It must suck to be you

[hypocritexposer]

well OT the question not asked.. are you for the pipeline..

or against it ?

or are you just for stalling it till the southern route dies a slow painful death and it turns towards China?

Oh I'm all for the pipeline- and always have been... We've had oil activity up here in the county for 30-40 years-- but because of the lack of any means to get it to the refineries much of it was scaled back or stopped.... Like right now- they can't find enough trucks to haul all the oil that is available out of the Bakken field...Being allowed to send batches on the pipeline would be a big boost...

There is new vitality to our oil exploration here- not sure if its the pipeline doing it or what...We have new wells being drilled- one about 5 miles from some land I have ... And several new gas wells going on line...

I will send in written testimony- its just that that week I know I'm covering for all the Judges in the County- as they asked me a couple of weeks ago....The Judges and Clerks always have a fall week refresher on new laws and any recent court decisions...

The only negative I see- with the coming of big oil is the social impact to the area... Many folks tell of how quiet quaint little towns in ND have turned to boom towns- and the type of people moving in with the oil has turned the towns into places where many no longer want to live or raise a family....

OT, I believe you should be for the pipeline and all the prosperity it beings to your region, but you need to separate the drilling aspect from the pipeline.

the pipeline will bring fast money, and they'll be in/out before you know it. As for the drilling, the 10" line that TransCanada has already contracted, from Baker?, is not going to be big volume compared to what is coming down from Canada.

I believe the XL will transport almost 800,000 Bpd from Canada, while the 10", will be about 65,000.

As far as I'm concerned, they should be building 2 x 36", at the same time.

I'd have to look back at some articles about the expansion of the oilsands going on at present and being planned for the next 20 years, but if memory serves, it will almost double by 2050.

Heck, if Sask. ever opens up their oilsands, Canada could feed the US for a century.

Steady, but not boom, IMO.

As far as crime etc. It can't become any worse than Ft. Mac. :?

It is going to be "Culture shock" for our quiet rural areas when this oil boom moves our way. It is centralized around Williston ND right now and they are having huge problems coping with the influx of people and trucks. Western ND and eastern Montana don't have the infrastructure to handle 10, 20 or 30 thousand more people dumped on them in short order. Williston is in the process of building a 720 acre industrial park with a truck stop,hotel and restaurant as trucks are now parking on residential streets while drivers sleep and change oil letting it run in the gutters. :?

Aren't there regulations against such behavior :wink:

Sask. will probably mandate recycling of said oil and have a government inspector on site 24/7. :lol:

If he does these things,

Tex

What things? Can you list them? Can you provide us with a written/detailed plan, or bill, containing "these things"?

If he (Obama) does these things, he will get my vote and I don't mind saying so. I could care less who you or anyone else thinks about who I decide to vote for.


Tex

For one who fancies himself as such a highly intellectual thoughtful pondering pensive passionate person, you are sure easily bamboozled. :roll:

8) :lol: :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

well OT the question not asked.. are you for the pipeline..

or against it ?

or are you just for stalling it till the southern route dies a slow painful death and it turns towards China?

Oh I'm all for the pipeline- and always have been... We've had oil activity up here in the county for 30-40 years-- but because of the lack of any means to get it to the refineries much of it was scaled back or stopped.... Like right now- they can't find enough trucks to haul all the oil that is available out of the Bakken field...Being allowed to send batches on the pipeline would be a big boost...

There is new vitality to our oil exploration here- not sure if its the pipeline doing it or what...We have new wells being drilled- one about 5 miles from some land I have ... And several new gas wells going on line...

I will send in written testimony- its just that that week I know I'm covering for all the Judges in the County- as they asked me a couple of weeks ago....The Judges and Clerks always have a fall week refresher on new laws and any recent court decisions...

The only negative I see- with the coming of big oil is the social impact to the area... Many folks tell of how quiet quaint little towns in ND have turned to boom towns- and the type of people moving in with the oil has turned the towns into places where many no longer want to live or raise a family....

