Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: Opinion: Shredder

Re: “Safety schmafety

Truth!

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Recognition not Attention on 12/14/2018 at 11:52 AM

Re: “Bi-partisan character

The affordable housing funds are a drop in the bucket, and appeasing NIMBYs results in mediocre, boring buildings designed by a committee of olds. A loosening of the absurdly restrictive zoning codes would be more effective to increase the supply of housing, but the local homeowners won't have it.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by ra237 on 12/06/2018 at 6:27 AM

Re: “The first step

If there were fewer regulations such as adult supervision of adults, more organizations might be willing to host the homeless more often.
One church came up with a way around the 'rules/ by holding church services all night long with communion [bread and milk?], blankets, etc for those who dozed off during the srermons.
Think about it.
Why do we need permission to invite guests into our buildings?
gail lightfoot

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Gail Lightfoot on 11/29/2018 at 11:56 AM

Re: “Trickle down paranoia

If immigration were to stop, the democrats wouldn't win another election

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by matarbongo on 11/24/2018 at 1:18 PM

Re: “Trickle down paranoia

Here's the other thing about Tommy Gong: It's likely that someone on his staff made that error, and Tommy just didn't catch it. Did he publicly state that a staff member screwed up? No, he didn't, because he's a class act from beginning to end.

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by tsankawi on 11/22/2018 at 9:35 AM

Re: “Trickle down paranoia

Parking problem? Quick, ban scooters!

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by ra237 on 11/22/2018 at 8:36 AM

Re: “Trouble right here in Morro Bay

First one of these columns I've read.

Nicely written. Encapsulates the news very well, and that's not a word you see every day.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by George Garrigues on 11/15/2018 at 10:58 AM

Re: “Tricky politics

A translation of Mr. Varni's post above reads: "I can't argue any of the data you provided, so instead I'll divert attention by blaming everything I couldn't defend on big oil lies, extend some more speculative fallacies about how current oil production is a threat, and then just say I'm right without supplying ANYTHING to support my arguments. Then I'll call the employees liars, again, and finish it up with a cliche from Shakespeare quote in an effort to really look like I'm witty, while I ironically do exactly what that cliche says."

Mr. Varni was caught spinning the data. Notice how he refuses to address the facts? Not a single comment about "Products Supplied" because he knows that he misinterpreted the data. One definition and his entire argument went flying out the window. He also knows the "we export sooooo much" argument is about as strong as his technical understanding of oil fields. California is dependent on importing oil and Mr. Varni refuses to accept that reality because it does not fit his talking points.

I hate to break it to Mr. Varni, but he is nothing more than a "he-bear" puppet of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a group that has repeatedly attempted to shutdown petroleum production. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Measure G is a copy and paste of Measure Z from Monterey County, and guess who was behind that one? That's right, the CBD. Same backers, different county. Is that grassroots, or is that Mr. Varni being a pawn who is blinded by the allure of the "golden nature girl" (his words, not mine) the CBD danced in front of him?

He is right, it is time for the voters to speak. Vote NO on G and send the CBD packing.

9 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/05/2018 at 3:24 PM

Re: “Tricky politics

My math is correct, based on the source you gave, and your big defense is little more than a projection of your own duplicity onto others intentions. I caught you red-handed in your deceptions and thou doth protest too much.

Time for the voters to speak and lets discover how many see through your lies, manipulations, and deceit--the most shameful, money bloated, arrogance filled, and disrespectful campaign in SLO County history, brought to us by Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and others. Stooping to every dirty trick in the book. Plastering us with your omnipresent yard signs. Cramming the air waves with your $8 million in toxic ads.

The compassion of Measure G extends to our water, air, earth, economic well being, and all citizens of the County. The 80 oil industry jobs are not threatened. Measure G allows all existing oil extraction to continue and all maintenance to be performed.

Compassion is about protecting our well being, our atmosphere, our water, our planet. That's why the majority of SLO county will be voting YES ON MEASURE G.

9 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by Charles Varni on 11/04/2018 at 4:26 PM

Re: “Tricky politics

Getting lectured by Mr. Varni on compassion is a little ironic given his apathy for the 200+ hard working employees and contractors that make their living in SLO County oil fields. While they stand up and plead for their jobs, he responds by calling them liars. Compassion at its finest.

