General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Some People Can Not Afford to Lose the Next Presidential Election [View all]Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)If you like, we can discuss other industries in which we are taking care of OUR billionaires, while screwing their billionaires. Omega Air Refueling. This is a civilian company that has converted several planes to act as air tankers to refuel Navy and Marine jets. Now, this supposedly saves us taxpayers money. Now, I want you to explain to me how Civilian aircraft owned and operated by civilian's can do the job cheaper than the military. Do their pilots make less money than military pilots? Do their mechanics who service the aircraft make less money than the enlisted people in the military make?
No, this is another of those no bid contracts that you've heard about, and objected to when it was Haliburton doing the money making. Haliburton bad, they donate to Republicans. Omega good, they obviously donate to Democrats.
Goldman Sachs is a good company. It supports the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. This means they are a totally moral company that doesn't do anything wrong or unethical in making money hand over fist. This is in obvious contrast to Romney who made his money through totally underhanded deals and unethical tricks.
The point about Keystone was to show that we are manipulated to believe things that are untrue. We were told by several environmental groups that if we could stop the pipeline, we could prevent the Tar Sands Oil from reaching the refineries. Yet, that isn't true by half. The oil is flowing through Tanker cars but nobody is protesting that. None of the environmental groups oppose oil being carried in tankers. Why is that? Obviously, it's not because the tankers are safe. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026252693
In the 1970's and 1980's Solar groups were funded by Oil Companies to increase opposition to Nuclear Power. Many of us were ignorant of that at the time. I know I was. As I've grown older, and wiser, I've learned that a lot of the protest movements are supported and funded by groups that stand to benefit. So now, I try to learn as much as I can about an issue, including who benefits whichever way it goes. Keystone being Vetoed didn't do a damn thing about preventing Tar Sands Oil from reaching refineries. It just made sure that the oil was transported on trains owned by the billionaires on our side. That is honestly the only benefit of the Veto, making sure that our side continues to profit at the expense of their side. Now, is that the benefit you thought we were getting? Or did you believe that by stamping it Veto and signing his name with a flourish that President Obama was working to protect the environment from the dirtiest of oils? Because the Oil is still flowing, into tankers that are little more than Zippo Lighters, pulled by Diesel Powered locomotives, across rivers, alongside rivers, around lakes, and through wetlands. Through towns, and cities, neighborhoods and forests. And accidents are happening, but they don't get much press nationally.
And they don't get mentioned by Environmental groups as something we need to take action on. So a train crashes, so some oil bursts into flames and poisons some lakes and rivers and streams. So some houses burn to the ground and so what if some people die. At least we are making sure that the Koch Brothers are not making a dime off of the oil. That's the important thing to remember.
That's my point. The Environmental groups are not trying to stop the Tar Sands Oil. They're only trying to stop the Koch Brothers. Is that the fight you thought you were signing on to? Is that the goal you thought you were supporting? Because that was the goal we achieved, and that was the goal we were told was a tremendous victory over the RW and the polluters.