OT...Getting Sick of this Spit

[wsushox1]

The point isn't about the construction jobs or environmental tangents you ran down; it is about keeping money away from the middle east kooks. ANY North American oil production helps that.

You're not correct here.

[SHOCKvalue]

Buffet's trains are derailing.

http://m.omaha.com/money/bnsf-oil-train-derailment-prompts-evacuation-in-north-dakota-town/article_0713d928-f409-11e4-b811-472fe5a23676.html?mode=jqm

Furthermore, Buffett, Burlington Northern, BNSF, or whatever the **** you want to call them, owns all of the rail used for oil transportation in North Dakota to the border. Whatever label is painted on the engines or tank cars, Buffett gets the money. Buffett is responsible for the rail safety.

And Buffett is an open Democrat and Obama supporter.

Things that make you go hmmm... Or more accurately in today's context: Things that make you roll your eyes at the abject crony capitalism.

[SHOCKvalue]

You're not correct here.

Go on.

EDIT: Suppose you're going to tell me the liberal bedtime story about how excess NA oil is sold to other markets?

[wsushox1]

Go on.

Tar sand and Oil Shale money is barely profitable right now. Keystone XL would not have made a damn difference about keeping money out of the middle east.

[SHOCKvalue]

Tar sand and Oil Shale money is barely profitable right now. Keystone XL would not have made a damn difference about keeping money out of the middle east.

So is oil a finite commodity that will soon go stratospheric, or a readily-available resource so market-stable and cheap that a multi-billion corporation just decides to throw money away at a "bridge to nowhere?"

I get so confused these days.

Some of the largest business entities in the world aren't creating forecasts based on the spot price. At a point in the future that is insignificant in the grand scheme of things the tar sand oil will again be profitable, and offer a market alternative to the products derived from supporters of terrorism.

[MoValley John]

Just to keep you from trying a gotcha, I think Canada Pacific has one main line through North Dakota, the rest of the rail, including several crosses into and out of Canada, are controlled by Buffet. There are some small independents as well, but they tie into the Burlington rail.

Buffet profits on no expansion of the XL. Buffet profits on derailed oil vs. pipeline oil.

[shocka khan]

Just to keep you from trying a gotcha, I think Canada Pacific has one main line through North Dakota, the rest of the rail, including several crosses into and out of Canada, are controlled by Buffet. There are some small independents as well, but they tie into the Burlington rail.

Buffet profits on no expansion of the XL. Buffet profits on derailed oil vs. pipeline oil.

Thanks for the info. My dad retired from Santa Fe (SF). When BN bought SF my dad made a wad of money as the purchase was financed using Berkshire Hathaway class 2 stock.

At the time, it was believed that Buffet made the play to obtain a shorter haul for coal trains out of Wyoming. However, I think your idea is more relevant.

BTW and for the record, I respect the Kochs much more than Buffet.

[MoValley John]

Here's another non sequitur, the no fly list. The thought that people on the no fly list shouldn't be allowed to own guns, is silly, not because there isn't at least some thought into potentially dangerous people, but because the no fly list is silly, arbitrary, and doesn't follow due process. In other words, if not all together unconstitutional, being on the no fly list pretty much violates individual rights.

I'm all for tighter gun regulations, I have no problem with certain guns being outlawed, I think some people with mental conditions should be banned from owning firearms, but these people also deserve due process when we deny them the right to own a gun. Here is the ACLU paper on the no fly list.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-youre-no-fly-list

Is this really the standard we want?

[MoValley John]

Oh, and neither the shooter in Colorado Springs, nor the shooters in San Bernadino were on the no fly list.

[shocka khan]

Here's another non sequitur, the no fly list. The thought that people on the no fly list shouldn't be allowed to own guns, is silly, not because there isn't at least some thought into potentially dangerous people, but because the no fly list is silly, arbitrary, and doesn't follow due process. In other words, if not all together unconstitutional, being on the no fly list pretty much violates individual rights.

