Now, if only the big wigs at the NY Times would reduce their own “carbon footprint” by turning the heat down to 50 degrees during the winter and up to 80 during the summer…better yet, why not simply turn the heat/AC systems off and open the windows?….along with reducing all fossil fueled Times travel, including distribution of their paper edition? Anyhow, here’s the editorial board
The State Department’s latest environmental assessment of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline makes no recommendation about whether President Obama should approve it. Here is ours. He should say no, and for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem.
It is these long-term consequences that Mr. Obama should focus on. Mainstream scientists are virtually unanimous in stating that the one sure way to avert the worst consequences of climate change is to decarbonize the world economy by finding cleaner sources of energy while leaving more fossil fuels in the ground. Given its carbon content, tar sands oil should be among the first fossil fuels we decide to leave alone.
The same problem delivery of the NY Times’ dead tree edition augments. And the fossil fueled travel used by its reporters.
In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse. But it will continue to fuel our appetite for oil and add to the carbon load in the atmosphere. There is no need to accept it.
Climate apocalypse!!!!!!1!!! We’re dooooooomed! But not doomed enough for the Times to give up its own use of fossil fuels and lower their own “carbon footprint.” Yeah, we’re basically talking about big shot Progressives who Know Better than you little people, and you should just accept that they Know Better and that your cost of living will rise dramatically, all why they jet off to exotic vacation spots to carp about hotcoldwetdry.
Don’t forget that the other big paper, the Washington Post, supported Keystone XL.
Teach the KPL will allow the Canadians to be able to ship their oil out of a deep water port to the world market. Right now they MUST sell to the US and we are able to buy it at a discount for our refineries in the midwest. And don’t forget Teach all of the MSM is owned by some of the largest corporate conglomerates in the USA and whose allegiance is to their stockholders. Media is a business, not a political religion
And? Do you have a point?
Are you for or against Keystone?
I find it disingenuous that these self-proclaimed all-knowing journos think that a pipeline should be banned because we might actually use the oil.
Same thinking that NYC uses to ban drinks. Needs to be banned because people might want to drink them.
John, I am not sure what you are trying to say. First, Canada does have deep water ports on both the east and west coast. That kills whatever pont you are trying to make as to who Canada must sell oil to.
Secondly, while the US imports less than 50% of its oil., China imports upwards of 60%. This is why the Chinese are buying shares ofnenergy interests worldwide including in the companies that control the oil producing fields in Canada. So do you think that China is investing without plannung on a return on imvestment (higher energy costs) or do you think the Chinese will us the oil they control?
Either way, how does this help the US economy and the middle class you always say you support?
Really, John? Which major oil companies own which major printers, publishers, newspapers, magazines, TV networks and cable TV corporations?
You made that up. You’ve made up other comments which you’ve posted here, too.
You and that liar, gitarcarver, could be the same person.
Gitarcarver and gumball brains are Democrat subversives masquerading as Conservatives here to make Republicans look stupid and crazy. Are you their shill?
Yet you are doing the Socialist party a world of good representing them.
Would you like to be called “Kettle” or “Pot?”
(That’s a rhetorical question, in case it isn’t clear to you.)
It’s simple: Cut and paste it, or admit that you are a liar.
Yeah john!! What he said.
Another snappy reply from gums. What a retard.
There goes gitarcarver, ducking and running for cover again. What a cockroach.
C’mon creep, cut it and paste it, or admit that you are a liar and a coward and a slimy low-life.
Once again Brian, I applaud you for your perfect symmetry with Socialism’s ideals and beliefs.
Your ignorance is stunning, exceeded only by your obnoxiousness, you insufferable little creep.
LOL, gum balls answers for gitarcarver. PRICELESS!!!
I told you that they’re the same pervert.
Odds are astronomical that there could be two such sick freaks here at the same time.
Cut it and paste it, or admit that you’re a liar. Tap, tap, tap, we’re waiting.
Obnoxiousness is evidential. However, ignorance is not. Please cite for all of us which of my statements were in error or showed my ignorance?
And might I also ask, why you feel the need to incessantly participate in a blog that you feel so strongly opposed to? It’s obviously not to learn something. Are you here like little john to just harass people for not toting the pro-CAGW line? Or are you here just to show how and why Americans should despise Socialism and its brother cult – Marxism?
You would get better replies, heck any reply, if your statements made some sense. Could you be a bit more specific about what you would like “cut it and paste it”?
As you have also not done any “cut it and paste it” work except for what others have written on this blog, I can only assume then, based on your own logical analysis, that you are a liar. Scientific method. Try it.
LOL, you’re dancing, bobbing, ducking, weaving, grasping for straws and drowning.
You are such an asshole.
