If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Spectator)   Chuck Schumer to Canada: Just what do you think you're doing selling fuel to China? Canada: This pipeline of ours? Like your boss says, you didn't build that. We did. And Tim Horton's kicks Dunkin Donuts' ASS   (spectator.org) divider line 299
    More: Dumbass, Chuck Schumer, Tim Hortons, C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America, foreign corporation, Dunkin' Donuts, energy security, South China Sea, energy development  
•       •       •

6699 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2012 at 8:15 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



299 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-05 10:57:39 PM
Representative of the unwashed masses: change1211:
I'd be happy with a yearly fee and force the pipeline companies to have a couple of spill response teams stationed around the province so if there is a spill the damage can be limited.


Funny thing is response, etc is part of the planning. I would be willing to bet money that response and cleanup (timely) is part of the plan for the pipeline.


Then that's fine with me. I started out in favour of the pipeline but Enbridge doesn't have the best record when it comes to spills.
 
2012-08-05 10:59:11 PM
ox45tallboy: Having said that, the main reason I don't want the Keystone pipeline is the exact reason the Canadian government does want it - it will increase the price of Canadian oil. I mean, we Americans are pretty gullible in many ways, but really? Let's build you guys a pipeline right through our country so that you can sell your oil for more money to other countries instead of us! What a great idea!

Yeah, but if the pipeline lobby tried to use that, they wouldn't get the gullible suckers that they do now with the right-wingers believing any BS they say.

I mean I showed a quote from Stephen Harper himself about wanting to sell oil to other countries besides the US and people told me it was BS. It's hard to argue with someone like that.
 
2012-08-05 10:59:50 PM
Greil: Calm down, and do a quick mentality check. Everyone looks at things through the tint of their own culture, and our culture when it comes to the environment vs profit is not very comforting. That's where the fear comes in from the environmentalists. They're worried you will literally turn the place into a toxic waste dump to save on proper handling costs becase that's what most American companies would do.

You've got a point. But you also have to look at the fact that any type of spill is straight up lost profits. They can't re-sell oil that's all over the ground, so the company(ies) in charge of the pipeline will probably do a pretty good job of stopping leaks and spills - it's profitable to do so.

I'm worried about the fact that we in the US would be just basically giving Canadian oil companies the opportunity to sell their oil to more countries, and therefore charge us more for it.
 
2012-08-05 11:05:57 PM
LordJiro: Yes, if only American businesses were allowed to make children (as well as adults) work in unsafe conditions for pathetic pay! Then those heroic Job Creators™ wouldn't be FORCED to send jobs to China!

As with any other form of trade, the alleged benefit to be gained by such a transaction is efficiency which takes the form of lower prices for affected goods and services. Global trade reduces overall costs to businesses, which, assuming a competitive marketplace, will result in lower prices to consumers and a higher standard of living in the formerly impoverished country. For example, the Pearl River Delta area of China has seen an increase in wages and standard of living over the past twenty years. However, consumers in nations that have lost jobs may also suffer a decrease in wages, income, benefits, and working conditions that is greater than any decrease in consumer prices along with other invisible back-end costs such as increased unemployment and underemployment, a greater need for government social welfare services, crime, and other social problems.

Global labor arbitrage is actually increasing the standard of living in China, overall. It's the US that is losing ground there.

The main point is that it allows businesses to be more efficient, increasing their profits. The economic incentives are there. The profit motive is more important than country, for a business. It's more important than anything, really.

If you want them to put American Workers (tm) before their bottom lines, the only solutions seem to be either punitive measures, protectionism, or perhaps just up and nationalizing the businesses.

... Yay fascism?
 
2012-08-05 11:07:07 PM
FTA: " Now it so happens that only six months ago the Canadians were planning to ship nearly all of this newly developed oil to Texas via the Keystone Pipeline"

Yes, so that the oil could be sold to China. Sorry, Mr. Tucker, but leaving out that detail makes your assertion a lie by omission and perpetuating a lie makes you a liar.
 
2012-08-05 11:08:15 PM
ox45tallboy: so the company(ies) in charge of the pipeline will probably do a pretty good job of stopping leaks and spills - it's profitable to do so.

Are you joking? Enbridge is getting roasted for the number of spills it's had recently. Much cheaper to let a little oil spill than monitor a huge pipeline.
 
