• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate nears 60 on Keystone

1750Texan said:
I agree with you whole-heatedly. The only group that will suffer is the new-fledgling American oil sand/fracking producers.

American producers are already taking a hit from lower PPB prices on the spot market. Texas fracking sites will have to compete with coastal refineries processing capacity.

Why should I care about America oil producers so long as Obama eats it. I'd rather shoot myself in the foot to win.
Click to expand...

I have nothing against American producers and American countries - Much of Canada's resource base has been developed with the help of American companies. But it's a big world now and we've got free trade agreements with countries all over the world and are no longer solely reliant on American interest.
 
Fletch said:
This is yet another example of democrats betting that the American people are too stupid to recognize an obvious political ploy when they see one. First the arrogant Landreu call her constituents racist and sexist, now she thinks they are stupid enough to believe her when she says Senate action on the long delayed Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with politics or her upcoming run-off election.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget, if I read the background correctly, that the Republican Congressman in the House who's pushing the bill there is none other than Cassidy, the Republican who's in the Louisiana Senate run-off with Landrieu. I'm not sure what Cassidy was doing leading up to this point, but seems both candidates are taking full advantage of the opportunity. Otherwise, they'd just wait until the new House session sits and the vote count would be easier.
 
annata said:
6 years of State dept reviews...get it done.. or not..clear it off the table. I don't think it's a "job creator", and not crazy about more tar sands oil coming thru..

still the alternative is rail cars, and that can't be good.. do it or not.. just do something..or not..
Click to expand...

Bolded part says it all. Just decide on it one way or another and move on. This discussions has done on way too long.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Senate nears 60 on Keystone

Looks like the Keystone Pipeline is gonna get passed the Senate. A bad deal that is gonna hurt a lot of people, worsen the environment, and really not help the US economy at all is most likely gonna be passed. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I don't know, there are pros and cons to the pipeline but I just think the cons outweight the pros. It's a threat to the natural aquifer here, which provides the primary source of groundwater in Nebraska and I don't want any risk to that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Senate nears 60 on Keystone

Looks like the Keystone Pipeline is gonna get passed the Senate. A bad deal that is gonna hurt a lot of people, worsen the environment, and really not help the US economy at all is most likely gonna be passed. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Right, those portions that pass through oil producing areas and carry it to refineries instead of it being trucked or put on trains is really going to hurt us. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members already fear that oil and gas from the US will damage their strangle hold. Notice the recent drops in Gas prices? Yep, more oil from Canada and the US reaching refineries and shipping ports is really going to "not help the US Economy" in the form of lower fuel costs, is it?

Environmental damage? Lay off the crack pipe, will you. Oh wait, such ignorance is a natural state for socialist minded idiots, not one induced by drugs.

Besides, even if/when it passes the Senate, it still has to go before the Red Black in the WH.
 
DVSentinel said:
Environmental damage? Lay off the crack pipe, will you. Oh wait, such ignorance is a natural state for socialist minded idiots, not one induced by drugs.
.
Click to expand...

History of Oil Spills Plagues Future of Keystone XL Pipeline » EcoWatch
Keystone XL pipeline may threaten aquifer that irrigates much of the central U.S. - The Washington Post
After 12 Oil Spills in One Year, TransCanada Says Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Will Be Safest in U.S. | ThinkProgress
30jlgcw.jpg
 
clownboy said:
Hurrah! Congress finally gets something positive done. Great for Canada, good for the US and a wash for the environment.

Btw, for the uninformed, the pipeline itself will be carrying nothing different than all the other existing pipelines. The tar sands are still processed where they are already processed and have been for years.
Click to expand...

Um, you know that the stuff in the pipeline that is "nothing different then all other existing pipelines" is in reality "dilbit" that is exempt from payments into the cleanup fund. Is Dilbit Oil? Congress and the IRS Say No | InsideClimate News
I'm just sayin'
 
clownboy said:
On that first part, yes, but AFTER those goods are refined in our refineries. As for how it benefits the US, well it depends upon who you believe, the president who says only 2,000 jobs, the oil company who says 20,000 or the US State Department who says 3,900 direct jobs and 42,000 direct and indirect jobs.
Click to expand...