I'm all for tighter gun regulations, I have no problem with certain guns being outlawed, I think some people with mental conditions should be banned from owning firearms, but these people also deserve due process when we deny them the right to own a gun. Here is the ACLU paper on the no fly list.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-youre-no-fly-list

Is this really the standard we want?

You bring up an excellent point. My gun-owning friends and I have had this discussion and what I came to is that we should allow for gun ownership for mental people (if it happened a long time ago or there are other extenuating circumstances) by having them go to a shrink on an annual basis for evaluation. We do the same thing for driver's licenses (at a certain age you must pass a driving test) and pilots (physical evaluation from a doctor) so why not an evaluation from a psychologist.

As far as the no-fly list goes, don't you think that the people on the list have a right to legally challenge being on that list as well? One of the executive managers I reported to (way up the line from me) somehow ended up being a 'suspicious character' when the no-fly lists first came out. He was always singled out for 'extra special treatment' by TSA every time he flew (and he flew worldwide). Most of the reason was his family's country of origin.

I think we could find a way to make it happen, but it will require dialog and discussion between two volatile people. Gun owners can strenuously protect their right to bear arms and sometimes don't want to listen and the libs think they ought to be able to take everyone's guns away and don't listen either.

There has got to be a middle ground somewhere, but it will require discussion, listening and education. Neither extreme of our political spectrum is interested in discussing and listening. They have the third part down well. Even when the rest of us don't want to be 'educated'.

[Kung Wu]

And one other thing.....I'm sure PP has an incident response plan,

Hmm, that's a big assumption to make and would take a real tangential, yet concerted effort, but it's just your guess, so that's okay.

around which tabletop exercises are performed, drills are performed and the learnings are funneled into a master document.

Whoa, now we aren't just talking about a plan, we're talking about a massive coordination effort to make sure each and every PP facility has underwent some incident response training. Extremely costly and unlikely, but it's your prerogative to make any guess you want. It's just speculation after all.

The learnings help PP fortify their defenses - i.e. defense in depth.

Wait, I think now you are just pretending your guess is correct, and then just kind of roll playing the end result and making up even MORE speculation that if a coordinated and expensive response training exercise were actually taking place, that all of the facilities would take it very serious and be ready for anything at a moment's notice. That ALL employs are trained and ready for combat. Well, again this is just a second guess on the outcome, based on pretending that your first unlikely guess is correct, and that's completely your prerogative to roll play and dream up scenarios. Nobody will give you any crap about that. You're just game playing out-loudly, no problem.

So one dumb white Christian guy attacked a fortified target.

Whoa, now wait a minute. You just made two (in my opinion very speculative) guesses, then went on to assert them as fact, in order to make a point.

@shocka khan:, that's the type of logic that causes you to catch so much grief on this site.

[MoValley John]

You bring up an excellent point. My gun-owning friends and I have had this discussion and what I came to is that we should allow for gun ownership for mental people (if it happened a long time ago or there are other extenuating circumstances) by having them go to a shrink on an annual basis for evaluation. We do the same thing for driver's licenses (at a certain age you must pass a driving test) and pilots (physical evaluation from a doctor) so why not an evaluation from a psychologist.

As far as the no-fly list goes, don't you think that the people on the list have a right to legally challenge being on that list as well? One of the executive managers I reported to (way up the line from me) somehow ended up being a 'suspicious character' when the no-fly lists first came out. He was always singled out for 'extra special treatment' by TSA every time he flew (and he flew worldwide). Most of the reason was his family's country of origin.

I think we could find a way to make it happen, but it will require dialog and discussion between two volatile people. Gun owners can strenuously protect their right to bear arms and sometimes don't want to listen and the libs think they ought to be able to take everyone's guns away and don't listen either.

There has got to be a middle ground somewhere, but it will require discussion, listening and education. Neither extreme of our political spectrum is interested in discussing and listening. They have the third part down well. Even when the rest of us don't want to be 'educated'.

