WTF:
"Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an interview that an investment adviser chooses Boehner's financial investments. "He doesn't have any control over day-to-day trades, so there's no conflict of interest on this or any other investment," Steel said of the speaker, adding that when it comes to the upcoming decision on Keystone XL, "We hope the president will do the right thing and approve the permit, and create American jobs."

Boehner's laid some real whoppers out there in the past few years, but this has to be the biggest load of complete and utter BS to ever come from his office. Even a peon like me can access my meager investments and change anything I damn well please. To even think that a man with his wealth and stature has ZERO control or knowledge of his investment activity is so far beyond laughable, it's pathetic.

Even this guy thinks John Boehner is a farking piece of shiat.

TimonC346: How is this legal?

It's not, but if anyone tried to prosecute it, the GOP would just scream about abuse of power.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: "Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an interview that an investment adviser chooses Boehner's financial investments."

The concept of using an investment advisor and/or a blind investment trust is absolutely a valid concept regardless of party.

The real issue is whether a pipeline that creates thousands of jobs, invests billions of dollars (without government guarantees) and increases our country's energy security is a good idea. By the way, if you have natural gas you have a pipeline to your residence.

If you think this pipeline is a bad idea, I would love to hear your reasoning as to why.

rinasaunce: If you think this pipeline is a bad idea, I would love to hear your reasoning as to why.

It runs right over the deepest part of the aquifer that lets the Midwest be the food production capital of the world.

GAT_00: rinasaunce: If you think this pipeline is a bad idea, I would love to hear your reasoning as to why.

It runs right over the deepest part of the aquifer that lets the Midwest be the food production capital of the world.

Nope, the route has been moved. Further, the risks of this pipeline ruining the aquifer are very small. Its science and engineering.

relaxitsjustme: They should pass a law that requires holders of publicly elected office to not be allowed to invest money over a certain dollar amount except in a blind fund.

I agree with this!

rinasaunce: Nope, the route has been moved.

Administration officials have said that the truncated timeline makes it difficult to complete a review of whether the pipeline is in the national interest, given the fact TransCanada has yet to outline an alternate route.

TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha said the company received guidance just last month from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality on what areas in the Sandhills were off-limits, adding that the firm will be able to have the new route's outline ready between June and September. - From the Washington Post

So, no.

rinasaunce: Further, the risks of this pipeline ruining the aquifer are very small.

Ah yes, just like the risks of deep ocean drilling are very small. Look how that turned out.

GAT_00: dding that the firm will be able to have the new route's outline ready between June and September. - From the Washington Post

The NEW Route. The new safer route. So yes. What part of new route don't you understand?

GAT_00: Ah yes, just like the risks of deep ocean drilling are very small. Look how that turned out.

The risks of deep ocean drilling ARE very small and the benefits are very large. The BP spill was absolutely a disaster and you can thank, among many others, our Federal Government as well for absolutely pathetic oversight. The cost of this failure to BP was tens of billions of dollars so they absolutely have some incentive to drill properly in the future.

Creating energy involves risks and trade-offs. Natural gas lines are dangerous yet we have them running to our houses. Do you propose we eliminate every natural gas line in the US as well?

rinasaunce: The concept of using an investment advisor and/or a blind investment trust is absolutely a valid concept regardless of party.

McCracken vs. The State of Maine, 1954: Any financial dealings shall be deemed the responsibility of the interested party, regardless of number or function of employees unless said party has been judged mentally incapable.

rinasaunce: The NEW Route. The new safer route. So yes. What part of new route don't you understand?

Hypothetical route.

rinasaunce: The BP spill was absolutely a disaster and you can thank, among many others, our Federal Government as well for absolutely pathetic oversight.

Which is a good reason why we shouldn't even risk this pipeline at all.

AdolfOliverPanties: McCracken vs. The State of Maine, 1954: Any financial dealings shall be deemed the responsibility of the interested party, regardless of number or function of employees unless said party has been judged mentally incapable.

Uh, so? A blind investment trust, properly designed, where the beneficiary has no knowledge of the investments would help address the issue of any politician directly benefiting from their votes.

Of course, that would totally fail to address a politician earmarking or otherwise voting in favor of union or business campaign contributors.

Meanwhile, we have so much natural gas that we don't know what to do with the stuff.

I bet that makes John want to cay.

Cry, that is.

Marcus Aurelius: Meanwhile, we have so much natural gas that we don't know what to do with the stuff.

I bet that makes John want to cay.

Which brings up the question: why do we need this pipeline?

rinasaunce: Uh, so? A blind investment trust, properly designed, where the beneficiary has no knowledge of the investments would help address the issue of any politician directly benefiting from their votes.

The politician would still be responsible for any and all investments made on his/her behalf, regardless of who is doing the purchasing/investing.


