|
|
Post by Hugh on Jun 18, 2009 0:03:13 GMT -5
YOU give ME one justifiable reason why we need to wait: 1) for the permission of a foreign country to build a pipeline through, thereby cutting off a huge chunk of revenue for one of their own nat gas companies, just so their country can supply the gluttons of the USA? 2) to wait for the pipeline to finally be built (after paying off Canada and all those deposed landowners) when we could have an LNG facility built in half the time and let Alaska decide if shipping it down to us or fighting with a foreign country and paying their taxes and fees and the cost of building the pipeline would be cheaper? The illogic of the self consumed continues to astound me. YOU use the arguement that Oregon shouldn't be the conduit for California's natural gas need but without batting an eye you demand that all the states between Oregon and the US' gas supply shouldn't bat an eye at being Oregon's conduit! and now a whole f**king country should turn over its land to be the conduit for our pipeline! UNF**KING REAL! How dare you ask a foreign country to do for us what YOU are unwilling to do for a sister state??? What "Foreign Country" would that be? Surely you are not referring to Canada as a "Foreign Country" As this fellow North American nation has been our staunch ally for the last couple hundred years or so, it will continue to be so in finding answers to our future energy needs as well and you may as well set that "us versus them thinking" aside on this one. Have you noticed the existing NG pipeline infrastucture in just Alberta alone and the big ole pipeline coming out of there down our own west coast and has been there for some time called, 'The TransCanada Pipeline and pretty much parallels "The Williams Pipeline"? Set The "US vs THEM" thinking aside, unless the other side wants to haul it out for their rhetoric about Oregon not being California's pipeline!!!! I think it would be more productive for Oregon & California to work together helping to supply one another with needed components for a successful energy policy rather than suddenly abandoning that tact and proclaiming the need for Oregon/Alaska (or any state) to play some sort of energy exchange footsie game with Canada!!! What is it with these clowns that they refuse to stick to the subject and argue their point succinctly nor have the courage to admit their argument doesn't hold water? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh on Jun 18, 2009 0:11:12 GMT -5
As someone already stated, if we are happy with "allies" than getting LNG from Australia and Qatar should be just as valid as getting it from Canada. How is it that Canada's natural gas (from Alberta's "shale" I believe?) is "cleaner" natural gas than Australia or Qatars? It isn't.
Those transmission lines the scottish scrooge is brogueing about are about 50 years old and due to be replaced, as recent breakages have indicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 18, 2009 17:21:46 GMT -5
What "Foreign Country" would that be? Surely you are not referring to Canada as a "Foreign Country" As this fellow North American nation has been our staunch ally for the last couple hundred years or so, it will continue to be so in finding answers to our future energy needs as well and you may as well set that "us versus them thinking" aside on this one. Have you noticed the existing NG pipeline infrastucture in just Alberta alone and the big ole pipeline coming out of there down our own west coast and has been there for some time called, 'The TransCanada Pipeline and pretty much parallels "The Williams Pipeline"? Set The "US vs THEM" thinking aside, unless the other side wants to haul it out for their rhetoric about Oregon not being California's pipeline!!!! I think it would be more productive for Oregon & California to work together helping to supply one another with needed components for a successful energy policy rather than suddenly abandoning that tact and proclaiming the need for Oregon/Alaska (or any state) to play some sort of energy exchange footsie game with Canada!!! What is it with these clowns that they refuse to stick to the subject and argue their point succinctly nor have the courage to admit their argument doesn't hold water? Hugh, you will not get a response from any of them on this one. They have had their training. Their "talking points" are drummed into them (some may call it brain washing), there is to be no deviation. If someone makes a point or asks a question regarding something that is not part of their talking they are taught how to sidestep the issue and if that doesn't work they attack the person asking the question. It is interesting to note the progression of this "movement". If you look at old posts on many of the Indy news websites (Portland's, Seattle's and a few on the east coast) you will see how critical they are of the news and government for doing exactly what the news and government is doing now. I will give this to them, they learned well how to manipulate both of those institutions. They have become the very people they proclaimed to despise and hold in contempt. They have become the liars and thieves of the populace. Of course, they are better than those that came before them, because they are doing it FOR the PEOPLE. So very different then all of those multi-million/billion dollar corporations that were only doing it for the money and power. Sierra Club now makes how much a year??? While each position in Sierra Club may pay only a modest amount (under $150,000/yr) is there a limit as to how many positions someone can hold in the Sierra Club? Can someone, say, be paid to be legal counsel for the Sierra Club, the secretary of the state club as well as the local "grassroots organizer" and get paid for all three positions, simultaneously??? Can someone "represent" three or four different organizations, paid to be the "grassroots organizer" of all those organizations by the Sierra Club and continue to collect money for "voluntarily" continuing to "organize" the local communities? We can never know, for sure, because while there is misconception that a 501c3's "books are open" for public viewing, the truth is that someone must write to the organization and pay for a copy of their "books" and then all they are legally obliged to provide is their annual report. That report does not include who is getting paid what. All it says is the total amount paid to all officers, all legal counsel, all personal, all administrative cost, all employees, etc... One doesn't know, for sure, who is getting paid what. Unless, of course, someone is under criminal investigation ... then we MIGHT get a peak at THEIR financials and see who paid them what and WHEN. One can still dream in Oregon, can't one? Or does dreaming produce carbon? |
|
|
|
Post by chucklin charlie on Jun 18, 2009 21:16:46 GMT -5
Tony, didn't you hear? HB 666 taxes dreams. For each big dream you have you owe the government 10% of what you would make if the dream materialized (whether or not you act on it). If you actually act on the dream you owe the government 25%. If you make money on your dream you owe the government 75%. If you lose money the government will pay you 50%.
