tax issue of ind. over 65, who need over 7.5% of their inc. in med bills (which isn't hard to do for anyone). If (7.5%) is the case, then these ind., then are abled to file a long form (itemizing their indiv. dedctns) when filing their yearly inc. tax forms. It also seems to me many republicans are being very critical of our President in their opinions of him. Instead of looking at his MANY accomplishments , these people look for "anything", they can to say "he hasn't done a good job", of being a good President for the American People. This is their right however, as a tax-paying American citizen. I won't take that away from them however. These people need to make themselve available for debates,and respect the the people who don't agree with them.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-02-07 11:51
WoW, this debate is still going on here. I am both impressed and alarmed. Mostly pleased to have the freedom to sing out like this. My hats off to Marlene and Ron and here are some facts I find interesting. 31 pages of facts, under the graph use the slide to scroll through the pages read the facts and then see if you can see where the country went wrong tax reform is needed and it would seem history dictates the rich/wealthy need an adjustment.... http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates#lets-begin-with-a-look-at-the-top-income-tax-bracket-since-the-federal-income-tax-was-started-in-1913-as-you-can-see-relative-to-history-its-currently-very-low-1
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

NOTE: Comments are moderated. Comments have a 800 character limit! Comments are not posted until reviewed by Sentinel staff. Depending on the time of day you submit comments there may be a delay in posting to the website. If you see a comment that you think needs our attention, please e-mail hbrown@sentinel-tribune.com.


Front Page Stories

Rossford seeks input on schools
05/19/2012 | DAVID DUPONT Sentinel Staff Writer
article thumbnail

Ron Vincent came prepared with pencils, brainstorming exercises and blowout noise make [ ... ]


Perrysburg Twp. tries EMS/fire levy
05/19/2012 | CHAYSE HELD Sentinel Staff Writer
article thumbnail

PERRYSBURG - Perrysburg Township Board of Trustees have approved the placement of a ne [ ... ]


Other Front Page Articles