The fact that the coalition allows Mr. Varni to be their spokesperson make sense, as his inability to understand and digest these complex numbers (we are talking addition here) allows him to continue to make uninformed statements while not understanding what he is actually talking about. In regards to the data, I was using the most current data available. That's not cherry picking, its called being relevant. I noticed you were having some challenges with the data (and math... like addition), so I'll take the time to help here:

First, it is important to note that PADD 5 consists of the entire west coast. I specified that. More refined data is not available, but it is not correct to say the data is CA only, like Mr. Varni has done. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.p…

In 2018, PADD 5 has exported 2.56 million barrels in 2018. PADD 5, NOT CA specifically. It's comical because Mr. Varni couldn't even do the simple addition to come to the right number.

Let's talk about cherry picking data. Like not mentioning that we IMPORTED 254 MILLION BARRELS. PADD 5 imported 99 times more barrels than it exported. That's the math, and it seems to support my statement that we are MAJOR importers, not exporters. Another way of viewing this data is averages. We imported 1,378,000 barrels per day and exported 14,000 barrels per day.

Mr. Varni's attempts to make it seem like we are huge exporters are just silly.

The rest of Mr. Varni's numbers are a joke, just like his analysis of them. What he claims are "exports" are not. Please see "Products Supplied" in the following link. It specifically states that the definition is "Approximately represents consumption of petroleum products". Consumption means products that we used, not products that we exported.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_c…

Mr. Varni pulled a bunch of numbers off of the "products supplied" page on the EIA website and misinterpreted the data. Big surprise. Products supplied does NOT mean products exported. It means products CREATED from all of the petroleum sources (domestic production + imports).

So yes, these products were created, but they were not exported as Mr. Varni suggests. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_CONS_PSUP…

In summary, PADD 5 imports 99 times more petroleum than it exports. Additionally, it is reasonable to assume the exports were from Alaska, as CA petroleum needs are significant and exporting makes no sense. The products that are created from all of our petroleum sources are refined and used, not exported.

Mr. Varni has continually twisted and/or completely misunderstood the data to meet his needs. He has no technical understanding of the topics that he is discussing, which has led to a deluge of misinformation from the Coalition.

Real data interpretation leads to real answers. The answer here is NO on G.

10 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/04/2018 at 2:51 PM

Re: “Tricky politics

If you think for y ourself and toss the mailers into the trash, they have no impact.
I don't read or listen to political ads. It is simply a way to buy votes. Ignore them and vote for the candidates who don't spend money trying to buy your vote. There is always someone new to the process who relies on a personal campaign you can support.

8 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Gail Lightfoot on 11/03/2018 at 11:28 AM

Re: “Tricky politics

You are a smart fellow VOC and if you were not so narrowly focused on maximizing profits for the fossil fuel giants and more concerned with the basic well-being of local citizens and the atmosphere and the earth then maybe you would be more open and compassionate.

After visiting the PADD5 data you refer to I find that, again, you have been clearly deceptive--using a common tactic of yours which is to cherry pick your data or information. The PADD data shows that, so far, in 2018 California has exported 2,283,000 barrels of oil and you chose one month, July, when there were no crude oil exports, and used it as evidence California does not export oil. You knew you were doing that. Making an untrue statement in order to deceive or manipulate, which by definition is a LIE.

You also left out that in 2018 California has exported 10,288,000 barrels of FINISHED petroleum products--gasoline, jet fuel, distillates, lubricants. It has also exported 10,000,000 barrels of natural gas and 12,000,000 barrels of liquified petroleum gas.

Your argument about the AGOF production keeping us energy independent is a joke. So far this year Big Oil has exported more than 35,000,000 million barrels of California oil products.

To quote you,"I'm not being deceptive" and "I am not a part of the No on G campaign."

On the face of it, you are both.

9 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Charles Varni on 11/02/2018 at 6:03 PM

Re: “Tricky politics

Ah yes, let's talk about deception. I asked if CA exports oil and Mr. Varni responds with "the US exports fossil fuels". That doesn't answer the question, that's called dodging a question. I guess I will have to answer it.

California DOES NOT export oil. Can you guess what CA did for oil demand in July of 2018? Here are the facts that Mr. Varni likes to ignore.

We (CA) import 60% of our oil. https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleu…

We (CA) export 0% (yes that is ZERO percent) of our oil. See PADD 5, which is the west coast.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_a…

These are the facts, yet Mr. Varni wants everyone to believe we export oil in California. I'm not being deceptive, I'm laying out the facts, and the facts are, the more we limit or eliminate domestic production, the more reliant we are on importing oil from Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Columbia, Iraq, etc. https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleu…

On the mailers, signs, calls, etc. I have no control over that. I am not a part of the NO on G campaign. Just like you are not responsible for the vandalism of NO on G signs. I'm not going to sit here and blame you, Charles Varni, for tagging NO on G signs with "frack your mom" (really mature). I'm concerned about the issues and the facts, not playing blame games.