Did you read the ACLU piece on the no fly list? Do you understand that you have zero due process if placed on the no fly list? You can file a grievance with TSA and they will investigate, you might even get removed from the no fly list entirely, you may get partial relief, or you may get no relief at all. You certainly don't get a day in court to challenge. You get what they decide.

As for mentally unstable people having guns, I don't want them to have guns. But I believe, at a minimum, they deserve due process. From what I've seen floated, doctors would have authority to declare people unfit to own guns. Really? No due process if your doctor was way off base, no recourse.

I will show just a hint of what could go wrong. Let's say you get offered a job at Apple. A leftist company, all that is required is a physical from their corporate MD. Their MD is also a gun banning liberal. In his assessment, the MD recommends employment, but notes a slight, B.S. depression and forbids gun ownership. You now can't own a gun and have zero due process. I know this is far fetched, but it could happen. If you smoke and you want to quit, your physician may prescribe certain anti depressants that are effective in reducing your need to smoke. Chantix, anyone? So, if we use a model of being on a psych drug as a reason to deny gun ownership, a bunch of people that just want to stop smoking lost their rights to own a gun.

Gun laws need to be thought out. Right now, we just have hyperbole on both sides. Plus, any of the ideas set forth so far would not have prevented anything.

[shocka khan]

MVJ, I did read it, ergo my story. The person in my story also was asking why he was being frisked and detained (albeit briefly) every time he flew and the TSA screeners would never provide him with an answer. Why should I be surprised that people on the no-fly list are treated any differently.

This is a process where government has been running amok for 14 years. It is yet another example of Obama not doing the right thing (to make the process more transparent and fair) when he could have. Perhaps not as bad as not prosecuting the banksters that crashed our economy, but an issue just the same.

I hope the ACLU can force some reform into the system. I don't agree with most of what the ACLU does, but they're sometimes like the broken clock - right twice a day.

[shocka khan]

Hmm, that's a big assumption to make and would take a real tangential, yet concerted effort, but it's just your guess, so that's okay.



Whoa, now we aren't just talking about a plan, we're talking about a massive coordination effort to make sure each and every PP facility has underwent some incident response training. Extremely costly and unlikely, but it's your prerogative to make any guess you want. It's just speculation after all.



Wait, I think now you are just pretending your guess is correct, and then just kind of roll playing the end result and making up even MORE speculation that if a coordinated and expensive response training exercise were actually taking place, that all of the facilities would take it very serious and be ready for anything at a moment's notice. That ALL employs are trained and ready for combat. Well, again this is just a second guess on the outcome, based on pretending that your first unlikely guess is correct, and that's completely your prerogative to roll play and dream up scenarios. Nobody will give you any crap about that. You're just game playing out-loudly, no problem.



Whoa, now wait a minute. You just made two (in my opinion very speculative) guesses, then went on to assert them as fact, in order to make a point.

@shocka khan:, that's the type of logic that causes you to catch so much grief on this site.

1. I believe I heard Cecile Richards state that they had plans and they drilled to them.
2. The patients and employees went into safe rooms it was reported they were taught to do that through training.
3. The PP office had bullet-proof glass panes. This complicated the police efforts to respond. This implies that a risk assessment had been performed. They just didn't get the part right about what they would do when someone got inside.
4. The PP office had surveillance cameras. This is how police found the shooter. Again, surveillance cameras are not there to catch employees, but to protect them.

Kung, we just don't think alike. Most organizations have some sort of contingency plans to address risks. How much do you know about incident response plans, have you ever looked at one and do you know why an organization might want to have one?

I have had to read and assess incident response plans (albeit for different applications) as part of my job. My prior employer had one. They had to develop it about 20 years ago when a jealous ex stormed the office, took his ex-wife into a conference room and killed her. He later shot himself when the police closed in.

[Kung Wu]

Look on the bright side, with 14 people dead, that's 14 job openings available for the Syrian refugees Obama is hell bent on bringing in!