So, part of what astroturfers do is distract the argument. Clever ones will even concede a point or two so that they are “in” with the locals and don’t just get banned.
Lets instead concentrate on the fact that in this instance, these douchebags are shilling against net neutrality, and let it sink in that the reason they’re against this is likely part and parcel of the reason they’re for those things.
IE: They worship the allmighty dollar bill.
But more supply should, in theory at least, lower the price. I am an engineer, not an economist. There is also the small fact that it should be cheaper to move oil 1,000 than 10,000 miles. Once again, I am not an expert on the subject, so I could be wrong. I also do not like the fact that my gas money helps support countries that have horrible records when it comes to human rights. Just my opinion.
Oil itself it dirty, nasty business. However, it is a necessary evil right now. Moving oil by truck uses oil, with all of the negative impacts associated with it. Moving it my boat can result in disaster (remember what happened in Alaska). Simply stated, a pipeline is not a great idea, but it does have advantages over the other methods of delivery.
I also do not understand why a pipeline, run properly, would have that much impact – assuming that it is built properly so that it does not leak. It could be elevated so that wildlife can pass underneath. Assuming that care is taken not to disturb the surrounding environment too much, and that all leaks are plugged immediately, it should have the same impact as power lines.
I have been on this forum for over a decade – hardly an astroturfer.
Those things are not related. I am 100% in favor of net neutrality, and against the Comcast merger. I wish that we could be 100% free of fossil fuel. However, since we aren’t, I would just rather buy my fossil fuels locally.
The answer to your point is, "Should the price be lower? Must we abandon democratic responses to unpaid industrial externalities? Is is sane to put off the construction of public infrastructure and social safety nets simply to indulge the whims of a few who style themselves as Galt Gulch’s owners and lords? Why should we trust an engineer to sweep aside all economic arguments with appeals to naive convenience? What is in it for us?
And why do you continue to make this about oil? Post something in Dizzy or Wrath, or whatever.
What if you instead assume it is built something like existing pipelines, or with the levels of mitigation they were actually planning?
Pipelines have shown they often make a mess, pipelines for dirtier materials like found in the tar sands are generally messier, and the Keystone has shown a lot of indications it isn’t going to be special in that regard, just run over more aquifers. If you assume all that away, you’re basically ignoring the whole problem.
Sorry to continue the derail, but come on.
But the great thing about the oil sands is that all this oil makes Canada less Canadian. Why worry about your fellows and build social democracy and care about the environment like Canadians traditionally do when they can just exploit their resources in an unsustainable fashion and get rich?
Methane formerly trapped in the permafrost in northern Canada & Siberia is now melting & venting to the atmosphere. The Canadian government wants to make sure every bit of tar sands is burned, thus making usre there is runaway global warming. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
…and then…
I mean, cool story bro, but this isn’t about your fossil fuel preferences, it’s about the dicks trying to strangle Net Neutrality, and your constant harping on fossil fuels is really tremendously irrelevant except for where it dovetails with what these dicks are doing to the internet which is, like their fossil fuel idea, driven by their personal ability to make money and their fucked up political ideology.
And if you believe that there is any other motive behind both actions, then you are missing the point and it makes you sound like an astroturfer who is trying to distract the conversation.
Well you know who called everyone Marxists? Yep, Nazis.
Koch brothers almost tie for first place in size of Canadian oil sands leases, but it seems like they were clever in keeping their leases just a few acres shy of being the largest.
I can’t stand Richard Marx. That guy has a lot to answer for.
I’m sure some of you have read my recent rants about the rebranding of Nazi policy and slogans for use by modern consrvatives.
Well privatization is now on my list, because the word itself seems to have been invented to promote Nazi privatization of industry (“Reprivatisierung,”)
Well, the good thing about the direction the conversation took is that we up here got valuable confirmation:
They didn’t take South Park seriously! Our insidious plan is working! Bwahaha!
Have you heard is music? He certainly does… 
Just like gluten…
Mod note: Get back on topic and stay there.
They’re just biding their time.
Never trust the Barbarian Hordes from the North. History shows this to be a bad idea…
Hmmmm. Maybe you are right. They did give us Justin Beiber…
Well I’ve been waiting for a cause that I could use this t-shirt design for, and this seems like the perfect opportunity;
Available at SpreadShirt for $20, proceeds to EFF/ISOC/Freepress Foundation.
Note: there’s a 15% deal at spreadshirt with code SHIRTS15
To get this pushed back toward the topic, consider the fact that in the 90s and early 00s, media consolidation saw news and communications companies turned into around a dozen international megacorps, but the rise of social media and internet news sites ensured that any chilling effects of that domination wouldn’t be felt by internet users. Everyone else has sunk into a news desert, of course, but until the blatant fascism of authorities in middle-American suburbs became readily visible (see Ferguson), the dangers of these kinds of news deserts and relentlessly stupid corporate reporting was easy to put off as theoretical.
Since the Kochs are on a single-minded crusade to depose democracy in favor of corporate oligarchy (some shills will debate this until the heat-death of the universe), their battle against net-neutrality should be seen in that light. In general it means no video but preferred video, but it probably also can be worked into a thin wedge for ISPs monetizing everything, stuffing ads into all pages and refusing to transmit unlicensed encrypted packets. Essentially, a few rich individuals and organization can continue the project of media consolidation without any pesky workarounds dirtying up their markets, no matter how popular and desired those workarounds are to large numbers of people.