How does Measure G help us improve energy demands in California? Simple answer, it doesn't.
How does Measure G make us more "green"? Simple answer, it doesn't! Demand will be the exact same with or without Measure G.

Measure G is not a solution to anything, therefore I will vote NO on G.

15 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/02/2018 at 11:38 AM

Re: “Are you high?

Why won't New Times cover the massive corruption in development and dude weed lmao businesses?

Posted by matarbongo on 11/02/2018 at 11:34 AM

Re: “Tricky politics

The USA is now the biggest fossil fuel exporter in the world--making big profits for big oil. If big oil was concerned about energy independence it would: (1) not be exporting American fossil fuel and (2) be developing renewable energy sources.

VOR does not deal in facts. Tell us about your deceptive fake Democratic slate mailers; your daily lies about Measure G; your paid littering patrol illegally covering private and public property in our County with thousands of your campaign signs; the telephone calls from your campaign center telling citizens that if they dont want fracking to vote no on G.

It always takes more money to lie than tell the truth--ergo, you spend $8,000,000; we spend $230,000.

DONT BE DECEIVED. VOTE YES ON G TO BAN FRACKING

10 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Charles Varni on 11/02/2018 at 11:08 AM

Re: “Tricky politics

Hey Mr. Varni, there are about a dozen articles waiting for your response to our "discussions", aka me fact checking you and pointing out your inability to provide technical support to your claims. Feel free to respond to any of those conversations that you magically keep disappearing from.

One: https://www.newtimesslo.com/sanluisobispo/…
Two: https://atowndailynews.com/letter-is-measu…
Three: https://www.newtimesslo.com/sanluisobispo/…
Four: https://pasoroblesdailynews.com/north-coun…

I could go on...

Measure G does nothing more than waste taxpayer dollars and stabilize our reliance on foreign oil imports. There's nothing incorrect in either of those statements, but I'd love to see you try to "expose" the truth.

Again, Measure G addresses supply while doing nothing about the DEMAND. Therefore, we will continue to use just as much oil, it will just be imported rather than supplied domestically. We already import 56% of our oil from Saudi Arabia, Educador, Columbia, etc. and Measure G will make sure that number grows.

Do we export oil in CA Mr. Varni?

I'm voting NO on G.

14 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/02/2018 at 9:26 AM

Re: “Tricky politics

As usual, VOR fails to address in any substantive manner issues of groundwater use and contamination, greenhouse gas emissions, or global climate change. That's because the opposition has nothing to offer other than more threats to groundwater, more greenhouse gases, and more climate change.

He is finally correct about something--Measure G does not impact offshore oil well expansion, only that on unincorporated land in the county. SLO citizens addressed the offshore issue in 1986 when they passed a ballot measure that banned any onshore infrastructure that supported offshore oil development. It is still the law and did for offshore oil what Measure G will do for onshore oil development--prevent its expansion and allow existing operations to continue.

Don't be deceived by the opposition's latest lies, only a YES VOTE ON G will ban fracking in our County.

There is a reason the opposition, including VOR, has refused for months to have any debate or public discussions of Measure G--they can't control the dialogue or questions and know their lies can be easily exposed.

11 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Charles Varni on 11/02/2018 at 8:31 AM

Re: “Tricky politics

Mr Shredder, I agree with you. Spin, hypocrisy, and outright lying have become the new norm. Its wearisome. I have received those false slate fliers from No on G. This feels real close to home. The oil companies wouldn't need such tactics if their claims were honest. I'm voting yes on G because our water should be protected.

12 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by Bob Rodger on 11/01/2018 at 11:23 AM

Re: “Tricky politics

hmmm.. Jack, Measure G is about onshore production. Not sure what your source is on the offshore stuff.

16 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/01/2018 at 11:23 AM

Re: “Tricky politics

Just what we need.....oil derricks off the coast of Pismo, Shell Beach, Avilla beach, Cayucas, Morro Bay and Cambria. I don't think so..I don't care how many millions you throw at NO......Yes is the only vote that makes sense if you want to live on the central coast!

10 likes, 16 dislikes
Posted by Jack Stevens on 11/01/2018 at 11:15 AM

© 2018 New Times San Luis Obispo
Powered by Foundation