OT, I believe you should be for the pipeline and all the prosperity it beings to your region, but you need to separate the drilling aspect from the pipeline.

the pipeline will bring fast money, and they'll be in/out before you know it. As for the drilling, the 10" line that TransCanada has already contracted, from Baker?, is not going to be big volume compared to what is coming down from Canada.

I believe the XL will transport almost 800,000 Bpd from Canada, while the 10", will be about 65,000.

As far as I'm concerned, they should be building 2 x 36", at the same time.

I'd have to look back at some articles about the expansion of the oilsands going on at present and being planned for the next 20 years, but if memory serves, it will almost double by 2050.

Heck, if Sask. ever opens up their oilsands, Canada could feed the US for a century.

Steady, but not boom, IMO.

As far as crime etc. It can't become any worse than Ft. Mac. :?

It is going to be "Culture shock" for our quiet rural areas when this oil boom moves our way. It is centralized around Williston ND right now and they are having huge problems coping with the influx of people and trucks. Western ND and eastern Montana don't have the infrastructure to handle 10, 20 or 30 thousand more people dumped on them in short order. Williston is in the process of building a 720 acre industrial park with a truck stop,hotel and restaurant as trucks are now parking on residential streets while drivers sleep and change oil letting it run in the gutters. :?

Aren't there regulations against such behavior :wink:

Sask. will probably mandate recycling of said oil and have a government inspector on site 24/7. :lol:

If he does these things,

Tex

What things? Can you list them? Can you provide us with a written/detailed plan, or bill, containing "these things"?

If he (Obama) does these things, he will get my vote and I don't mind saying so. I could care less who you or anyone else thinks about who I decide to vote for.


Tex

For one who fancies himself as such a highly intellectual thoughtful pondering pensive passionate person, you are sure easily bamboozled. :roll:

8) :lol: :lol:

As far as my part of the post, yes I imagine their is regulations against such behavior but Williston hasn't been able to catch up with police and other infrastructure to deal with the rapid growth. The forecast for the sleepy little town of about 2,500 people of Plentywood is 10,00 to 20,000 new people in the next few years.

 

[Tex]

If he (Obama) does these things, he will get my vote and I don't mind saying so. I could care less who you or anyone else thinks about who I decide to vote for.


Tex

For one who fancies himself as such a highly intellectual thoughtful pondering pensive passionate person, you are sure easily bamboozled. :roll:

Oh, so now you are reading my mind? I don't fancy myself at all nor am I easily bamboozled.

I don't know if the current president will do the right thing or just gesture such. It is yet to be seen. So far not a lot of success.

Speeches are just speeches and amicus briefs are just amicus briefs.

It is results that count and sometimes that takes digging deep. I haven't seen a whole lot more than compromise up to this point when it comes to results.

I do not know if that was a wink and a nod by the President to John Cornyn or a threatening handshake to the President and a word of warning by John Cornyn.

Only time will tell.

Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

As far as my part of the post, yes I imagine their is regulations against such behavior but Williston hasn't been able to catch up with police and other infrastructure to deal with the rapid growth. The forecast for the sleepy little town of about 2,500 people of Plentywood is 10,00 to 20,000 new people in the next few years.

Any FEMA trailers available.

Hey, I know what you are talking about, we went through it here in Alberta a few years ago.

Seems we are at a good pace now, but I have no doubt that the next "boom" will come sooner than the 20 years between "booms" last time.

But people will adapt, I have no doubt. And the next "boom will be better managed.

 

[hypocritexposer]

If he (Obama) does these things, he will get my vote and I don't mind saying so. I could care less who you or anyone else thinks about who I decide to vote for.


Tex

For one who fancies himself as such a highly intellectual thoughtful pondering pensive passionate person, you are sure easily bamboozled. :roll:

Oh, so now you are reading my mind? I don't fancy myself at all nor am I easily bamboozled.