2012-08-05 11:09:40 PM
sendtodave: The main point is that it allows businesses to be more efficient, increasing their profits. The economic incentives are there. The profit motive is more important than country, for a business. It's more important than anything, really.

If you want them to put American Workers (tm) before their bottom lines, the only solutions seem to be either punitive measures, protectionism, or perhaps just up and nationalizing the businesses.

... Yay fascism?


Well, you pretty much have to do some protective tariffs or such. How will a company X stay in business making widgets domestically when company Y is selling the same widgets made overseas for a much lower price?

With the style of Capitalism practiced in America, company X will ship their jobs overseas as well.
 
2012-08-05 11:09:42 PM
Lunaville: leaving out that detail makes your assertion a lie by omission and perpetuating a lie makes you a liar.

Also, his pants are on fire
 
2012-08-05 11:11:16 PM
whatshisname: Are you joking? Enbridge is getting roasted for the number of spills it's had recently. Much cheaper to let a little oil spill than monitor a huge pipeline.

No, I'm not joking. It depends on your definition of "little". With oil selling for ~100 bucks a barrel, it gets pretty cost-effective to fix the leaks.
 
2012-08-05 11:13:36 PM
ox45tallboy: it gets pretty cost-effective to fix the leaks.

Obviously they will fix a leak after it happens. However, preventing that leak is more expensive than letting it happen, which is what the people who'd rather not see the woods full of oil are worried about.
 
2012-08-05 11:14:39 PM
Mrtraveler01: I mean I showed a quote from Stephen Harper himself about wanting to sell oil to other countries besides the US and people told me it was BS. It's hard to argue with someone like that.

What's the point of the pipeline if Canadians are still only going to sell to the US? I mean, we share this really big border, we can buy it at lots of locations, geographically speaking. There's no point in bringing the oil all the way across the country before selling it to us.

If Canada really did want to sell oil only to the US, then why wouldn't they just sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to transport it where we wanted it?
 
2012-08-05 11:16:24 PM
whatshisname: Obviously they will fix a leak after it happens. However, preventing that leak is more expensive than letting it happen, which is what the people who'd rather not see the woods full of oil are worried about.

There may indeed be environmental concerns. However, the fact that this will make oil more expensive in the US makes this a no-brainer for me.
 
2012-08-05 11:18:45 PM
ox45tallboy: If Canada really did want to sell oil only to the US, then why wouldn't they just sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to transport it where we wanted it?

Because delivering it as inexpensively as possible to a seaport full of refineries makes a whole of economic sense?
 
2012-08-05 11:24:19 PM
ox45tallboy: Well, you pretty much have to do some protective tariffs or such. How will a company X stay in business making widgets domestically when company Y is selling the same widgets made overseas for a much lower price?

With the style of Capitalism practiced in America, company X will ship their jobs overseas as well.


Or find a niche.

Selling Snapper lawn mowers at Wal-Mart wasn't just incompatible with Snapper's future--Wier thought it was hazardous to Snapper's health. Snapper is known in the outdoor-equipment business not for huge volume but for quality, reliability, durability. A well-maintained Snapper lawn mower will last decades; many customers buy the mowers as adults because their fathers used them when they were kids. But Snapper lawn mowers are not cheap, any more than a Viking range is cheap. The value isn't in the price, it's in the performance and the longevity.

Link


Do most consumers generally want quality over LOW LOW PRICES? Probably not. Because most people can't afford a high-end friggen lawn mower.

I wonder, can it be said our glut of cheap home appliances has actually increased our "quality of living" (at the expense of jobs and actual economic power)? Poor people have refrigerators and AC, after all!

Anyway, I agree, we likely do need protectionism to "level the field." But is leveling the field, at the expense of profits, really a goal that capitalists care to achieve? It goes against the profit motive.
 
2012-08-05 11:25:51 PM
NeedlesslyCanadian: Methadone Girls: ArkAngel: And Dunkin' Donuts is far superior to Tim Horton's

You take that back!! I've had coffee from Dunkin' Donuts and tossed it in the parking lot. How do you drink coffee from there? Bleh.

Timmies coffee is farking disgusting too. It's practically unthinkable, but McDonalds probably has the best fast-food coffee around.