/ don't pay attention to me
// I don't think there was such a case
/// I copy pasta'd the whole thing from an episode of "Angel"

The newly proposed route. Glad to see that you are against a route that isn't being proposed any longer!

GAT_00: Which is a good reason why we shouldn't even risk this pipeline at all.

Ahh, so ANY risk isn't acceptable? How anti-science are you, exactly? I guess all cruise ships should be docked now. And airplanes, they crash. Pencils and scissors are bad and cars are so inherently dangerous that no one should be allowed to drive them.

It is astonishing to see how quickly, and for no logical reason, you are willing to simply tell tens of thousands of people that they can't have their new job or invest billions of dollars in our country. Work in government, do you?

GAT_00: Which brings up the question: why do we need this pipeline?

oh dear gawd. It's an OIL pipeline, not natural gas. Oil comes from a lot of countries that are not very politically stable. This oil would come from Canada. I know, I know - hockey riots. But otherwise this would be a very nice step in creating more energy security, jobs, taxes and investment.

And just because this pipeline is built does not preclude making green energy investments....

rinasaunce: It is astonishing to see how quickly, and for no logical reason, you are willing to simply tell tens of thousands of people that they can't have their new job or invest billions of dollars in our country.

Hypothetical jobs.

rinasaunce: The newly proposed route. Glad to see that you are against a route that isn't being proposed any longer!

Was there supposed to be something there? There's no way to know what route this pipeline will take. Why would you approve something when it's impossible to know what you're approving?

rinasaunce: And just because this pipeline is built does not preclude making green energy investments....

It pretty much does. You don't see lobbyists from the petroleum industry fellating our elected representatives to get them to do more green energy. Green energy is paid lip service in this country. The government might invest a pittance here and there (compared to the money thrown about in furtherance of oil,) but any real and sustained growth into alternative energies will only come when the oil runs out, IMO. The Petroleum industry has far too much to lose to allow anything to come anywhere their golden goose.

GAT_00: Hypothetical jobs.

What? Have you EVER built anything? When there is a big project - it creates jobs. People have to make the pipe. Design the pipeline, acquire right of way, dig trenches, lay the pipe and so on and so on. No one, other than you, disputes that this will create thousands of new, blue collar jobs.

GAT_00: There's no way to know what route this pipeline will take.

Thus the pipeline permitting process. There IS a way to know and the process worked - the pipeline is getting moved to an even LESS risky route. There is NOT a route without risk or that will not involve some disruption of the environment. Of course, the same thing can be said for the sewage lines that take your shiat away from your house.

In your world, how would any job ever get created or anything get built? You MUST work for the government.

ultraholland: or we could pump a shiat-ton of money into proper education and development of renewable energy

This will help create MORE money for renewable energy. Understand that this private investment will MAKE jobs.

AdolfOliverPanties: You don't see lobbyists from the petroleum renewable industry fellating our elected representatives to get them to do more green energy

We spend billions on ethanol and solar - but we spend it very, very stupidly and Mr. Hope and Change didn't change any of that.

rinasaunce: it creates jobs

The pipeline suddenly needs to be built at a slower pace. Therefore, less crews are needed. In fact, the crews needed to built it can be supplied by this line over here that we'll finish shortly. No new jobs will need to be created. However, we'll still charge the Federal government for the cost of jobs we didn't create. Big businesses do this all the time.

rinasaunce: This will help create MORE money for renewable energy.

That's just pulled out of your ass. I'm sure if it's possible, the GOP will make sure any funding from this comes from renewable resource spending.

rinasaunce: Thus the pipeline permitting process. There IS a way to know and the process worked - the pipeline is getting moved to an even LESS risky route.

It is supposedly getting moved. We won't know until we green the project. The process has been totally subverted by the GOP for political gain, who don't care where it will be built or what damage it will cause. That's irrelevant to them. Why should a project be authorized when you don't know where the hell it's going to go?

rinasaunce: You MUST work for the government.

Nope.

rinasaunce: We spend billions on ethanol and solar - but we spend it very, very stupidly and Mr. Hope and Change didn't change any of that.

So are you here to champion the pipeline, or just to ballwash for Boehner and blast Obama?

How would you spend $7 billion? (new window)

rinasaunce: Grand_Moff_Joseph: "Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an interview that an investment adviser chooses Boehner's financial investments."

The concept of using an investment advisor and/or a blind investment trust is absolutely a valid concept regardless of party.

The real issue is whether a pipeline that creates thousands of jobs, invests billions of dollars (without government guarantees) and increases our country's energy security is a good idea. By the way, if you have natural gas you have a pipeline to your residence.

If you think this pipeline is a bad idea, I would love to hear your reasoning as to why.

1. I seriously doubt that Agent Orange is using a blind trust. Even if he is, now that this news has broken, if he had any ethics at all, he'd instruct his advisor to change his blind trust to remove said conflict. We both know that he will do no such thing.

