Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

madfloridian

(88,117 posts)
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 12:13 AM Feb 2014

Ted Cruz: Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging Greenpeace activists should love Keystone pipeline

What a weird thing to say.

Ted Cruz Makes Case for Keystone XL to ‘Birkenstock-Wearing, Tree-Hugging’ Activists

“If you’re a Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging Greenpeace activist, you should love the Keystone pipeline,” Cruz said at the Heritage Action’s Conservative Policy Summit on Monday.

Cruz, R-Texas, focused his remarks on a push to deregulate the controversial practice of hydraulic fracking and expanding offshore exploration, and in the process, appealed to any environmentalists listening in on his remarks.

“The Canadians are not going to leave the tar sands unmolested,” Cruz said. “They’ll send it to China to be refined there and it will be refined in a much, much dirtier way.

“If your concern is the environment, the last thing you want to do is send that oil to China to be refined there, which will be far more damage to the environment than refining it in the U.S., where it would generate good, high paying jobs,” he added.


What a convoluted argument.


17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ted Cruz: Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging Greenpeace activists should love Keystone pipeline (Original Post) madfloridian Feb 2014 OP
Not only is he nuts, but he's grasping at straws. CaliforniaPeggy Feb 2014 #1
I love that word gobsmacked. madfloridian Feb 2014 #3
Why, thank you! CaliforniaPeggy Feb 2014 #5
How about not extracting it in the first place. JaneyVee Feb 2014 #2
Oh, fuck off Cruz, you sniveling snivelwitz. nt TheMathieu Feb 2014 #4
You forgot "Latte-sipping", "Volvo-driving" and "Arugula-nibbling", Ted! hatrack Feb 2014 #6
lol they are still referring back to Club for Growth ad against Dean 2003. Video madfloridian Feb 2014 #9
Gee what a genius! Ted Cruz is soooooooo clever. Who'da thunk it. Lint Head Feb 2014 #7
What's convoluted? That's essentially the State Department report's argument too Recursion Feb 2014 #8
Uh madfloridian Feb 2014 #10
Then help me out here Recursion Feb 2014 #11
If our president goes along with what is so obviously harmful madfloridian Feb 2014 #13
... Rex Feb 2014 #12
Oh, this is from Carnival Cruz? Then you know it came straight out of his ass. rustydog Feb 2014 #14
I have two words to say to Mr. Cruz Art_from_Ark Feb 2014 #15
Same exact argument Shultz made last week nadinbrzezinski Feb 2014 #16
meh, crazy cruz. nt Javaman Feb 2014 #17

hatrack

(59,583 posts)
6. You forgot "Latte-sipping", "Volvo-driving" and "Arugula-nibbling", Ted!
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 12:51 AM
Feb 2014

Other than that, nice job "reaching out", you condescending pile of dog shit.

Lint Head

(15,064 posts)
7. Gee what a genius! Ted Cruz is soooooooo clever. Who'da thunk it.
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:12 AM
Feb 2014

How does someone like Ted Cruz, who has no brain whatsoever, come up with this shit? It's amazing? He must be channeling his hero Joesph McCarthy. Or Crazy Guggenheim. Wow! Is he Mensa? Or just fuckin' around?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
8. What's convoluted? That's essentially the State Department report's argument too
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:15 AM
Feb 2014

The extraction schedule in Canada isn't based on whether there's a pipeline or not.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
11. Then help me out here
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:20 AM
Feb 2014

If the concern is "I don't want the oil being piped over the US where it might spill in my backyard", I get that (and mostly agree), but I usually see people presenting Keystone as a "we need to be extracting and refining less oil" argument, rather than "I want the spills to be elsewhere" argument.

madfloridian

(88,117 posts)
13. If our president goes along with what is so obviously harmful
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:07 AM
Feb 2014

to our environment, to local areas, with such obvious opposition....then it is a simple thing to understand.

It's a matter of a company from another country doing something that can cause great harm with spillage, something that runs people from their homes by eminent domain.

It's just that simple. It is dead wrong.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ted Cruz: Birkenstock-wea...