I don't know if the current president will do the right thing or just gesture such. It is yet to be seen. So far not a lot of success.

Speeches are just speeches and amicus briefs are just amicus briefs.

It is results that count and sometimes that takes digging deep. I haven't seen a whole lot more than compromise up to this point when it comes to results.

Tex

Tex, when obama was campaigning the in 2007, through 2008, many on Ranchers saw that he was a talker and less of a doer, or leader.

We were correct and many of those that believed him then, told us to "give him a chance"

He's had his chance, and has failed miserably.

Now it appears you want to give him another chance, based on the same "talk, no action" that got him elected the first time.

He had less of a history the first time, more of a record the 2nd. Judge him on his record. Judging him on his potential hasn't gone so well.

He's voting "Present", so he can remain "Present" and reap the rewards. Throw him out, make a statement, that you want someone that will work for the voter and not themselves. The same as the Tea Party will vote out those that did not do what they said they would. they get spoiled, when they get to DC, or Ottawa. You probably got a 2-3 year window, when they work for you and then after that, they work for themselves.

How has obama worked for you, or has he worked more for his corporate backers, his ideology and himself?




"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"

 

[Soapweed]

For one who fancies himself as such a highly intellectual thoughtful pondering pensive passionate person, you are sure easily bamboozled. :roll:

Oh, so now you are reading my mind? I don't fancy myself at all nor am I easily bamboozled.

I don't know if the current president will do the right thing or just gesture such. It is yet to be seen. So far not a lot of success.

Speeches are just speeches and amicus briefs are just amicus briefs.

It is results that count and sometimes that takes digging deep. I haven't seen a whole lot more than compromise up to this point when it comes to results.

Tex

Tex, when obama was campaigning the in 2007, through 2008, many on Ranchers saw that he was a talker and less of a doer, or leader.

We were correct and many of those that believed him then, told us to "give him a chance"

He's had his chance, and has failed miserably.

Now it appears you want to give him another chance, based on the same "talk, no action" that got him elected the first time.

He had less of a history the first time, more of a record the 2nd. Judge him on his record. Judging him on his potential hasn't gone so well.

He's voting "Present", so he can remain "Present" and reap the rewards. Throw him out, make a statement, that you want someone that will work for the voter and not themselves.


"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"

Exactly. It's not rocket science; it's logic, common sense, and merely paying attention to what has already happened and not happened.

 

[Faster horses]

The best indication of future behavior is past behavior.

As a country, we simply cannot afford Obama.
We really never could, but now HE has PROVEN we can't.

 

[Larrry]

But our right wing NIMBY movement came in screaming and yelling - with a couple women screaming about the threat of them being kidnapped, pillaged, and raped by all the escapees that would happen (luckily a commissioner kicked me in the foot before I told them than NO one would want to rape them old battle axes-- sometimes I think they were wishful fantasizing :roll: :wink: )

What an ahole jerk you are. Now you complain about NIMBY but a few posts back you were preachin about you being NIMBY.

Your other comment was really uncalled for

 

[Tex]

For one who fancies himself as such a highly intellectual thoughtful pondering pensive passionate person, you are sure easily bamboozled. :roll:

Oh, so now you are reading my mind? I don't fancy myself at all nor am I easily bamboozled.

I don't know if the current president will do the right thing or just gesture such. It is yet to be seen. So far not a lot of success.

Speeches are just speeches and amicus briefs are just amicus briefs.

It is results that count and sometimes that takes digging deep. I haven't seen a whole lot more than compromise up to this point when it comes to results.

Tex

Tex, when obama was campaigning the in 2007, through 2008, many on Ranchers saw that he was a talker and less of a doer, or leader.

We were correct and many of those that believed him then, told us to "give him a chance"

He's had his chance, and has failed miserably.

Now it appears you want to give him another chance, based on the same "talk, no action" that got him elected the first time.