Who makes money on these bills? Gov employees, Attorneys and cpas.
|
|
|
|
Post by monica on Jun 19, 2009 17:31:15 GMT -5
Set The "US vs THEM" thinking aside, unless the other side wants to haul it out for their rhetoric about Oregon not being California's pipeline!!!! I think it would be more productive for Oregon & California to work together helping to supply one another with needed components for a successful energy policy rather than suddenly abandoning that tact and proclaiming the need for Oregon/Alaska (or any state) to play some sort of energy exchange footsie game with Canada!!! What is it with these clowns that they refuse to stick to the subject and argue their point succinctly nor have the courage to admit their argument doesn't hold water? Hugh, you will not get a response from any of them on this one. They have had their training. Their "talking points" are drummed into them (some may call it brain washing), there is to be no deviation. If someone makes a point or asks a question regarding something that is not part of their talking they are taught how to sidestep the issue and if that doesn't work they attack the person asking the question. It is interesting to note the progression of this "movement". If you look at old posts on many of the Indy news websites (Portland's, Seattle's and a few on the east coast) you will see how critical they are of the news and government for doing exactly what the news and government is doing now. I will give this to them, they learned well how to manipulate both of those institutions. They have become the very people they proclaimed to despise and hold in contempt. They have become the liars and thieves of the populace. Of course, they are better than those that came before them, because they are doing it FOR the PEOPLE. So very different then all of those multi-million/billion dollar corporations that were only doing it for the money and power. Sierra Club now makes how much a year??? While each position in Sierra Club may pay only a modest amount (under $150,000/yr) is there a limit as to how many positions someone can hold in the Sierra Club? Can someone, say, be paid to be legal counsel for the Sierra Club, the secretary of the state club as well as the local "grassroots organizer" and get paid for all three positions, simultaneously??? Can someone "represent" three or four different organizations, paid to be the "grassroots organizer" of all those organizations by the Sierra Club and continue to collect money for "voluntarily" continuing to "organize" the local communities? We can never know, for sure, because while there is misconception that a 501c3's "books are open" for public viewing, the truth is that someone must write to the organization and pay for a copy of their "books" and then all they are legally obliged to provide is their annual report. That report does not include who is getting paid what. All it says is the total amount paid to all officers, all legal counsel, all personal, all administrative cost, all employees, etc... One doesn't know, for sure, who is getting paid what. Unless, of course, someone is under criminal investigation ... then we MIGHT get a peak at THEIR financials and see who paid them what and WHEN. One can still dream in Oregon, can't one? Or does dreaming produce carbon? Is this true? Can someone get paid by all of these different organizations? Isn't that a conflict of interest? i do think there are laws against that! I highly doubt that Mr. Foster or Olivia Schmidt were breaking laws, if that is what you are implying. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 19, 2009 19:54:19 GMT -5
Tony, didn't you hear? HB 666 taxes dreams. For each big dream you have you owe the government 10% of what you would make if the dream materialized (whether or not you act on it). If you actually act on the dream you owe the government 25%. If you make money on your dream you owe the government 75%. If you lose money the government will pay you 50%. Who makes money on these bills? Gov employees, Attorneys and cpas.  good one! if they could find a way they would do it! |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 22, 2009 23:00:57 GMT -5
Hugh, you will not get a response from any of them on this one. They have had their training. Their "talking points" are drummed into them (some may call it brain washing), there is to be no deviation. If someone makes a point or asks a question regarding something that is not part of their talking they are taught how to sidestep the issue and if that doesn't work they attack the person asking the question. It is interesting to note the progression of this "movement". If you look at old posts on many of the Indy news websites (Portland's, Seattle's and a few on the east coast) you will see how critical they are of the news and government for doing exactly what the news and government is doing now. I will give this to them, they learned well how to manipulate both of those institutions. They have become the very people they proclaimed to despise and hold in contempt. They have become the liars and thieves of the populace. Of course, they are better than those that came before them, because they are doing it FOR the PEOPLE. So very different then all of those multi-million/billion dollar corporations that were only doing it for the money and power. Sierra Club now