2. Multiple independent sources have already debunked the "millions of jobs claim" from multiple angles. Most of the jobs will come from crews completing an existing pipeline, and given the slow pace of construction, hiring will be slow and limited in scope.

3. TransCanada's CEO wants this pipeline for one reason - to get the oil to the Gulf where he can sell it to South America for a higher price than he can in the Midwest. Completion of the pipeline will spike gas in the Midwest by 10-15 cents in a matter of months when 15% of the gas supply to this region is diverted to the Gulf.

4. The public still has not seen a thorough, independent environmental impact study on this, and even the proposed new route puts the aquifier at risk. You can't tell me that they can't build a pipeline that has no risk to the main source of water for >40% of the USA

rinasaunce: ultraholland: or we could pump a shiat-ton of money into proper education and development of renewable energy

This will help create MORE money for renewable energy. Understand that this private investment will MAKE jobs.

AdolfOliverPanties: You don't see lobbyists from the petroleum renewable industry fellating our elected representatives to get them to do more green energy

We spend billions on ethanol and solar - but we spend it very, very stupidly and Mr. Hope and Change didn't change any of that.

Wow, you're certainly doubling down on the derp.

GAT_00: However, we'll still charge the Federal government for the cost of jobs we didn't create. Big businesses do this all the time.

What the ...? got a citation on that one?

GAT_00: the GOP will make sure any funding from this comes from renewable resource spending.

This is a PRIVATE PIPELINE with NO government money. It is privately funded. And the property, payroll and income taxes relating to the project create tax dollars for government.

AdolfOliverPanties: So are you here to champion the pipeline,

Yes. And also to answer silly people who think that a private pipeline will somehow make the government less likely to fund green energy research effectively. I am for both things.

Dusk-You-n-Me: How would you spend $7 billion? (new window)

If it is private investment not paid for by the government, why do we have to choose? Why can't we do both? And if we can get another 3% of our domestic energy needs without going to Iran or Saudi, and without a dollar of cost to our government, why not?

rinasaunce: If it is private investment not paid for by the government, why do we have to choose?

I'd rather just do the wind project. And the government can pay for some of it too, that doesn't bother me. I would triple whatever we spend on green tech and energy R&D. Then I'd triple it again.

Dusk-You-n-Me: I'd rather just do the wind project. And the government can pay for some of it too, that doesn't bother me. I would triple whatever we spend on green tech and energy R&D. Then I'd triple it again.

You realize that we have and continue to spend billions of corn ethanol, a massively stupid waste of money and resources.

Sorry, I lost it for a little bit - I absolutely agree that we should spend LOTS and LOTS of money on effective renewable energy but continue to address our current energy needs and energy security like any rational person would hope that we would do. We need a transition to renewables.

Also, when our government picks the "right" technology their track record hasn't been all that neat-o. See blind trusts/lobbyist/ethanol discussion above. But I absolutely agree that the US should be leading the way in renewable energy investment while we also produce and use the energy resources we have now to ensure that things keep running.

Iran and some of their OPEC friends are not entirely stable...

alienated: why do so many hate Alberta or the envioment in general ? Have you seen the disgusting wasteland of the oilsands region ?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-t e xt

Ahh, the energy needs for 7 billion people have real environmental costs. Have you ever seen a disgusting sanitary sewer plant? Ever been on an oil or gas well? A milk farm? A chicken farm? Smelled a hog containment tank?

Lots of people are not good for the environment and a modern economy certainly isn't. So go ahead, tell me how you solve the problems of moving in a rational way to a renewable energy future?

I'm pretty liberal, and the fact of the matter is this pipeline needs to get done. If they route it away from the water table there is no reason to hold the thing up, it will provide tons of good paying jobs, and deliver them to the U.S.

GAT_00: rinasaunce: it creates jobs

The pipeline suddenly needs to be built at a slower pace. Therefore, less crews are needed. In fact, the crews needed to built it can be supplied by this line over here that we'll finish shortly. No new jobs will need to be created. However, we'll still charge the Federal government for the cost of jobs we didn't create. Big businesses do this all the time.


That sounds like a union!

alienated: We already extract a lot of natural gas.Enough to power every vehicle and train on the north american continent.
And yet less than half of a percent of them are powered thusly.
I hear no serious calls to convert- only "lets keep using oil until its gone".

Actually, T. Boone Pickens has spent a whole lot of time and money attempting to get the natural gas conversion going - see "The Pickens Plan". Further, I have not heard any serious discussions where someone says 'lets keeping using oil until its gone'.

The very great news is that the very low price of natural gas will encourage "dirty" coal plants to be replaced. If our commercial fleet would convert to natural gas, it would make a HUGE difference.

Again, this pipeline, whether it creates brand new jobs or SAVES existing ones, is a very good idea. Even if the oil flows to the Gulf and then abroad, it helps create energy that would otherwise not be available and it would help our and Canada's balance of foreign exchange payments.