He had less of a history the first time, more of a record the 2nd. Judge him on his record. Judging him on his potential hasn't gone so well.

He's voting "Present", so he can remain "Present" and reap the rewards. Throw him out, make a statement, that you want someone that will work for the voter and not themselves. The same as the Tea Party will vote out those that did not do what they said they would. they get spoiled, when they get to DC, or Ottawa. You probably got a 2-3 year window, when they work for you and then after that, they work for themselves.

How has obama worked for you, or has he worked more for his corporate backers, his ideology and himself?




"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"

You may be right. Time will tell. I would agree that we have seen a lot of talk and not as much action. The day isn't over yet.

Tex

 

[Steve]

the day isn't over yet.. ?

2 years eight months.. is over..

1 year two months to the election..

we are nearly 3/4 of the way through Obama's "term"

 

[Tex]

the day isn't over yet.. ?

2 years eight months.. is over..

1 year two months to the election..

we are nearly 3/4 of the way through Obama's "term"

I am not going to make excuses for him if that is what you are wanting. We still have the revolving door of corporate influence, we have many structural problems that need attention and I mean real attention, and we have republicans who want to spend baby spend when they have control but not when the dems. have control and an economic downturn. We still haven't had any accountability on the banking frauds and they didn't divide the investment and commercial banks as they should have and as the Glass Steagal Act had which worked for 70 or so years. We still have politicians selling to the highest bidder, it seems on both sides, and there just isn't much accountability.

Our sorry trade deficit saps demand from the U.S. at an alarming rate but no one is alarmed. Other free trade agreements are on the table but we haven't fixed the old ones yet. This is not very encouraging. NAFTA did allow more trade with Mexico but ti also allowed large U.S. corporations to displace their labor force and cause us more illegal alien problems and a stronger drug cartel.

Our regulatory system is still flawed because it depends on political appointees actually enforcing the law and the people who have the oversight of those appointments taking political contributions from the industries they regulate. There is rarely any real compensation when companies do cause harm because the courts will not do anything but allow token awards while they prevent many cases from going to trial.



So yes, you are right, there is a lot of water under the bridge and the boat hasn't moved very much due to compromise after compromise which yielded nothing but a sense that this president is more of a Neville Chamberlain than a Winston Churchill.

He still has a little time left in his position so he could turn it around if only he would. He will have to learn that appeasement and compromise are not the same things and that sometimes you have to fight battles and stand up to bullies.

I could go on and on, so no, I will not defend him. I think he has been distracted with two wars and a republican house that is out to make him look unsuccessful by playing diversionary games like the deficit fiasco. In the end, results do matter regardless of these things. He isn't playing hardball like Winston Churchill would, he is playing Neville Chamberlain.



Tex

 

[Steve]

I could go on and on, so no, I will not defend him. I think he has been distracted with two wars and a republican house that is out to make him look unsuccessful

I think your forgetting that Obama had two years with both houses under almost total democratic control..

two full years... the democrats controlled both houses.. with overwhelming majorities. and he even had Snowe and Collins voting in step with the liberals and still couldn't lead...

if he couldn't lead under the most desirable political positions, how would you expect him to lead with a little adversary ?

 

[Mike]

I could go on and on, so no, I will not defend him. I think he has been distracted with two wars and a republican house that is out to make him look unsuccessful

I think your forgetting that Obama had two years with both houses under almost total democratic control..

two full years... the democrats controlled both houses.. with overwhelming majorities. and he even had Snowe and Collins voting in step with the liberals and still couldn't lead...

if he couldn't lead under the most desirable political positions, how would you expect him to lead with a little adversary ?

Ouch!!!!

 

[Tex]

I could go on and on, so no, I will not defend him. I think he has been distracted with two wars and a republican house that is out to make him look unsuccessful

I think your forgetting that Obama had two years with both houses under almost total democratic control..

two full years... the democrats controlled both houses.. with overwhelming majorities. and he even had Snowe and Collins voting in step with the liberals and still couldn't lead...

if he couldn't lead under the most desirable political positions, how would you expect him to lead with a little adversary ?

