Kilmeade Decides: Obama Admin's Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Is An "Outrage"
January 19, 2012 9:11 am ET
From the January 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Which one of these panelists is the independent, again?
The reporter presented both sides of the issue, but I noticed something slick. As she quoted the Republicans side, she always said " Republicans say..." or " The Republicans explained...", but when presenting Obama's side, it was " Obama insists..." each time.
I hadn't noticed that before, but it's a pretty under-the-radar way to get the implication in. People telling the truth say or explain, defensive or dishonest people have to "insist".
I suspect The Daily Show is going to have a good one on the pipeline coverage.
~
It seems to me, that when I went to my 30th High School Reunion in the summer of 2008, I paid $4.19 a gallon, I remember this because it was the highest I ever paid! Obama wasn't President yet, so gas did not get down to $1.86 in his term.
The Keystone Pipeline will provide about 6,000 jobs but they are only temporary. The pipeline is from Canada, it will benefit Canadians who own the company and the oil shale that will be used to produce the oil, the oil is of unknown toxicity, it runs the risk of fouling a major aquifer and some of our best farmland if something should go wrong. And then, if it is built and nothing goes wrong and the oil isn't highly toxic and expense to retrieve, it won't be sold on the American market, it will be sold on the world market, just like all the other oil. Which means it could still go to China and prices at American pumps will still be higher. It does nothing for American wallets or national security. But do the idiots on the curvy couch talk about that? Nope! They're just outraged that Obama didn't cave in to Republicans and Oil special interests.
As for Christians lying, the Republicans apparently have made peace with that, as long as it promotes the greater good of protecting our Christian Nation from Liberals. They flushed that Commandment down the same Memory Hole as the admonition to pray in seclusion, and that inconvenient Camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle thing.
If you want to talk about terrorist targets, I live near a major oil reserve station. There is a "farm" of huge oil or gas tanks right near I-95 and a major county thoroughfare. If you blew that place up, you'd cripple traffic in the D.C. area for weeks, if not months. A small team of people could invade the facility with very little difficulty, I'm sure.
This whole Conservatives are good Christians, and Liberals are all Godless is really bothersome for me. I am not Godless, and in many cases, I live more conservatively than most of the "Conservatives" that I know. I do my best to live by my principles, sometimes I fail, but I don't go around trying to bully other people into living as I do. I do my best to respect their freedom to live as they choose!
Great choice of words there, Brian.
And then he moved on to a subject he knows much more about- "who was more attractive, Elly May Clampett or Herman Munster's wife?" Seriously. This guy gets paid for this.
Jennie over Samantha Stevens.
To think, here's a guy with no apparent talent, dumb as a sack of hammers, not even good looking, and he's been vaulted into the top 1% of income earners hosting a TV show and a radio show? I don't get it. Of course, the same goes for Sean Hannity, and several other Right Wing Professional Liars.
FOX/Hate Radio look suspiciously like an affirmative action program for no-talent trust fund babies.
A Conservative blogger called the Thom Hartmann show yesterday, and he repeated the usual talking points, that Obama was encouraging people to get on Food Stamps, and creating an "Entitlement Society", etc.
Thom challenged him to give an example of something Obama had done toward this end, and the guy was stumped. His response boiled down to "Well, he just is... anybody can see it!"
And these people vote.
They usually just snort, and say something about MSNBC, which I don't watch or read.
To see "it" you just have to close your eyes and listen to your gut
It's a topic I only hear about, generally, from more left-leaning or "credible" sources. It linked to two decent articles about the problem with deregulation and corporate domination of the media, but I could see it was forwarded to my friend by the same guy who sends all of the Foxbot stuff. I was baffled for a minute.
Then I scrolled down, and saw the added note- " This is how Obama got elected!", and some gibberish question about the Republican candidate, and claiming to be 'food for thought'.
It just hurts my head. Corporations, through deregulation, conspired to elect the guy they say hates corporations and deregulation? It's like they could just link to an article about abandoned kittens, and add some little "Thanks, Obama!" at the end, and the suckers will eat it up.
I had to stop scrolling through the comments at one of the articles, when I saw one ( in response to corporate media control ) that said simply " Thank goodness for Fox!".
I don't know - is it their wishful thinking that gets in the way of their comprehension?
And then they pull up a graphic that shows the country covered in pipelines and they expect the non-FOXPAC viewer to beleive that one more will cause a dramatic shift in gas prices
Once they get that money back, they may bless us with a slightly lower price.
CHART
So... Are you knowledgeable about anything?
He may be very busy researching that, so be patient waiting for his analysis and explanation of the world oil market.
I could be waiting in line here longer than the DMV.
(For all those on the east coast, we wait "IN" line, not "ON" line, because it makes more sense.)
Yes, when President Obama took office, the national average was around $1.85 a gallon.
So what? What does that even mean?
I've always been a bit curious as to why people pay so much attention to the price of gasoline as an economic indicator.
It's like you're saying that since gas was $1.85 in January 2009, that means the economy was tip-top at that time. Surely you can't be suggesting that. So that makes me wonder, what are you trying to suggest by that?
Oh, and btw, gas prices have never been higher than they were in June and July, 2008, where the national average hovered above $4.00 a gallon. What can we surmise from that? Assuming the price of gas means anything at all other than the price of gas.
What scenario do you envision that the oil companies will discount the price because of their affinity for the American public? Where we, as indiviuals, will pay less for oil products. Or maybe you believe that they are just patriotic. Good luck with that.
Oil is sold on a market...for the highest price. And they (oil companies) are the direct beneficiary of higher prices. Its no coincidence that Exxon Mobil set profitablity records when oil prices skyrocketed. And if you are counting on their 'patriotism'...they paid zero US federal income taxes in the process. They claim they paid income taxes to other countries...and were entitled to credits here. Great. Good to know.
"Obama is a lazy lay about do nothing. He didn't even get into the office this morning until 10AM!!! Why doesn't he have a work ethic? He must have learned this from his anti colonialism father from KENYA!!"
It was the REPUBLICAN governor of Nebraska that asked that the pipeline be rerouted because the people of his state were concerned (rightfully so) about the possibility of their water and land they live on being polluted. Not only that, this oil is not going to the United States. It is going to the Gulf to be sold on the GLOBAL market. What part of that do those morons not get?