Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth

[CanuckInUSA 0]

President Barrack Obama has waded into the murky Oil Sands debate, suggesting the resource is potentially "destructive." Obama showed little respect when he called the "Oil Sands" "Tar Sands". There is no tar in the "Oil Sands" Barrack. I thought you were supposed to be smart. A smart person knows there is no tar. Calling the Oil Sands, Tar Sands is a favorite among the environmentalists and now it sure sounds like Obama is trying to make the environmentalists think he is on their side. Except Obama has also said "The USA has to reduce it's dependency on Middle East oil". So there you have it, Obama speaking out of both sides of his mouth lashing out at the Oil Sands to appease the environmentalists while at the same time he damn well knows he can not reduce the US dependency on the Middle East without the Oil Sands.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/04/07/17904596.html

BTW ... the Oil Sands (located mainly in Alberta Canada, but similar deposits of oil also exist in Saskatchewan) are the 2nd largest known oil reserves in the world and these Oil Sands are the largest supplier of oil to the USA. The Oil Sands presently contribute about 5% of all of Canada's Greenhouse Gases (it is predicted this will rise to about 8% in the years to come) and they produce 0.1% of the Greenhouse Gases for the entire world. So what is it Obama? Are you going to continue to play politics telling the world that you do not approve of the hated "Tar Sands" while you continue to wage war in the Middle East for their oil for your political gain? Or are you serious about reducing the USA's dependency on the Middle East and will accept that the "Oil Sands" and their 0.1% contribution to the world's Greenhouse Gases are not as bad as you claim that they are. Stop speaking with that Forked Tongue oh great one, savior of the world.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[skinnay 0]

Quote

Bituminous sands - colloquially known as oil sands (and sometimes referred to as tar sands) - are a type of unconventional petroleum deposit.

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

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Bituminous sands - colloquially known as oil sands (and sometimes referred to as tar sands) - are a type of unconventional petroleum deposit.

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

Steve is certainly a "colloquial" kinda guy ... but by using that simplified terminology is he just speaking out one side of his mouth??

[CanuckInUSA 0]

There is no tar in the Oil Sands. Just because enviro-fruitcakes have a special name for it does not mean a world leader should be using the same derogatory name. Obama is just showing how disrespectful he is when he refers publicly to the Oil Sands as Tar Sands.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[aphid 0]

I'm a Canuck old enough to remember when they first proposed distilling the petro products from that area. Even our government(s) of the day called it the "tar sands".

[freethefly 6]

Quote

There is no tar in the Oil Sands.

And, there is no ham in a hamburger! Call the press!!!!! This is just disrespectful to hogs and not giving cows credit where credit is due.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Just because enviro-fruitcakes have a special name for it does not mean a world leader should be using the same derogatory name. Obama is just showing how disrespectful he is when he refers publicly to the Oil Sands as Tar Sands.

Are these people the "enviro-fruitcakes" that you speak of?
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 1,648]

What a trivial matter to get all upset about.
Your ODS has reached epic proportions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

What a trivial matter to get all upset about.

Trivial matter? I guess you are now in favor of Obama waging war in the Middle East and North Africa while he plays politics slagging off the Oil Sands and how horrible they are considering they contribute what was it again? a whopping 0.1% of the world's greenhouse gases. Keep telling yourself that your addiction to Middle East oil is a trivial matter. ROFLMAO

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[aphid 0]

I get as angry as, if not more than, most when my country is misrepresented, misinterpreted, or misunderstood by foreign politicians or media.

But it is completely unfair, in my opinion, to use that indignation to manipulate the message as a general condemnation for issues not directly related.

I'm sorry, I do not draw a connection between Mr. Obama's comment regarding our oil/tar/bitumen sands refining and the current foreign military conflicts the United States is involved in.

John

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What a trivial matter to get all upset about.
.

well, there are many more.

like saying that they will respect state laws on medical pot, yet continue to raid, arrest, and prosecute those who who operate openly, paying considerable taxes and fees.

Or just about any Bush policy that he pledged to change...until he got into office and found that proposing policy change is a lot easier than actually executing it.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Yes, trivial matter. It is spin and nothing else. I was exposed to the Exxon cool-aid all winter. There was even a cool-aid channel on the TV in camp, lol. The pay is good, but you have to take the spin with a grain of salt.
The real problem here is instead of discussing the issue (the fact that despite its environmental failings, when it comes to "ethical oil" Canadian oil wins) you have started a discussion about a lable.

[ryoder 1,400]

Now if you Canucks don't quit getting so uppity, we'll send in some covert ops people to overthrow your government and install a dictator of our choosing, to ensure we get your oil at the price we want to pay.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I'm sorry, I do not draw a connection between Mr. Obama's comment regarding our oil/tar/bitumen sands refining and the current foreign military conflicts the United States is involved in.

Obama is playing politics right now talking out of both sides of his mouth. Obama is slagging the Oil Sands to appease the enviro'nuts when he damn well knows he can't cease using the Oil Sands. The USA is addicted enough already to Middle East oil, they can't add to their addiction but cutting off the Oil Sands as the enviro'nuts want him to.

Pure politics talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I get as angry as, if not more than, most when my country is misrepresented, misinterpreted, or misunderstood by foreign politicians or media.

