Insults and ignorance.
No wonder people wont accept you at this level Junior.
- Yssup Rider
- 11-19-2014, 10:45 PM
- lustylad
- 11-19-2014, 10:59 PM
What level is that, assup?
- Yssup Rider
- 11-19-2014, 11:23 PM
You should know by now, Junior. Your inability to play in this league is well documented. You are a boy among men...
- lustylad
- 11-20-2014, 12:34 AM
Your inability to play in this league is well documented. You are a boy among men... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Keep talking to yourself, assup. You posture more than fagboy does. Have you always been this insecure? Your ego is flaky, your intellect de minimis, your insults school-yardish, your posts frivolous and forgettable. What league do you pretend to play in?
- Yssup Rider
- 11-20-2014, 12:38 AM
I don't play, Junior. Or haven't you figured out that yet?
Sucks to be in a place where the smartest among you says YINZ.
Please keep your parochial jealousies and patriotismp in here.
You. Don't. Matter.
"Now fuck off..."
Sucks to be in a place where the smartest among you says YINZ.
Please keep your parochial jealousies and patriotismp in here.
You. Don't. Matter.
"Now fuck off..."
- lustylad
- 11-20-2014, 12:51 AM
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-20-2014, 01:20 AM
- WTF
- 11-20-2014, 01:58 AM
- Whirlaway
- 11-20-2014, 06:23 AM
IDK, but I think this one deserved a "snick" ?????
I don't play, Junior. Or haven't you figured out that yet?
Sucks to be in a place where the smartest among you says YINZ.
Please keep your parochial jealousies and patriotismp in here.
You. Don't. Matter.
"Now fuck off..." Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Sorry to hear. I figured with 21,525 at bats (snick, snort) you would have made it to first base at least ONCE. No wonder you're a mess. Originally Posted by lustylad
SNICK! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
- WTF
- 11-20-2014, 07:51 AM
- boardman
- 11-20-2014, 08:10 AM
I know it is accepted by the Accounting Profession.So depreciation is a tax break?
Just as any other tax break is accepted by the Accounting Profession.
I was talking about Congress passing special breaks to a given industry. That is wtf this was. No matter how you spin it, you are sounding like Gruber.Originally Posted by WTF
Is that what you are saying?
There is no spin to the principle of depreciating an asset over it's useful life. Now you're just sounding stupid. Don't go down that road.
- Guest051115
- 11-20-2014, 08:15 AM
From behind enemy lines.
Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along
Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:
1. Keystone XL Would Not Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency
The oil to be sent through Keystone XL pipeline was never destined for US markets. In its own presentation to investors about the proposed pipeline extension, TransCanada (the company behind Keystone XL) boasted that most if not all of the extracted and refined oil would be exported --- sold in oversees markets where oil fetches a higher price (and thus turns a higher profit for the company).
2. Keystone XL Would Have Increased Domestic Oil Prices
Currently, Canadian oil reserves stored in the Midwest help suppress gas prices in the United States, particularly for farmers in our nation’s heartland.
In its permit application for the pipeline, TransCanada noted that the Keystone XL pipeline would allow the company to drain these reserves and export that fuel as well. According to TransCanada’s own statements, this would raise gas prices in the United States, especially in the Midwest.
3. Keystone XL Overstated Number of Jobs to be Created
In 2008, TransCanada’s original permit application to the State Department said the Keystone XL pipeline would create “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” in temporary jobs building the pipeline.
By 2011, now facing growing opposition to the pipeline, TransCanada had inflated these numbers (using undisclosed formulas) to 20,000. Supporters of the proposal, backed by big oil, have since trumpeted these trumped up numbers.
4. Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year
The pipeline that the Obama administration has rejected the permit for would be an extension of a pipeline that has already leaked -- not just once, but 12 times in the last year.
While TransCanada tried to dismiss these leaks as “minor” averaging “just five to 10 gallons of oil” each, the leak on May 7, 2011 near Millner, N.D., spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil in total.
