Keystone XL pipeline

[jacee]

Ok maybe it's just me but ... is this an effective 'sales pitch' to Obama on Keystone ?

Harper "won't take no"

NEW YORK Canada wont take no for an answer from the U.S. when it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday as he sharpened his sales pitch for the controversial cross-border energy proposal.The logic in support of the project going ahead is overwhelming, and governments at all levels on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border are endorsing it, Harper told a high-powered business audience in New York.

My view is that you dont take no for an answer, Harper said. We havent had that. If we were to get that, that wont be final. This wont be final until its approved and we will keep pushing forward.

The logic here is overwhelming, Harper said.I remain an optimist that, notwithstanding politics, that when something is so clearly in everybodys interest including our interest as Canadians, but the national interest of the United States Im of the view that it has to be approved.

Hmm ... seems a bit heavy-handed to me.

Could backfire with the US public perhaps?

[Bonam]

Hmm ... seems a bit heavy-handed to me.

Could backfire with the US public perhaps?

The US public doesn't know who Harper is, much less cares what he says.

[jacee]

The US public doesn't know who Harper is, much less cares what he says.

They know who "Canada" is. They know they don't like being bullied.

I don't really care if Harper sabotages his pipeline dreams. It just amuses me that someone known as an obsessively strong political tactician is so ham-fisted and counter-productive about opposition to the oil sands/pipeline industries. He's under a lot of pressure from them, no doubt ... but does anybody really think this is an effective way to accomplish their purpose?

[Topaz]

Ok maybe it's just me but ... is this an effective 'sales pitch' to Obama on Keystone ?

Harper "won't take no"

NEW YORK Canada wont take no for an answer from the U.S. when it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday as he sharpened his sales pitch for the controversial cross-border energy proposal.The logic in support of the project going ahead is overwhelming, and governments at all levels on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border are endorsing it, Harper told a high-powered business audience in New York.

My view is that you dont take no for an answer, Harper said. We havent had that. If we were to get that, that wont be final. This wont be final until its approved and we will keep pushing forward.

The logic here is overwhelming, Harper said.I remain an optimist that, notwithstanding politics, that when something is so clearly in everybodys interest including our interest as Canadians, but the national interest of the United States Im of the view that it has to be approved.

Hmm ... seems a bit heavy-handed to me.

Could backfire with the US public perhaps?

He's probably been talking to the Republican party and they have agreed to take the pipeline, so its just a matter of the next US election and maybe tips of how to create a Pierre Poutine.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Topaz

[jacee]

He's probably been talking to the Republican party and they have agreed to take the pipeline, so its just a matter of the next US election and maybe tips of how to create a Pierre Poutine.

I think the decision on Keystone is expected before that, though it could be reversed later I suppose.

[Guest American Woman]

The US public doesn't know who Harper is, much less cares what he says.

Ummm. Excuse me, but I'm part of the "US public," and I most certainly know who Harper is.

[BubberMiley]

This would be an excellent opportunity to divert the discussion to whether the term "American public" refers to general characteristics of the population or if it refers to specific characteristics of some individuals who happen to be a part of that population. There should be a semantic sidebar for each thread where we define our terms.

[jacee]

Ummm. Excuse me, but I'm part of the "US public," and I most certainly know who Harper is.

Ya but you hang out on a Canadian discussion board.

So what do you think of Harper's rant?

[Guest American Woman]

Ya but you hang out on a Canadian discussion board.

So what do you think of Harper's rant?

Sure I do, but people who are more politically in tune do know who the PM of Canada is, and they are the ones more likely to care and be vocal about political issues, such as the pipeline, and really, can anyone be in-the-know about the pipeline without knowing who Harper is?

As to what I think - I think he was just being a politician, saying what he felt needed to be said as the PM of Canada. I think what he was really saying is that he won't give up, so it's what I'd expect your PM to say. I don't find it insulting or offensive, if that's what you're wondering.

[dre]

Excuse me, but I'm part of the "US public,"

1/300000000... no more representitive of the American public than anyone else here.

Edited September 28, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

1/300000000... no more representitive of the American public than anyone else here.

Who said I did "represent" the American public? I am, however, an example of the American public. I am also certainly more representative of the American public than the Canadians here.

And since you seem to have missed my point, the Americans who really care about the XL pipeline, those who would be political about it, likely know who Harper is.

Edited September 28, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

I am also certainly more representative of the American public than the Canadians here.

Im sure it "feels right" to say that, but Its not really true.

[Guest American Woman]

Im sure it "feels right" to say that, but Its not really true.

It most definitely is true. Now you can come back with "no it's not," and it won't change a thing. But don't let that stop you.

