General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI've only been able to catch a little of Ed schultz, but everytime, he's pushing Keystone..
what's going on??
elleng
(130,974 posts)recognizes that many disagree with him, and is airing the issue.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Gotta go where the money is. Money isn't in liberal talk radio.
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)That's all I've got.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)progressoid
(49,991 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bums me out.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)And supports the war on drugs.
He started out as a republican talk radio host, it's no coincidence.
delrem
(9,688 posts)What I especially dislike about Ed is how he appends a totally nonsensical claim to be a "progressive" to his right-wing prescriptions, as if just making that claim is enough validation.
calguy
(5,315 posts)You have yours, he has his. I don't always agree with 100% of his conclusions, I bet he wouldn't agree with 100% of mine. It's called free thought. I'm personally against the pipeline but in my opinion Ed makes some credible arguments supporting his position
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)He says whether we like it or not, oil is here to stay for some time. He does support solar and wind, but we are not in a position to depend on those 100 percent, so we have to accept that we need the oil. His main point is that the oil is being transported by rail, and that is totally not safe. A pipeline, he says, to transport the oil is much safer.
I thought this dirty crude oil was all Canadian oil, but he pointed out one spot where U.S. oil will be absorbed by Keystone. So what? That is supposed to offset the deleterious environmental impact?
There was a second alternative mentioned earlier in this discussion where the Canadian oil could be shipped if Keystone was not approved. My opinion: go with that alternative.
Two flaws in his discussions of late I think were in being thrown for a loop by one commentator who mentioned the flaw in the integrity of the State Department finding. So evidently, his staff looked into that, and a response was presented this evening. The State Department said a second analysis had been commissioned by a totally independent party, as opposed to a party with interests. Somehow, I found the State Department's response flat, but that might just be me. I simply did not believe it.
The other misguided point by Ed was the creation of jobs. We have previously reviewed findings from totally disinterested but responsible parties about the actual number of jobs that will be created. As I recall, the number quoted by those promoting Keystone counted a job that lasted not just one year but two as two separate jobs. After the initial work, there will be few permanent jobs because as we all know it doesn't take many people to monitor the flow of the oil through a pipeline.
In my opinion, this is all about the one hundred million dollars the Koch Brothers will realize should Keystone be approved, and that is it precisely. But hey, what do I know....
Sam
DebJ
(7,699 posts)shipped out of the continent via the Gulf? This is no help for US energy.
I actually saw a video of the head of the oil company saying so quite some time ago.