5. The Environmental Concerns About Oil Leaks Are Justified
Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman strongly opposed the Keystone XL project because the pipeline would run through a massive and vital aquifer in his state the supplies clean drinking water to over 2 million Americans plus water that fuels the region’s agriculture industry.
Building the pipeline might have created a few thousand temporary jobs but even a minor oil spill in or near the aquifer would have jeopardized hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention the health and safety of millions.
Meanwhile, in Michigan where a similar tar sands pipeline spilled over 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, residents are still complaining of headaches, dizziness and nausea while studies continue to look at the long-term effects of just being near such an oil spill when it happens.
6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming
Assuming you believe, like the vast majority of the world’s scientists, that climate change is both real and of concern, the Canadian tar sands are the second largest carbon reserve in the world.
Mining these reserves would release all of that carbon into the atmosphere, to detrimental effect on our environment. Sure, Canada might go ahead and mine the tar sands anyway, but the United States doesn’t have to help pollute the planet and our own states in the process.
No matter how you look at it, the Keystone XL proposal was a slimy, scam of a deal. America is better than that.
We can create good-paying jobs that build our families and our economy for the future without hurting our environment today.
We can invest in innovative energy technology that not only reduces our dependence on dirty fuel but also puts us in the lead in critical, emerging markets.
We can prioritize good jobs and a competitive economy of the future, with all the upsides of American energy production and innovation and far, far fewer of the downsides that Keystone carried.
Let’s focus on more of those deals going forward.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...eal-all-along/
Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along
Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:
1. Keystone XL Would Not Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency
The oil to be sent through Keystone XL pipeline was never destined for US markets. In its own presentation to investors about the proposed pipeline extension, TransCanada (the company behind Keystone XL) boasted that most if not all of the extracted and refined oil would be exported --- sold in oversees markets where oil fetches a higher price (and thus turns a higher profit for the company).
2. Keystone XL Would Have Increased Domestic Oil Prices
Currently, Canadian oil reserves stored in the Midwest help suppress gas prices in the United States, particularly for farmers in our nation’s heartland.
In its permit application for the pipeline, TransCanada noted that the Keystone XL pipeline would allow the company to drain these reserves and export that fuel as well. According to TransCanada’s own statements, this would raise gas prices in the United States, especially in the Midwest.
3. Keystone XL Overstated Number of Jobs to be Created
In 2008, TransCanada’s original permit application to the State Department said the Keystone XL pipeline would create “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” in temporary jobs building the pipeline.
By 2011, now facing growing opposition to the pipeline, TransCanada had inflated these numbers (using undisclosed formulas) to 20,000. Supporters of the proposal, backed by big oil, have since trumpeted these trumped up numbers.
4. Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year
The pipeline that the Obama administration has rejected the permit for would be an extension of a pipeline that has already leaked -- not just once, but 12 times in the last year.
While TransCanada tried to dismiss these leaks as “minor” averaging “just five to 10 gallons of oil” each, the leak on May 7, 2011 near Millner, N.D., spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil in total.
5. The Environmental Concerns About Oil Leaks Are Justified
Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman strongly opposed the Keystone XL project because the pipeline would run through a massive and vital aquifer in his state the supplies clean drinking water to over 2 million Americans plus water that fuels the region’s agriculture industry.
Building the pipeline might have created a few thousand temporary jobs but even a minor oil spill in or near the aquifer would have jeopardized hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention the health and safety of millions.
Meanwhile, in Michigan where a similar tar sands pipeline spilled over 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, residents are still complaining of headaches, dizziness and nausea while studies continue to look at the long-term effects of just being near such an oil spill when it happens.
6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming
Assuming you believe, like the vast majority of the world’s scientists, that climate change is both real and of concern, the Canadian tar sands are the second largest carbon reserve in the world.
Mining these reserves would release all of that carbon into the atmosphere, to detrimental effect on our environment. Sure, Canada might go ahead and mine the tar sands anyway, but the United States doesn’t have to help pollute the planet and our own states in the process.