Which is why the sane brew their own.
 
2012-08-05 11:28:14 PM
ox45tallboy: whatshisname: Obviously they will fix a leak after it happens. However, preventing that leak is more expensive than letting it happen, which is what the people who'd rather not see the woods full of oil are worried about.

There may indeed be environmental concerns. However, the fact that this will make oil more expensive in the US makes this a no-brainer for me.


Actually it will make it more expensive for both countries - it benefits big business only, as usual...

Look at the BS going on now - so many east coast refineries shutting down because their 'profit margin' wasn't high enough. Big business decided they could make MORE money by shutting those refineries down causing an overall increase in gas prices, then they'd ship the finished product in.

Someone near the start of the thread linked an article about proposed flow reversals on some Canadian pipelines - probably with the idea of getting oilsands oil out to Quebec and Maine ports - right now those pipelines BRING oil in to be refined at the few refineries left in Canada's east. That happens and we lose Sarnia and Nanticoke refineries as they cannot handle the oilsands crude and would be too expensive to upgrade - result: Ontario, largest province in Canada, which already has to import much of its gasoline from the US would lose its only refining capacity causing higher prices once again.

more billions in profits for big oil. ZERO value add to the people.

On a good note - did a quick search. I know there were several large refineries in Pennsylvania set to shut down.. One got bought and will continue. Good news for the east coast. Link
 
2012-08-05 11:28:49 PM
LordJiro: Chimperror2: ThatGuyGreg: TL;DR

And, it's adorable that you ferriners think we go to Dunkin' for the donuts.

Weaver95: Today we are undergoing a similar dance in our economic relation with China. And wouldn't you know, it's our liberal friends in Congress, so enthusiastic about hamstringing American enterprise, who are the last to realize that they are undercutting our political hegemony as well.

Because all those liberal CEOs are the ones shipping jobs overseas to china every chance they get....

No, it's just the liberal politicians and their enviro-whacko watermelon masters. Get rid of those and jobs will stop leaving.

[desmond.imageshack.us image 178x225]Chuckie
[lh4.ggpht.com image 81x85]"The Joker"Schumer

Yes, if only American businesses were allowed to make children (as well as adults) work in unsafe conditions for pathetic pay! Then those heroic Job Creators™ wouldn't be FORCED to send jobs to China!


It's so cute how progressives in the US defend fat poor US kids while trying to deny jobs to better educated, but starving, people around the world.

Here's a clue: if China's has lower labor costs, economic and political stability, and capital market rules for investors, - money jobs and wealth will flow to it, Labor costs will balance out eventually (or stability will collapse - remember Obama sendin all thos warships to the region?). Don't worry though, the U.S. is way ahead of Greece and Spain. Those countries are less stable than China with a higher labor cost.

The social justice question is easy when you realize how poor the rural chinese and indian populations are and what these opportunities mean to them. Let's see: job for overweight american high school dropout who had too many "poor food choices" to make or college educated Chinese citizen who is undersized due to malnutrition an "no food choices." He's fluent in Chinese and English and will work for half the U.S. minimum wage and be the highest earner in his family (think Mexican illegal immigrant who doesn't actually leave his country if you still have trouble thinking who should be hired). Oh, and if your Union contract stuck it to the poor Chinese workers, know that other companies with a conscience have no problem lifting poor Chinese workers out of poverty.

Jobs aren't leaving the U.S. because of evil CEO's, they are leaving because a communist country decided the best way to lift their largely agrarian society out of poverty is by allowing and supporting industrialization. Their poverty is decreasing. No one with a conscience can deny this.
 
2012-08-05 11:30:19 PM
About the Author

William Tucker is the author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey.


OK. Well then.
 
2012-08-05 11:30:32 PM
ox45tallboy: What's the point of the pipeline if Canadians are still only going to sell to the US? I mean, we share this really big border, we can buy it at lots of locations, geographically speaking. There's no point in bringing the oil all the way across the country before selling it to us.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir here.

We need to ask that question to all the dumbasses saying that "hurr durr, Obama turn down Canadian oil that was going to be meant for us and now they're selling it to China".

I would really love to see what kind of answers we'll get.
 
2012-08-05 11:30:57 PM
whatshisname: Because delivering it as inexpensively as possible to a seaport full of refineries makes a whole of economic sense?

