Ken Buck: Wrong, Gross, AND Stupid

9 thoughts on “Ken Buck: Wrong, Gross, AND Stupid”

1. So, when did Bucknutz stop believing in “buyer’s remorse” and start believing in rapists, anyway?

   Here’s a little hint: . . .

   . . . it starts with, brown skin.

   Log in to Reply

2. What an embarrassment to those of us with interests in his footprint.  

   It's been argued that completion of the KXL would increase the price of gasoline: 

   Keystone XL Would Raise Gas Prices, Not Lower Them

   This is nonsense on many fronts, most of all because the price is oil is fundamentally set on global markets. As the Congressional Research Service pointed out in late January, when there’s trouble in places like the Straits of Hormuz, the price of oil goes up for everyone and Keystone will make no difference, since the oil market is “globally integrated’; it’s not like Exxon offers a home-country discount to American motorists.

   But in the case of the Keystone pipeline, it turns out there’s a special twist. At the moment, there’s an oversupply of tarsands crude in the Midwest, which has depressed gas prices there. If the pipeline gets built so that crude can easily be sent overseas, that excess will immediately disappear and gas prices for 15 states across the middle of the country will suddenly rise. Says who? Says the companies trying to build the thing. Transcanada Pipeline’s rationale for investors, and their testimony to Canadian officials, included precisely this point: removing the “oversupply’ and the resulting “price discount” would raise their returns by $2 to $4 billion a year.

   We don't need the Keystone (we never did).  We create enough agriculture waste annually to produce enough advanced biofuels to meet 1/3 of our domestic demand – it all boils down to national priorities and policy.  Why wouldn't this dumb cluck advocate that our energy demands be met from our rural landscape, not Canadian tar sands?  Or better yet, tilt that pipeline vertically?  Maybe a 21st-century Strategic Biofuels Reserve? 

    

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. From the quote you can, none of this is about meeting ‘our’ energy needs. This pipeline is about getting the stuff to ports so we can ship it abroad. Its the same right-wing logic as cutting down old growth forests to ship the wood overseas. Nothing matters except the dollars in a rich person’s bank account.

      Log in to Reply

      1. They all have a bad case of Petro-Masculinity:

         The Fossil Fuel Debate’s Most Bizarre Byproduct: “Petro-Masculinity”

         Reflecting on this growing body of social research, the climate writer Emily Atkin asked in a recent edition of her Heated newsletter: “Do you ever wonder what the planet might look like if men didn’t control the world?”

         “I’m not talking about all cisgender men, or the entirety of the male gender,” she wrote. “Really, I’m just talking about people who believe that because they have penises, they are required to act in a traditionally, almost performatively masculine way—like ‘being strong’ and ‘never showing weakness’ and ‘not ordering sauvignon blanc.’”

         Sound familiar?

         Log in to Reply

   2. “We don’t need the Keystone [XL] (we never did). “

      Not true. We needed it to fuck Nicolás Maduro.
      Now, we don’t because Venezuelan oil production is in the crapper and will not recover for at least a decade.

      Log in to Reply

      1. My money is on NEVER. The Oily Boyz are on a long slide to irrelevance. Blackrock has no confidence in their future.

         Log in to Reply

      2. I’ll stand by my statement 😬 

         Log in to Reply

3. If there was some way to ban lying in a political campaign, then the Republicans would have absolutely nothing left.

   We need to update the old joke. How do you know when a Republican is lying? When they are moving their thumbs over their phone.

   Log in to Reply

   1. 

      Log in to Reply