No matter how you look at it, the Keystone XL proposal was a slimy, scam of a deal. America is better than that.
We can create good-paying jobs that build our families and our economy for the future without hurting our environment today.
We can invest in innovative energy technology that not only reduces our dependence on dirty fuel but also puts us in the lead in critical, emerging markets.
We can prioritize good jobs and a competitive economy of the future, with all the upsides of American energy production and innovation and far, far fewer of the downsides that Keystone carried.
Let’s focus on more of those deals going forward.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...eal-all-along/
- boardman
- 11-20-2014, 08:38 AM
Does anyone really believe that the unfettered increase in the supply of a global commodity will increase it's price anywhere? Some of you need to take economics 101.
As I've said before, Keystone is a political tool being used by both sides. All the while there is more pipeline work going on now than there was in the pipeline heydays of the 50's and 60's unhindered by no more political process than local eminent domain adjudication. Many of those suits are filed simply because the landowners want more money for using their land than the pipeline company wants to pay so they let the courts decide what is FMV.
Landowners can be very fickle especially farmers. I once saw a rice farmer around Winnie, TX turn off his irrigation pumps which were filling diked and ditched right of way for a case of Seagram 7. He just wanted a little something extra that his neighbors weren't getting. Human nature.
As I've said before, Keystone is a political tool being used by both sides. All the while there is more pipeline work going on now than there was in the pipeline heydays of the 50's and 60's unhindered by no more political process than local eminent domain adjudication. Many of those suits are filed simply because the landowners want more money for using their land than the pipeline company wants to pay so they let the courts decide what is FMV.
Landowners can be very fickle especially farmers. I once saw a rice farmer around Winnie, TX turn off his irrigation pumps which were filling diked and ditched right of way for a case of Seagram 7. He just wanted a little something extra that his neighbors weren't getting. Human nature.
- Guest051115
- 11-20-2014, 09:04 AM
Does anyone really believe that the unfettered increase in the supply of a global commodity will increase it's price anywhere? Some of you need to take economics 101.. Originally Posted by boardmanYES - particularly right here in the US. I'm not an expert in the area so let me explain why via copy paste. These are the facts you're likely missing and it's not to insult you in any way it's just FACTS.
Right now, a lot of oil being produced in Canada and North Dakota has trouble reaching the refineries and terminals on the Gulf. Since that supply can’t be sold abroad, it reduces the competition for it to Midwest refineries that can pay lower prices to get it. Giving the Canadian oil access to the Gulf means the glut in the Midwest goes away, making it more expensive for the region.
How does bringing in more oil supply result in higher gas prices, you ask? Let me walk you through the facts. A combination of record domestic oil production and anemic domestic demand has resulted in large stockpiles of crude oil in the U.S. In particular, supplies of crude in the critical area of Cushing, OK increased more than 150% from 2004 to early 2011 (compared to a 40% rise for the country as a whole). Segments of the oil industry want to import additional supplies of crude from Canada, bypass the surplus crude stockpiles in Oklahoma in an effort to refine this Canadian imported oil into gasoline in the Gulf Coast with the goal of increasing gasoline exports to Latin America and other foreign markets.
The Keystone pipeline isn’t just about expanding the unsustainable mining of … Canadian crude, but also to raise gasoline prices for American consumers whose gasoline is currently priced under WTI crude benchmark prices.While the quotes (not in totality) are great sources of information this video will better help explain the rationale. If you have issue with FACTS I'd like to hear them. Personally I was unaware of these facts until doing a bit more research in this area.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/...rices-u-s.html
- WTF
- 11-20-2014, 09:05 AM
So depreciation is a tax break?Never said that.
Is that what you are saying?
There is no spin to the principle of depreciating an asset over it's useful life. Now you're just sounding stupid. Don't go down that road. Originally Posted by boardman
I was talking about accelerated depreciation granted to that industry for processing that particular type crude, during that particular time frame. Which amounts to nothing more than a tax break and a huge competitive advantage should and other plants want to come to the party after that date.
You need to make a U turn if you want to get off Stupid Street.