So why not sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to move it where we want it? Why wait to sell it until it has been transported all the way across the country?
 
2012-08-05 11:32:16 PM
sendtodave: Anyway, I agree, we likely do need protectionism to "level the field." But is leveling the field, at the expense of profits, really a goal that capitalists care to achieve? It goes against the profit motive.

But greed is good and capitalism is best and anything else would be communism.
 
2012-08-05 11:34:16 PM
Mrtraveler01: We need to ask that question to all the dumbasses saying that "hurr durr, Obama turn down Canadian oil that was going to be meant for us and now they're selling it to China".

I would really love to see what kind of answers we'll get.


Those people make my brain hurt.
 
2012-08-05 11:35:48 PM
Mrtraveler01: beta_plus: Liberal butt hurt tears over the unintended consequences of blocking the Keystone Pipeline.

Awwww, you thought that Canada wasn't going to sell oil to China even if we did approve of the Pipeline huh?

That's sooooo adorable!

*pinches your cheeks*


CRY MOAR!!!
 
2012-08-05 11:36:07 PM
Chimperror2: Those countries are less stable than China with a higher labor cost.

What's interesting is that China's stability really is a pragmatic one, on the part of the people. People may not like the government, or social inequalities, etc., but they tolerate these things because, overall, life is getting better for them.

The government made a tacit agreement with the people: You give us our legitimacy, we'll give you your jobs. 'Course, I guess you can say this about any government. Social contract and all.

Anyway, if economic factors shift drastically, stability goes out the window. No one really wants to see that.
 
2012-08-05 11:36:59 PM
ox45tallboy: whatshisname: Because delivering it as inexpensively as possible to a seaport full of refineries makes a whole of economic sense?

So why not sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to move it where we want it? Why wait to sell it until it has been transported all the way across the country?


Again big business.. Canadian pipeline companies want to expand..WHY drop it at the boarder and let some other company handle it.... Its all about profit.

Doesn't matter if Trans-Canada pipeline drops it to Trans-USA pipeline at the boarder - Its still going to be sold to WHOEVER will pay the most for it..and right now, that's China.

I don't agree with wasting our precious natural resources this way... Hey, lets share with our neighbors to the south, AS LONG as the reciprocate - we are each other's largest trading partners. But why rape the land to send it to China? Lets keep our stuff for (sort of) 'domestic use'. And keep the rest in reserve. That's how I look at it. (Hey, we send cheap oil and gas, don't try to block our softwood lumber!)
 
2012-08-05 11:38:09 PM
ox45tallboy: whatshisname: Because delivering it as inexpensively as possible to a seaport full of refineries makes a whole of economic sense?

So why not sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to move it where we want it? Why wait to sell it until it has been transported all the way across the country?


Because even considering the cost of the pipeline, they get more for the oil when it's delivered to Nebraska than they would if they just loaded it in trucks. It's simple economics.
 
2012-08-05 11:38:31 PM
beta_plus: Mrtraveler01: beta_plus: Liberal butt hurt tears over the unintended consequences of blocking the Keystone Pipeline.

Awwww, you thought that Canada wasn't going to sell oil to China even if we did approve of the Pipeline huh?

That's sooooo adorable!

*pinches your cheeks*

CRY MOAR!!!


Who's crying?

Awww, someone thinks they're being vewry important and relevant to this conversation.

How precious.
 
2012-08-05 11:39:34 PM
The Life Of Brian: But why rape the land to send it to China?

Because that's Harper's goal whether the US approved the pipeline or not.
 
2012-08-05 11:39:37 PM
ArkAngel: Markey followed with a letter demanding that Geithner insist that CNOOC pay royalties on tracts that Nexen recently won in the Gulf of Mexico where the government offered them royalty-free.

I believe this is banned by the legal principle of "No Backsies"

And Dunkin' Donuts is far superior to Tim Horton's


Yes and yes.
 
2012-08-05 11:40:02 PM
ox45tallboy: sendtodave: Anyway, I agree, we likely do need protectionism to "level the field." But is leveling the field, at the expense of profits, really a goal that capitalists care to achieve? It goes against the profit motive.

But greed is good and capitalism is best and anything else would be communism.