Takeoff, you hoser, eh? Everything we need to know, eh about Canada, eh we can learn from these guys, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-ZvAVcBIrQ

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[ryoder 1,400]

Much better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BFPt001PYU

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Now if you Canucks don't quit getting so uppity, we'll send in some covert ops people to overthrow your government and install a dictator of our choosing, to ensure we get your oil at the price we want to pay.

It's already underway. http://wildrosealliance.ca/earlier-press-releases/our-vision-for-alberta/ Pay particular attention to the third item under Economic Opportunity and incentives.
This party became a force when the Premier of the party that has been in power since 1972 went off the reservation and raised royalties.

[Meso 38]

A politician who says things to please those who have the power to keep him in his position. Well I've never...

If anyone thinks that there is going to be a democratically elected politician that is going to be truthful and straight up on every topic and not try to say what people want to hear, they will be waiting until their death.

A politician is a politician, you're not going to get anything more. Lesser of 2 evils etc.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

There is no tar in the Oil Sands. Just because enviro-fruitcakes have a special name for it does not mean a world leader should be using the same derogatory name. Obama is just showing how disrespectful he is when he refers publicly to the Oil Sands as Tar Sands.

This is petty. Even for SC. But I do have to ask, because I've always referred to them as the Athabaska Tar Sands, is this an Obama thing or do Canadians really feel slighted if people use "tar" instead of "oil"? For this type of material either seems equally appropriate. In California it's called "tar".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar_Pits

[CanuckInUSA 0]

People who refer to them as "Tar Sands" want the "Oil Sands" closed down. One of two things is going on here. Obama either wants to close them down, or Obama just isn't that smart and never bothered to be properly educated on the topic. For a region of the world that causes only 0.1% of the world's greenhouse gases, it sure does get the enviro'nuts up in arms. I guess waging war in the Middle East and North Africa is a much better option.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[idrankwhat 0]

Extracting oil from the oil sands is indeed extremely environmentally problematic. So is mountain top removal mining, which gets very little press down here. There is a cost for our voracious consumption of fossil fuels. I think people should be exposed to all of the information so they can make they can modify their consumption as they see fit. Same thing goes for meat. Our lifestyles leave an enormous impact on the planet and we're telling an over populated world that ours is the lifestyle to aspire towards. I think that's irresponsible.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

There are a number of things you say I do agree with.

- Yes oil extraction from the Oil Sands is not a cheap process and it does have a certain environmental impact. But the companies extracting this oil must clean up once they are done and in a comical way you can look at the Oil Sands as one of Mother Nature's large natural disasters and humans are presently cleaning up this natural disaster by mining the Oil Sands.

- Our planet is over populated. I remember when I was in high school in the late 70s early 80s the population was estimated to be just over 4 billion people and now it is well over 7 billion? It has almost doubled in 30 years. That is mind boggling. There is no way the planet can sustain so many people if everyone was to live the lifestyle North Americans and Europeans live. But that is the direction China and India are on and can you blame them for wanting to modernize their societies?

Until the entire world changes, nothing will change. The enviro'nuts could close down the Oil Sands (I doubt they will as long as the USA needs oil and is serious about reducing it's dependency on the Middle East). No even if the enviro'nuts were to succeed in closing the Oil Sands, that would only be 0.1% of the world's greenhouse gases.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

There are a number of things you say I do agree with.

- Yes oil extraction from the Oil Sands is not a cheap process and it does have a certain environmental impact. But the companies extracting this oil must clean up once they are done and in a comical way you can look at the Oil Sands as one of Mother Nature's large natural disasters and humans are presently cleaning up this natural disaster by mining the Oil Sands.

- Our planet is over populated. I remember when I was in high school in the late 70s early 80s the population was estimated to be just over 4 billion people and now it is well over 7 billion? It has almost doubled in 30 years. That is mind boggling. There is no way the planet can sustain so many people if everyone was to live the lifestyle North Americans and Europeans live. But that is the direction China and India are on and can you blame them for wanting to modernize their societies?

Until the entire world changes, nothing will change. The enviro'nuts could close down the Oil Sands (I doubt they will as long as the USA needs oil and is serious about reducing it's dependency on the Middle East). No even if the enviro'nuts were to succeed in closing the Oil Sands, that would only be 0.1% of the world's greenhouse gases.

This is the sort of discussion we need on a national level instead of the arguing the extremes the way we do. We need oil but it's a finite resource and more people are dipping their straws into it. There's nothing we can do about that. Therefore we need to start conserving and limiting our energy consumption while we develop its future instead of racing to squeeze out and consume every drop we can. Our military is also a huge petroleum fuel hog and dealing with that is going to take quite a long time. Hard decisions are going to have to be made and it's going to involve both increased production and conservation.

Partisan bickering has become the new national past time and it's extremely counterproductive to problem solving. Tackling that problem is the first step to solving the others. Kinda hard to do though when media shareholders will suffer from an elevated national dialog.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

People who refer to them as "Tar Sands" want the "Oil Sands" closed down. One of two things is going on here. Obama either wants to close them down, or Obama just isn't that smart and never bothered to be properly educated on the topic. For a region of the world that causes only 0.1% of the world's greenhouse gases, it sure does get the enviro'nuts up in arms. I guess waging war in the Middle East and North Africa is a much better option.

Steve... come on... from you .. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

President Barrack Obama ... I thought you were supposed to be smart.

I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that he's not intelligent (smart)?

By every objective measure (education, accomplishments, etc.) he's very smart indeed.

It seems that you believe he's not smart because you are generalizing from this one supposed error, or because you dislike his policies.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."