All that I read there was smoke, mirrors and bullshit. No substance. No facts. Just more of your usual bullshit.
Who gives a fuck about your sick assumptions, your even sicker conjectures and your other slimy rantings and ravings, you sick freak?
If you have a legitimate wxample of when I lied, cut it and paste it, or admit that you are a liar. BTW, Legitimate is the buzz word there, scumbag.
You are correct. And I thank you for once again being a legitimate example of why people do not like Socialists and Statist like yourself. And thank you for answering my query, not “legitimately” mind you, but I’m sure that was the best you could do.
I shouldn’t have to explain everything to these crazy retards over and over.
But I do, because I’m a compassionate conservative. I feel sorry for anyone who is that stupid and that cuckoo.
Oh, that was a good one. Your jokes are almost as funny as basement john’s are.
Do it again!!
More evasions, smoke, mirrors and bullshit? I’m shocked.
You’re just a lonely, friendless, old man, and for good reasons. Get lost, you old fool.
Gum’s scrambled thoughts aren’t an act to get attention, folks. He really is that demented. And to think he was doing so well with coloring books.
@ 17:06
Sorry Gums. That was mean. See what happens when I stoop to your level or get down in the gutter with you?
If it is any consolation, you should feel flattered; i.e., I usually don’t argue with fools, retards, psychos and assholes.
I see that apparently you meant this for me. In that I know you would hate to misinterpreted or misunderstood, I will do exactly what you said.
Have a nice day.
Take a chill pill on the personal assaults and language, Brian. Gone way too far.
Darn. I missed the fun.
But, of course, you don’t think that gitarcarver or gumball brains went way too far with their lies and other vicious, childish bullshit.
Fuck you, you little creep. You’ve shown that you are as slimy as they are.
Besides, you’re pissed-off only ’cause I gave both of those petulant little brats a good spanking, instead of letting them get away with their childish and obnoxious tirades; a hallmark of this blog.
And, oh yeah, (_X_)
Congratulations! You’ve just become one of the few I’ve banned! In case you missed it, I pay for this site. Goodbye!
While I dont advocate for banning, in this case, he fired a double-barrell at you. First, the ignoring of a direct plea from the site owner for civility (a warning), and then a direct threat on the same comment where he ignored said warning.
I tried to get him back around to reality.
Thanks Teach.
I assume he’ll be back using his office or library computer.
Cool, it’s still going on! I think you’re wrong here Teach. I read through the comments, and Brian was entirely correct in his last comment. Ripe words were exchanged on both sides, but you only picked on the side that you (and I) disagree with. That’s hampering real conversation.
I certainly prefer Gumball_Brains’ world view and humor, but without people like Brian, this site will become just another echo chamber like KOS or TPM, just on the other side. That’s not ok with me and it shouldn’t be with you either.
I sincerely hope you will unban him. Maybe ask him not to swear or even edit curses, but do it to both sides.
Kevin, I find your humor entertaining as well, however I must ask certain questions.
What part of his last comments did you find correct? The
or the
?
Would you mind pointing out where I or GC acted exactly like Brian?
And Teach can defend his own actions, but Teach did ask him to be more civil. He was rewarded with a threat.
And, as I said, he was the perfect example of the lunacy from the far left. However, there are reasons we have jails for when people go off the rails.
I understand your POV, Kevin. I really don’t like to ban. I’ve caught a lot of crap from the Conservatives over at Right Wing News for refusing to contact John Hawkins to have some of the liberals banned. I really like the interplay between both sides, which is why I actually like having liberal John comment, but there comes a point where it’s time to take a deep breath. I gave Brian (who is most likely a woman, based on the email address I see internally) a chance to cool down, and asked nicely. He (she?) refused and escalated.
If everyone else wants, I’ll unban.
Maybe a 3-day cooling down period for first ban?
Maybe a new “page” under your “PAGES” about your banning and comment policy?
… will get a few warnings…
… threats will get a ban (immediate and lasting ?? days or permanent) …
etc
Mr. _Brains… Can I call you Gumball? If you can’t handle hearing junk like:
“gitarcarver or gumball brains went way too far with their lies and other vicious, childish bullshit.”
or
“And, oh yeah, (_X_)”
…then you can’t talk to liberals. They’re vicious people. Well, at least many of them are. They say hurtful things. It’s the nature of their beast to curse and swear when they’re losing an argument.
I just think you should let them. Just like I think they should let me make my argument at huffpo (they do, btw).
So edit out the profanities if you want. Just let him speak. And for the record, I’m quite aware that no one who writes or reads this blog is shocked by swearing. It’s part of what makes you the second coolest blog after AoS.
Kevin,
You stated that GC and I acted in a way similar to Brian. And seeing that, you argued against Teach’s banning of Brian as being unfair and one-sided. What part of this conversation from either GC or I were similar to Brian’s?