In all of this Congress has been a real problem. They have played the same old games whether they are democrats or republicans.

The problem is that we have the best Congress that money can buy.

Tex

 

[Larrry]

In all of this Congress has been a real problem. They have played the same old games whether they are democrats or republicans.

The problem is that we have the best Congress that money can buy.

Tex

translated "They all do it so what the heck" :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[Tex]

In all of this Congress has been a real problem. They have played the same old games whether they are democrats or republicans.

The problem is that we have the best Congress that money can buy.

Tex

translated "They all do it so what the heck" :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Those are your words, Larry. I think some of the members of Congress should be squealing on the crooks no matter what party they are in. It is an apparent abuse of power and members of Congress should be fixing it. I sure don't condone one bit of it. Our Congress has become as corrupt as Rome's Senate before the fall of Rome.

Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

In all of this Congress has been a real problem. They have played the same old games whether they are democrats or republicans.

The problem is that we have the best Congress that money can buy.

Tex

translated "They all do it so what the heck" :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Those are your words, Larry. I think some of the members of Congress should be squealing on the crooks no matter what party they are in. It is an apparent abuse of power and members of Congress should be fixing it. I sure don't condone one bit of it. Our Congress has become as corrupt as Rome's Senate before the fall of Rome.

Tex

So you believe in term limits, correct, Tex?


What part of the Tea Party platform do you not believe in?

 

[Anonymous]

translated "They all do it so what the heck" :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Those are your words, Larry. I think some of the members of Congress should be squealing on the crooks no matter what party they are in. It is an apparent abuse of power and members of Congress should be fixing it. I sure don't condone one bit of it. Our Congress has become as corrupt as Rome's Senate before the fall of Rome.

Tex

So you believe in term limits, correct, Tex?


What part of the Tea Party platform do you not believe in?

Term limits will occur about the same time as 200+ lawyers in Congress vote for Tort reform...
When H--- freezes over!!! :wink:

 

[hypocritexposer]

Those are your words, Larry. I think some of the members of Congress should be squealing on the crooks no matter what party they are in. It is an apparent abuse of power and members of Congress should be fixing it. I sure don't condone one bit of it. Our Congress has become as corrupt as Rome's Senate before the fall of Rome.

Tex

So you believe in term limits, correct, Tex?


What part of the Tea Party platform do you not believe in?

Term limits will occur about the same time as 200+ lawyers in Congress vote for Tort reform...
When H--- freezes over!!! :wink:

Term limits are "racist", because the Tea Party believe in them. You could never vote for it, that's for sure.


Just as you could never vote for a balanced budget, cause that is "racist" too.


anything the Tea Party believes in is "BAD", and "racist", just ask your Democratic Rep.

 

[Texan]

I could care less who you or anyone else thinks about who I decide to vote for. I don't answer to you and I sure don't say my prayers to you or any man when I say them at night. I hope you feel as strong about this as I do and I hope you don't leave out your prayers at night. It is a perfect opportunity for you to get right with God.

:lol: Thanks for the advice, Tex. It sure is nice to have one of you far-left radical religious zealots looking out for me. Maybe one of these days I can "get right with God" and be as good of a Christian as you are. I'll try to come up with some kind of prayer to help make you proud of me.

Now, back to the topic - since you're so good at diverting. Did you vote for Barack Obama, or not? It's a simple little yes or no deal.

And since you claim that you wouldn't vote for anybody based just on speaking, maybe you can tell us what it was about Barack Obama that has impressed you so much? If not his speeches, what had he accomplished that made him deserve to be elected President?

(Do the yes or no question first, please. Just like Barack Obama, you're so accustomed to trying to distract people with a lot of wordy bloviating that I wouldn't want you to get sidetracked. Meanwhile, I'll try to work on the prayer.)