Not saying that. I'm saying that capitalists are the ones in power. They have all the capital :)

And, even in our great democracy, well, we continue to elect them. We like capitalists.

So, that being the case, do you think anything will come from the "Chinese are taking our jobs, we should level the playing field" rhetoric? Or, is it just that? Populist BS?
 
2012-08-05 11:42:07 PM
The Life Of Brian: ox45tallboy: whatshisname: Because delivering it as inexpensively as possible to a seaport full of refineries makes a whole of economic sense?

So why not sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to move it where we want it? Why wait to sell it until it has been transported all the way across the country?

Again big business.. Canadian pipeline companies want to expand..WHY drop it at the boarder and let some other company handle it.... Its all about profit.

Doesn't matter if Trans-Canada pipeline drops it to Trans-USA pipeline at the boarder - Its still going to be sold to WHOEVER will pay the most for it..and right now, that's China.

I don't agree with wasting our precious natural resources this way... Hey, lets share with our neighbors to the south, AS LONG as the reciprocate - we are each other's largest trading partners. But why rape the land to send it to China? Lets keep our stuff for (sort of) 'domestic use'. And keep the rest in reserve. That's how I look at it. (Hey, we send cheap oil and gas, don't try to block our softwood lumber!)


I don't think the US will ever budge on the illegal softwood lumber tariffs. If the US wants Canada to keep on selling our oil to them then perhaps they could support our claim to the Arctic.
 
2012-08-05 11:42:12 PM
Mrtraveler01: The Life Of Brian: But why rape the land to send it to China?

Because that's Harper's goal whether the US approved the pipeline or not.


What can I say...

The nicest thing I can say about Harper is he's NOT Rmoney..... He's more George lite....

/don't like him, don't agree with him, but I thanks FSM every day we're NOT as derpy as American politics!
 
2012-08-05 11:43:01 PM
Canadians seem to have an inferiority complex about Americans. This headline is a prime example, as I presume subby is Canadian.
 
2012-08-05 11:43:19 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: You mean like the CEO of GE? One of the largest companies. one of the largest outsourcers and the head of 0bama's job council (which hasn't met for over 6 months)?


So anyone who dares work with 0bama is a "liberal?"

Lets take a look and actually fact check this...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-21/obama-taps-ge-s-immelt-for-e c onomy-panel-replace-volcker.html

Immelt, a self-described Republican, has emerged as one of Obama's most visible outside economic advisers.

so it's settled, Republicans in business are really secret liberals who have been outsourcing jobs to China!

Brilliant!
 
2012-08-05 11:43:53 PM
The Life Of Brian: Mrtraveler01: The Life Of Brian: But why rape the land to send it to China?

Because that's Harper's goal whether the US approved the pipeline or not.

What can I say...

The nicest thing I can say about Harper is he's NOT Rmoney..... He's more George lite....

/don't like him, don't agree with him, but I thanks FSM every day we're NOT as derpy as American politics!


I don't blame you.

I'd trade Stephen Harper's antics any day of the week over the BS we have to deal with from the GOP/Tea Party down here.
 
2012-08-05 11:45:43 PM
sendtodave: Global labor arbitrage is actually increasing the standard of living in China, overall. It's the US that is losing ground there.

The main point is that it allows businesses to be more efficient, increasing their profits. The economic incentives are there. The profit motive is more important than country, for a business. It's more important than anything, really.

If you want them to put American Workers (tm) before their bottom lines, the only solutions seem to be either punitive measures, protectionism, or perhaps just up and nationalizing the businesses.

... Yay fascism?



Labor costs are less than 5% of a products price, so tell me all about this need to outsource jobs to China

Just admit it, it's because the business lobby made sure generous tax breaks were in place for outsourcing, and the stock market loved news of moving jobs offshore. It never made sense number wise.
 
2012-08-05 11:46:06 PM
ComicBookGuy: Canadians seem to have an inferiority complex about Americans. This headline is a prime example, as I presume subby is Canadian.

Not any more, but for all the wrong reasons.
 
2012-08-05 11:48:01 PM
Chimperror2: It's so cute how progressives in the US defend fat poor US kids while trying to deny jobs to better educated, but starving, people around the world.