makes how much a year??? While each position in Sierra Club may pay only a modest amount (under $150,000/yr) is there a limit as to how many positions someone can hold in the Sierra Club? Can someone, say, be paid to be legal counsel for the Sierra Club, the secretary of the state club as well as the local "grassroots organizer" and get paid for all three positions, simultaneously??? Can someone "represent" three or four different organizations, paid to be the "grassroots organizer" of all those organizations by the Sierra Club and continue to collect money for "voluntarily" continuing to "organize" the local communities? We can never know, for sure, because while there is misconception that a 501c3's "books are open" for public viewing, the truth is that someone must write to the organization and pay for a copy of their "books" and then all they are legally obliged to provide is their annual report. That report does not include who is getting paid what. All it says is the total amount paid to all officers, all legal counsel, all personal, all administrative cost, all employees, etc... One doesn't know, for sure, who is getting paid what. Unless, of course, someone is under criminal investigation ... then we MIGHT get a peak at THEIR financials and see who paid them what and WHEN. One can still dream in Oregon, can't one? Or does dreaming produce carbon? Is this true? Can someone get paid by all of these different organizations? Isn't that a conflict of interest? i do think there are laws against that! I highly doubt that Mr. Foster or Olivia Schmidt were breaking laws, if that is what you are implying. Sorry, wasn't ignoring you Monica, somehow I didn't see your post. I think you have bought into fallacious rational from someone. It isn't against any law to belong to, or even represent, a multitude of organizations. No one suggested it was, at least not in this thread. It is, however, to my way of thinking, unethical to imply that a group of poor or even middle class average joes have banded together to take on a multi-milliion dollar corporation to "save" our environment. Some news person should be doing their job in showing that the Sierra Club is a multi-million dollar organization that has the added benefit of not having to pay any taxes! Their CEOs are PAID, and while each job, on its own, doesn't pay a whole lot, there is nothing in the by-laws that prevents someone from being paid for multiple positions within that organization or in multiple organizations that get funding from the Sierra Club. So, for example, a certain "advocate" can be paid for $2500-$3500 per month for being a "grassroots" organizer for, say, Columbia Riverkeepers while being paid another $2500-$3000 per month for being an officer with the Sierra Club yet "volunteer" their "services" to FLOW, all the while doing the exact same thing for all three organizations just choosing to stick a different hat on depending on the organization they are speaking in front of. The Sierra Club has their own personal high powered lawyer association working for them, fully funded as a 501c3, Earth Justice, founded as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in 1971. Then there is the Western Environmental Law Center, another 501c3 law firm working hand in hand with Earth Justice. Unlimited funds without the encumbrance of paying taxes on anything, including the wages they pay their "contracted employees". Who is it making money off of this climate change scam? Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers first off. From the lawyers sitting on all of these 501c3s to the lawyers defending people from the 501c3s. To the lawyers sitting in legislature making the new laws that ensure they are kept in power and the lawyers going after the people that break those laws and the lawyers that defend those people. Next in line are the scientists, whose science goes to the highest bidder or the most political power (again, boiling down to money). What? You want money for that study? For that research? First, sign this little paper saying you acknowledge the harm of climate change. Back this scientist who is going to be saying such & such about the climate. What? That isn't your area of expertise? Do you want your project funded? Thought so, sign here! What, you don't agree? Do you have evidence proving it wrong? Didn't think so, sign here. Lawyers and scientists vs ideology and religion. d**ned no matter which way you believe, leaning right at least leads to the heart of the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Pssst Pssst on Jun 23, 2009 1:48:02 GMT -5
On June 24th the Anti Everything League (AEL) are planning to stage a demonstration of strength at the Clatsop County BOCC. When they fill out those forms to speak the commissioners have a right to know who they represent and who is paying them. When lawyers and representatives of the LNG projects speak they have to tell who they are.
The same open transparency from the AEL should be insisted on. The board should ask them if they are paid, or have ever been paid (in any manner) by anyone, or any organization, who is on the LUBA appeal. If the person does not admit it, then the LNG company should have grounds to have that person's testimony tossed and a fine against the group for misrepresentation.
|
|
good one! if they could find a way they would do it!