Seriously, People Voted For This Moron?

Barbara Boxer has to be the stupidest person ever to hold elective office. The Keystone Pipeline will kill - not 8000 people - not 9000 people - but EXACTLY 8100 people! Never mind the thousands of jobs it will create, and the money it will inject into the economy. Nope, it will KILL! So, Canada has decided to give the contract to China, and their people die instead, while they get all the Canadian oil that could have come here. Brilliant!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...christmas.html

Just because you disagree with her point of view, does not make her stupid.

I have not delved into the issue, but she does make some strong points about lead, arsenic and mercury.

. . . I think you are just trying to stir up some shit as is your wont.

Let's just say that solar, wind and watercraft energy is a lot better for your health.
And maybe it is more expensive at the moment, we'll get used to it.
There are many countries where gas prices are $8-9 per gallon or more, and many of those countries do a lot better than the US. They just got used to a higher price.
Think of Germany, Netherlands, Dnmark, Norway, Zweden

COG,
That's quite a statement. I agree she is stupid but I'm not sure she is at the top of the list. Maxeen Waters would give her a run for the top spot.

Fast Gunn,
The point was the exact number. She pinned it down to 8100. Not hundreds or thousands but 8100. That is fucking stupid.

The exact number is just a detail and a minor one at that, perhaps merely to emphasis a point. No need to dwell on it and miss the big picture here.

As for Europe getting used to $9/gal gasoline, I think that would kill our way of life in the USA.

So how did the Europeans do it?

Basically, by lowering their standard of living and driving cartoon cars with lawn-mower engines!

. . . I would never give up my souped-up Batmobile for one of those goofy little cars!

I agree it's a detail but she made this shit up. For her to pin it down like that is stupid. Anybody else would have thrown out some generic number. She is an idiot.

First, you are wrong. She's quite bright. I've met her on several occasions dating back to when she was in the House of Representatives. She has a degree in economics and is whip smart.

As for the numbers, they are not "made up." It's called epidemiology and Industrial hygiene. You figure out who much cheaper gasoline would be using basic supply and demand modeling, use the elasticity curve of gasoline to determine how much more gasoline would be used because of the lower price, and then use basic environmental models to predict increased pollution and mortality from increased gasoline usage. How else do you think cost benefit analysis is done?

So what they are saying is that pollution from cars in the form of lead, arsenic, mercury is killing people (now) and that by allowing the pipe line to be built will allow us to have lower gasoline prices, thus causing even more pollution from exhaust from our cars and will kill 8100 more people that we already kill by polluting the air with our cars. What utter nonsense.

In a World that gives us Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi??

Granted, Boxer is the queen bee of pandering bitches, and she is dumb as dirt, but I say she sits in 5th place.

This isn't the first stupid thing Boxer has said. So we should give up the pipeline, and it's thousands of jobs, and let the Chinese get the oil based on some actuary's findings? TTH, I think you would have a tough time recognizing intelligence.

How many deaths are acceptable, since we won't be able to eliminate death? And since Senator Boxer knows who these people are that will die, why don't we just contact them and tell them to move?

The fact is they don't want the economy to get better if the Republicans get credit for it. Plain and simple. It's too bad the Republicans are the same way.

Just because you disagree with her point of view, does not make her stupid. Actually, it does.

I have not delved into the issue, but she does make some strong points about lead, arsenic and mercury. She makes NO points. She just said the words. I'm surprised she pronounced them correctly.

. . . I think you are just trying to stir up some shit as is your wont. Duh. No one comes here for an intelligent conversation. It was getting boring and I thought this would be fun. I knew the usual suspects would come out, and they did.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

First, you are wrong. She's quite bright. I've met her on several occasions dating back to when she was in the House of Representatives. She has a degree in economics and is whip smart.

As for the numbers, they are not "made up." It's called epidemiology and Industrial hygiene. You figure out who much cheaper gasoline would be using basic supply and demand modeling, use the elasticity curve of gasoline to determine how much more gasoline would be used because of the lower price, and then use basic environmental models to predict increased pollution and mortality from increased gasoline usage. How else do you think cost benefit analysis is done? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That snout of your's must be having some serious clogging issues....
Absolute Horse Shit... and you don't even smell it!!

Yeah, TTH sounded smart, but he missed the point entirely. It's fun to watch!

This isn't the first stupid thing Boxer has said. So we should give up the pipeline, and it's thousands of jobs, and let the Chinese get the oil based on some actuary's findings? TTH, I think you would have a tough time recognizing intelligence.

How many deaths are acceptable, since we won't be able to eliminate death? And since Senator Boxer knows who these people are that will die, why don't we just contact them and tell them to move?

The fact is they don't want the economy to get better if the Republicans get credit for it. Plain and simple. It's too bad the Republicans are the same way. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Increased gasoline use means increased deaths from pollution. Period. That is not in dispute. How many are acceptable is a policy question. The best answer, in my opinion, is to internalize the external costs of the gasoline -- environmental damage, increased carbon emissions, deaths from pollution, etc. -- into the price of the gasoline. That's the concept behind a carbon tax, just like all Pigouvian taxes. Then, assuming that you have appropriately placed a value on the lives lost, the cost of global warming, etc., the market will make the correct decision on how many is too many.

If you are not familial with Pigouvian taxes, you should be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax

And no one knows which particular people will die. If we did, they we could internalize the costs by suing the oil companies and having their death be included in the costs of gasoline that way.

But I can't think of a single reason that as a country we should do anything to make the price of any carbon based energy cheaper. Can you?

The pipeline is supposed to create 20,000 new jobs . . . and now Boxer says 8,100 will die.

Hmmmm.

Using Boxer's math, that means there will be an additional 8,100 job openings for a sum total of 28,100 jobs - or at the very least, 20,000 new jobs and 28,100 fewer people drawing unemployment.

<sarcasm>