Here's a clue: if China's has lower labor costs, economic and political stability, and capital market rules for investors, - money jobs and wealth will flow to it, Labor costs will balance out eventually (or stability will collapse - remember Obama sendin all thos warships to the region?). Don't worry though, the U.S. is way ahead of Greece and Spain. Those countries are less stable than China with a higher labor cost.

The social justice question is easy when you realize how poor the rural chinese and indian populations are and what these opportunities mean to them. Let's see: job for overweight american high school dropout who had too many "poor food choices" to make or college educated Chinese citizen who is undersized due to malnutrition an "no food choices." He's fluent in Chinese and English and will work for half the U.S. minimum wage and be the highest earner in his family (think Mexican illegal immigrant who doesn't actually leave his country if you still have trouble thinking who should be hired). Oh, and if your Union contract stuck it to the poor Chinese workers, know that other companies with a conscience have no problem lifting poor Chinese workers out of poverty.

Jobs aren't leaving the U.S. because of evil CEO's, they are leaving because a communist country decided the best way to lift their largely agrarian society out of poverty is by allowing and supporting industrialization. Their poverty is decreasing. No one with a conscience can deny this.



Ah yes, of course, you're for shipping jobs to slave labor havens because you are all about social justice and humanity!

Now they can afford CAKE!

HAHAHAHAHA
 
2012-08-05 11:50:07 PM
Jobs aren't leaving the U.S. because of evil CEO's, they are leaving because a communist country decided the best way to lift their largely agrarian society out of poverty is by allowing and supporting industrialization. Their poverty is decreasing. No one with a conscience can deny this.

Allowing and supporting industrialization:

media.treehugger.com

static7.businessinsider.com

Being lifted out of poverty:

revolutionaryfrontlines.files.wordpress.com

chiefasianinspector.typepad.com
 
2012-08-05 11:52:16 PM
change1211: I don't think the US will ever budge on the illegal softwood lumber tariffs. If the US wants Canada to keep on selling our oil to them then perhaps they could support our claim to the Arctic.

YA right....The most imbecilic term ever created will tell you why they'd NEVER support other's claim to territory...American exceptionalism!! They fought a war for independence (so their own rich and powerful could rape the people rather than England) SO that means they're better than everyone. 40% (at a minimum) of the population deem in 'divine' - GOD want's it this way.

If there are land/mineral rights claims, THEY go first, only and last.

/no offense meant to my Yank neighbors, but that IS the politics, no matter the party.

//Hell you cannot 'forgive' Castro for exercising Cuban Sovereignty SOO many years ago! (right or wrong for the people wasn't the point. He took away US business interests and that's just NOT allowed no matter WHO's country it is....)
 
2012-08-05 11:53:36 PM
NEDM: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

But that makes no sense. You'd have to go halfway around the world to ship oil from Houston to China. I find it hard to believe that it was cheaper to build a pipeline across the country than it was to build a Canadian oil port on their west coast.


If only there were some sort of canal, perhaps near Panama, that the oil could be shipped through.
 
2012-08-05 11:54:15 PM
intelligent comment below: Labor costs are less than 5% of a products price, so tell me all about this need to outsource jobs to China

Just admit it, it's because the business lobby made sure generous tax breaks were in place for outsourcing, and the stock market loved news of moving jobs offshore. It never made sense number wise.


Global labor arbitrage is an economic phenomenon where, as a result of the removal of or disintegration of barriers to international trade, jobs move to nations where labor and the cost of doing business (such as environmental regulations) is inexpensive and/or impoverished labor moves to nations with higher paying jobs.[1] The "global labor arbitrage" phenomenon has been described by economist Stephen S. Roach.[2]

So, this really doesn't happen? My mistake, then.
 
2012-08-05 11:57:34 PM
IronTom: bobbette: No, you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about.

apparently not what 'you're' talking about.


There's more than one Enbridge pipeline. I was talking about Northern Gateway, the one more directly relevant to the topic of Canada-Chinese oil trading.
 
2012-08-06 12:00:41 AM
ComicBookGuy: Canadians seem to have an inferiority complex about Americans. This headline is a prime example, as I presume subby is Canadian.

We're often quiet and respectful and reflect on matters before acting...(unless you back us into a corner, sort of like our beloved Beaver! Then watch out! A Rabbit Canuck isn't something you want to deal with - You may get the first few with all your guns, but there's a lot more behind with big teeth!).