I can take the heat. I don’t like it. But, civility and responding coherently to requests for a normalized discourse are also what makes conversations happen.
John, for all his repetitious rote, does write in complete sentences and makes statements about his beliefs. His comments are not solely ad-hominem attacks.
You mentioned that you felt Brian was correct in *his* last comment. Could you elaborate, please?
As someone in the middle of this, my take may be a little different.
My first interaction with Brian was in a post where he said he had hired a bunch of illegal aliens and it ended up costing him more money. When I pointed out that a true conservative would not encourage illegal immigrants, Brian went off. (He also said all Hispanics were lazy, which is offensive but more importantly, not a position a conservative – which he claimed to be – would hold.)
He then accused me of being a “sock puppet” for Teach. This was a pattern with him – if you disagreed with him, he accused people of faking names and identities.
At one point in time, Gumball, Teach, Proof, a first time poster and I were all the same person.
Now Kevin, I understand your point of needing a thick skin, but Brian was way over the top. It was impossible to have a thread going because all too often there would be 4 or 5 posts in a row from Brian all attacking the same individual. The person hadn’t responded to Brian or said anything to him, yet he made pointless attacks on people, their character,and integrity.
For example, I became a “liar” in Brian’s eyes when I disagreed with him and posted a source that backed my position. (This from the guy who said I was Teach, or any of a bunch of other people and *I* am the liar and a person who makes things up?)
I think any blog owner has to set parameters for the comments on their blog. My comment section on my blog may be a little “tighter” than Teach’s, but in no way does Teach allow “anything goes.” As Teach’s guest, I can abide by his parameters or find another blog to comment on. After all, Teach is the one paying the bills.
The bottom line is that ultimately, Teach did not ban Brian.
Brian, throughh his actions and unwillingness to listen to Teach in what is Teach’s “house” banned himself. It is the same thing when people get fired for something. They cause the firing – someone else just does the paperwork.
There are a lot of people who comment on this blog. Most of the time, even if people are disagreeing, there is still a contribution to this blog.
Ultimately, I think Brian became a distraction to the blog and a detriment rather than an asset.
It is Teach’s call as to whether to “unban” Brian, but as I don’t see Brian adds anything to the blog, I would be against it.
“You stated that GC and I acted in a way similar to Brian”.
Actually, that was a mistake I must apologize for. When skimming through the comments, I attributed a few of Brian’s comments to you, Gumball. I thought you were both being kind of coarse, but he really was the only one spitting vitriol. I hope you’ll accept my apology.
I still don’t think Teach should ban him. It’s best to let people show you what they’re like with their dialogue. But really, I don’t care too much either way :).
Gitacarver, in fairness, I have to agree with you. He probably should remain banned. BUT…
I like to see it when the left goes whacko over an issue. It’s like finding out that Jimmy Carter disagrees with your position. It means that you are exactly correct on that issue. Plus, it’s kind of funny.
But again, I don’t really care. If Brian really bugs you guys, then it’s best to kick him out.
Brian left a wonderfully pleasant comment that went into the spam cue, and by wonderful I mean nasty, insulting, and profanity laden. If Brian added value with the nuttiness I’d unban, alas, going back it looks like Brian was actually sock puppeting himself at times.
[…] op-ed piece came the day before the NY Times editorial board decided to say they can’t support Keystone (via The Hockey Schtick and James Taranto) No to […]
Ouch, that fetish can not be healthy.
Thank you Kevin. And, reflecting a bit, I will try and be more civil towards john as well. Granted he views paint him as (what I have called him), newer commenters might not know the history and see my naming him as base personal attacks. However, if he expresses one of his typical views once again, I’ll name those views on that particular blog comment post.
And Kevin, be careful, more than one comment per day may wear you out.
WOW, looks like a missed a good one here!!!!
yeah, you’ve missed quite a lot.
and we’ve missed you as well.
Kevin,
I agree with you on the idea that when the left goes whacko on an issue, it means you are right.
I think the difference here is that Brian was not disagreeing on issues….he was disagreeing on people. Not disagreeing with people but being disagreeable to the pont where it was impossible for people to post.
Unlike the liberal sites you mentioned previously, Brian was not banned for his opinions, he was banned for actions outside of those opinions and actions that were ultimately detrimental to the site.
I think Teach was more than fair with Brian, giving him a warning in private and all that. Brian’s response was not something anyone would allow in their home, or in real life. If Brain said and did the things he did here in person or in a store, he would most likely either been planted or escorted out of the store.
Teach doesn’t have to put up with it. Not only do I agree with his decision, but even I disagreed with it, I would respect it because I respect Teach as a person and as a blogger.