[Argus]

The whole argument is stupid. The oil is being shipped even as all those moron protestors go chaining themselves to fences or whatnot. Only it's going by rail, in ever increasing amounts, which is highly inefficient and much more dangerous than if it went by pipeline.

[dre]

The whole argument is stupid. The oil is being shipped even as all those moron protestors go chaining themselves to fences or whatnot. Only it's going by rail, in ever increasing amounts, which is highly inefficient and much more dangerous than if it went by pipeline.

I agree that a pipeline is a safer and more efficient way to move oil around than road or rail. The real argument though is that it might make more sense to build a pipleline to the east where most of our refining capacity is, and where we currently import the bulk of oil that we consume from from Venezuela by tanker.

[Guest American Woman]

It's not just the danger of going by pipeline that environmentalists are objecting to; they say that the pipeline would result in the expansion of oilsands extraction and refining, which produces up to three times more carbon emissions than conventional oil.

[dre]

It most definitely is true. Now you can come back with "no it's not," and it won't change a thing. But don't let that stop you.

No its really not true. I spend a few months per year living in the US and talking to real Americans about a wide range of issues, and you dont represent them at all. The bulk of Americans SHARE the various critical opinions of the US government presented by people on this board. You simply offer blind boiler plate defense based on some wierd notion that your country is somehow under attack by the "Canadians".

Dont get me wrong.... I would LOVE to have some Americans on here that could objectively and intelligently weigh in on topics related to both the US and Canada... but we have never had that and we probably never will because ordinary Americans dont participate in forums about Canadian politics that have a dozen active members.

[Guest American Woman]

I know it sticks in your craw that I don't agree with your take on every issue, but I am as "real" an American as the Americans you talk to in the "few months per year" you spend living in the U.S.. Newsflash. The people you are referring to don't represent me, either.

I find it totally ironic that you would tell me, an American, that I don't represent the American public in any way - as you proceed to speak for "the bulk of Americans." In case it's escaped you, there have been a variety of comments and observations about the U.S. and the government on this forum, and it's not all in agreement with you by any means. You seem to think that your views, your criticisms, are the only valid views. They are not.

Furthermore, your claim that I am under the notion that my country is under attack by Canadians is what is totally weird, not to mention off the wall.

You want American posters who nod their heads and agree with everything you say; who agree with all of the criticisms of the U.S. here. That's your idea of "objective" and "intelligent." What a crock. My advice to you is to try "objectively and intelligently weigh[ing] in on topics related to both the US and Canada" yourself.

Edited September 28, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

I know it sticks in your craw that I don't agree with your take on every issue, but I am as "real" an American as the Americans you talk to in the "few months per year" you spend living in the U.S.. Newsflash. The people you are referring to don't represent me, either.

I find it totally ironic that you would tell me, an American, that I don't represent the American public in any way - as you proceed to speak for "the bulk of Americans." In case it's escaped you, there have been a variety of comments and observations about the U.S. and the government on this forum, and it's not all in agreement with you by any means. You seem to think that your views, your criticisms, are the only valid views. They are not.

Furthermore, your claim that I am under the notion that my country is under attack by Canadians is what is totally weird, not to mention off the wall.

You want American posters who nod their heads and agree with everything you say; who agree with all of the criticisms of the U.S. here. That's your idea of "objective" and "intelligent." What a crock. My advice to you is to try "objectively and intelligently weigh[ing] in on topics related to both the US and Canada" yourself.

I has nothing to do with wanting Americans that agree with me on things. It would just be nice to have a couple of posters from the US on here that would weigh in on current events, and provide an American perspective.

[bleeding heart]

Wasn't Bitsy (not to be confused with Betsy) an American? She had lots of interesting things to say.

Edited September 28, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Wasn't Bitsy (not to be confused with Betsy) an American? She had lots of interesting things to say.

Translation: I agreed with Bitsy's views.

[bleeding heart]

In fact, I did, the very few times we had a discussion.

[Guest American Woman]

I has nothing to do with wanting Americans that agree with me on things. It would just be nice to have a couple of posters from the US on here that would weigh in on current events, and provide an American perspective.

It has everything to do with wanting Americans that agree with you on things. You even said that "real Americans" do. Newsflash. I am an American. My view is an American perspective.

[Shady]

Even Democrats have now become exhausted of Obama's ridiculous stall tactics...

"The Keystone Pipeline decision has taken longer than it took us to defeat Hitler"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/27/north-dakota-senator-heidi-heitkamp-on-keystone-pipeline-vows-obama-veto-override/2878573/

You'd think President Teleprompter could make a final decision already. It's been over 5 years. Either yes, or no, and move on.

[Argus]

We're doing that, as well as building a new refinery in Alberta, as well as increasing the volume to the west coast. The increasing supply from the oil sands is going to need multiple outlets, though.