Hey we sit up here and watch some pretty crazy shiat happen down there and just shake our heads and wish you chaps the best..

I can see how that type of attitude would confuse you though. It's definitely not a popular 'American trait'.

/cheers!
 
2012-08-06 12:04:07 AM
FireNexus: If only there were some sort of canal, perhaps near Panama, that the oil could be shipped through.

Been said already - its not wide enough for the super tankers that make shipping so far cost effective...

/doesn't mean its not worth it to ship it around S America, and it appears they DO that now.
 
2012-08-06 12:05:02 AM
Methadone Girls: ArkAngel: And Dunkin' Donuts is far superior to Tim Horton's

You take that back!! I've had coffee from Dunkin' Donuts and tossed it in the parking lot. How do you drink coffee from there? Bleh.


Whoa now. Anyone who chooses Tim Horton's for coffee forfeits their right to criticize any coffee, anywhere else, for eternity. Robusta coffee beans? Bleh.

/unless they've changed it since I was last in Canada a couple years back, in which case I'm the dick
 
2012-08-06 12:06:10 AM
sendtodave: Not saying that. I'm saying that capitalists are the ones in power. They have all the capital :)

And, even in our great democracy, well, we continue to elect them. We like capitalists.

So, that being the case, do you think anything will come from the "Chinese are taking our jobs, we should level the playing field" rhetoric? Or, is it just that? Populist BS?


Well, yes, it is populist BS. The problem is that people can't afford to stop buying the cheap Chinese-made crap. Our lifestyles have dramatically improved because of the cheap consumer goods we get from China, and no one wants to stop it. If someone were to open a store that somehow sold American-made goods for the same price as the Chinese ones, people would shop there, but it's simply not possible.

Tariffs are one way of doing it, but who wants to be the politician that raises prices at Wal-Mart? Could you imagine the political pressure that store could bring?

And there is also the social cost of forcing people into a lower standard of living by raising prices on consumer goods. If people suddenly can't afford new plates and radios and sheets and toys, they're not going to be happy.
 
2012-08-06 12:06:45 AM
Mrbogey: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

And America lost it's chance to make money off of it.


I'm not so sure Canada will end up making much money off of it either. Fuel and construction material demand in China has fallen off right now. Analysts who travel there are reporting ports filled with goods no one wants to buy, cement factories cutting production, petroleum and petroleum products sitting unused in holding tanks. If China has reached a glut in its resource purchases, or if its vastly inflated construction boom has finally gone bust, then it isn't going to be buy much if any of the production from all these resource projects set up to supply its demand, and certainly not at the prices its resource tear of the last decade has created. They still may be willing to purchase a stake in the drilling company as part of their general "strategic acquisitions" plan to buy up exploitation rights to as much of the world's resources as they can, but they'll be holding it at low production for the purposes of denying access to State competitors; not maintaining a profitable rate of exploitation.
 
2012-08-06 12:07:22 AM
clkeagle: Allowing and supporting industrialization

At least 13 fires have been reported on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868.[12] The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats and a riverfront office building.[13] Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays."[14]

The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).


It took over a hundred years for us to start to clean things up. And we still bullshiat, mostly.

Exploitative labor? Again, over 100 years (and a Great Depression) to "end" child labor.

In 1910, over 2 million children in the same age group were employed in the United States.[24] This included children who rolled cigarettes[25], engaged in factory work, worked as bobbin doffers in textile mills, worked in coal mines and were employed in canneries.[26] Lewis Hine's photographs of child laborers in the 1910s powerfully evoked the plight of working children in the American south. Hines took these photographs between 1908 and 1917 as staff photographer for the National Child Labor Committee.

So, anyway, give them time! Unless you think China would be better off not industrializing?

upload.wikimedia.org

Much better off.
 
2012-08-06 12:09:00 AM
Don't Troll Me Bro!: Whoa now. Anyone who chooses Tim Horton's for coffee forfeits their right to criticize any coffee, anywhere else, for eternity. Robusta coffee beans? Bleh.

/unless they've changed it since I was last in Canada a couple years back, in which case I'm the dick


Canadians have funny taste buds. Have you tried their beer?
 
Displayed 50 of 299 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report