Argus Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 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. Doesn't matter what they want. That's going to happen anyway. There's nothing they or the decision on Keystone can do to change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 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. Can you say Mr. Dithers? I know you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Can you say Mr. Dithers? I know you can. Yes, reminds me of Paul Martin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 The reason that this decision isnt as much of a slam dunk as you guys wish it was is because it questionable whether or not the US needs this pipleline to provide for its energy needs. US domestic production is increasing and the US is projected to be a net oil seller, and other petro-export countries remain commited to selling the US as much oil as they want. Will this pipleline make the difference between an oil shortage for the US and an oil suprlus? Definately not. Will it reduce the price the US pays for crude? Highly unlikely. So theres a real good reason why the US would approach this cautiously and an even better reason why they would not commit any funds to this project. And canadians should be careful as well... We have crappy expensive oil, and we can only afford to export when prices are high. That pipeline could very well end up being used to import oil from the US instead of exporting it, and we already import the bulk of the oil we consume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 The reason that this decision isnt as much of a slam dunk as you guys wish it was is because it questionable whether or not the US needs this pipleline to provide for its energy needs. US domestic production is increasing and the US is projected to be a net oil seller, and other petro-export countries remain commited to selling the US as much oil as they want. Will this pipleline make the difference between an oil shortage for the US and an oil suprlus? Definately not. Will it reduce the price the US pays for crude? Highly unlikely. So theres a real good reason why the US would approach this cautiously and an even better reason why they would not commit any funds to this project. And canadians should be careful as well... We have crappy expensive oil, and we can only afford to export when prices are high. That pipeline could very well end up being used to import oil from the US instead of exporting it, and we already import the bulk of the oil we consume. Complete and utter nonsense. The governments role is to get out of the way and let private enterprise create jobs without a dime of government money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 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. Dont waste your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) 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.Who needs a semantic sidebar when every thread devolves into a debate between people that use commonly accepted definitions of words and those that like to make up crap because their arguments make no sense to anyone. Just ignore the people that want to act as though words don't have meaning and continue on discussing with people that have two braincells to rub together between their ears somewhere. Edited October 3, 2013 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) Looks like Keystone has cleared a major hurdle. "This is the fifth federal study on the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline. Each previous one has stated that building Keystone XL would not adversely affect the environment," Oliver said. He noted that the report says that not building the project would actually lead to the release of as much as 28 to 42 per cent more greenhouse gases, because of energy consumed moving the same volume of oil via other means, such as by rail, trucks or barges. "The benefits to the U.Sll. and Canada are clear. We await a timely decision on this project," Oliver said. But of course the question on the floor is, what will Obama do, and when will he do it? Will he throw the environmental movement, containing some of his strongest supporters, under the bus? He now doesn't have to worry about another election, and the environmental concerns after 5 federal studies are not that big a deal, regardless of what the Gore crowd were shrieking in response to the latest study. Edited February 2, 2014 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Looks like Keystone has cleared a major hurdle. But of course the question on the floor is, what will Obama do, and when will he do it? Will he throw the environmental movement, containing some of his strongest supporters, under the bus? He now doesn't have to worry about another election, and the environmental concerns after 5 federal studies are not that big a deal, regardless of what the Gore crowd were shrieking in response to the latest study. Exactly. He can no longer use environmental concerns as an excuse to keep delaying. My guess is that he'll approve it in exchange for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Complete and utter nonsense. The governments role is to get out of the way and let private enterprise create jobs without a dime of government money. Now there's a bright idea, let private industry do whatever the hell they want. God help us if that ever happens. In any case, I'm gonna suggest that you let the government use your money to clean up the mess I'm a little tired of them using mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Now there's a bright idea, let private industry do whatever the hell they want. Strawman. Nobody is suggesting that industry do whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Strawman. Nobody is suggesting that industry do whatever they want. Oh, so what does the phrase "get out of the way" mean to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Oh, so what does the phrase "get out of the way" mean to you? It means what it means. Get out of the way, and let a real jobs program go into action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 It means what it means. Get out of the way, and let a real jobs program go into action. Pretty poor description. Nothing to convince me it doesn't mean let industry do what it wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Pretty poor description. Nothing to convince me it doesn't mean let industry do what it wants. Well, we can agree to disagree then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 It means what it means. Get out of the way, and let a real jobs program go into action.you know the conservatives have a majority,right ? If they had a real jobs program they could implement it, instead they're spending money on propag...I mean advertising for a program that doesn't exist. Pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 you know the conservatives have a majority,right ? If they had a real jobs program they could implement it, instead they're spending money on propag...I mean advertising for a program that doesn't exist. Pathetic. In reference to Keystone, the Tories have expended a lot of time, money and political capital on trying to get all of Keystone approved and built. The jobs program it serves is oil extraction in Canada. That program is and will be central to the economic and therefore social wellbeing of all Canadians for the foreseeable future. You may not like that reality, but... your feelings won't change any of it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 How is oil extraction a jobs program of the Canadian government? Are the oil fields public now? No. That's not a jobs program at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 How is oil extraction a jobs program of the Canadian government? Are the oil fields public now? No. That's not a jobs program at all. It's a project that has the potential of thousands of jobs. Good paying, unionized, construction and manufacturing jobs. You know, the kind we all wring our hands about the middle class used to have. Some of us are interested in the creation of those kinds of jobs. Others just pay lip service, but do everything they can to stand in the way, but pretend they're on the working man's side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's a project That it is. But not a project of the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 And not a good day for Harper and Trans Canada Pipe when it comes out they coverd up an NEB report for 5 years after a TCP gasline explosion in Alberta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 That it is. But not a project of the government. Yep, even better. Privately funded, no tax money needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 How is oil extraction a jobs program of the Canadian government? Are the oil fields public now? No. That's not a jobs program at all. Oh I see. You want the jobs to be strictly government employees. You aren't the ghost of Pierre Trudeau by any chance? Wage and price controls next? It's a project that has the potential of thousands of jobs. It's not potential. The resource industry in Canada has produced and continues to produce hundreds of thousands of jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Yep, even better. Privately funded, no tax money needed.So then your "government jobs program" statement was false. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Oh I see. You want the jobs to be strictly government employees. You aren't the ghost of Pierre Trudeau by any chance? Wage and price controls next? It's not potential. The resource industry in Canada has produced and continues to produce hundreds of thousands of jobs. Would you like a fire extinguisher to put out those strawmen you're burning down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.