The oil is going for export.I could care less how many people are employed maintaining the oil pipeline or how many might be working at the refinery. No forigned own company has any business using eminent domain.The fact you support this shows that you have as much support for property rights as the communists others who do not respect property rights.
 
jamesrage said:
The oil is going for export.I could care less how many people are employed maintaining the oil pipeline or how many might be working at the refinery. No forigned own company has any business using eminent domain.The fact you support this shows that you have as much support for property rights as the communists others who do not respect property rights.
Click to expand...

They aren't using eminent domain, the government on our side is, for this project, which will benefit the public. Again, just what eminent domain is for.
 
clownboy said:
They aren't using eminent domain,
Click to expand...

TransCanada Tries To Seize U.S. Land For Keystone Pipeline - Forbes
eminent domain | StateImpact Texas
From Bundy To The Keystone XL: Where's The Property Rights Outrage Here?
Tim Carney on Keystone XL eminent domain: I respectfully dissent | WashingtonExaminer.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
the government on our side is, for this project, which will benefit the public. Again, just what eminent domain is for.
Click to expand...

OIl bound for export is not a benefit. No foreign owned company has any business using eminent domain. A privately run enterprise is not a public good.A public good is a public road or some public utility like electricity,sewage, or water. Not a pipeline that benefits only the oil company.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Senate nears 60 on Keystone

Looks like the Keystone Pipeline is gonna get passed the Senate. A bad deal that is gonna hurt a lot of people, worsen the environment, and really not help the US economy at all is most likely gonna be passed. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

You're thinking of Obamacare (minus the environment part).
 
Jack Hays said:
Pipelines are the cleanest, safest way to transport oil.
Click to expand...

Does that mean we should build this pipeline? A pipeline that is in danger? A pipeline that is going to create very few fulltime US jobs? A pipeline for in the long term will not benefit this country?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Does that mean we should build this pipeline? A pipeline that is in danger? A pipeline that is going to create very few fulltime US jobs? A pipeline for in the long term will not benefit this country?
Click to expand...

I think it will be a significant benefit. This is an easy "yes."
 
DVSentinel said:
Right, those portions that pass through oil producing areas and carry it to refineries instead of it being trucked or put on trains is really going to hurt us. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members already fear that oil and gas from the US will damage their strangle hold. Notice the recent drops in Gas prices? Yep, more oil from Canada and the US reaching refineries and shipping ports is really going to "not help the US Economy" in the form of lower fuel costs, is it?

Environmental damage? Lay off the crack pipe, will you. Oh wait, such ignorance is a natural state for socialist minded idiots, not one induced by drugs.

Besides, even if/when it passes the Senate, it still has to go before the Red Black in the WH.
Click to expand...

What I do not understand is the fact we have at present 186,000 miles of liquid oil pipelines in the United States already. What the heck is another 2-3,000 miles gonna hurt when you already have 75 times or something close to that here already. I agree, it is much more dangerous to ship oil via truck and train than through a pipeline.

Another thing, if we can somehow become energy independent with Canada's help, why not. It would reduce the chance of us getting into a war over a oil shipping lane or trying to protect a middle eastern country oil producing capability from whomever. We have a trillion dollar trade deficit and oil accounts for over half of that. We are helping other countries economy and giving them jobs when that money could be spent here along with the jobs. Then too, for every new job that means one less person on unemployment or what have you and that means less spending. It also means that taxes will be collected from the those jobs created and that increases revenues.
 
jamesrage said:
Unfortunately like all die hard republicans my elected officials have their lips firmly planted on the cocks of big business so they will not VETO this bill.
Click to expand...

They cannot "veto" anything. Only the President can veto anything. You are using the wrong word.
 
digsbe said:
I also have a problem with imminent domain being used to force people off their property over a private business endeavor. Imminent domain should never be used to benefit a private corporation, especially if there won't be at large benefits for citizens.
Click to expand...

How and where is this being done?
 
jamesrage said:
This is the part that concerns me and why I oppose the keystone XL. Eminent domain should never be used for private companies,especially foreign owned companies. What the **** is wrong with conservatives who claim to be patriotic and respect property rights.Do they have their lips so wrapped around big Oil **** that they are too ****en blind to see that this wrong?
Click to expand...

So tear up all those railroad tracks and the existing 186,000 miles of pipeline, and if you like we can take back the right of way for the Alaskan oil that runs through Canada.

If your so opposed that is......
 
americanwoman said:
I don't know, there are pros and cons to the pipeline but I just think the cons outweight the pros. It's a threat to the natural aquifer here, which provides the primary source of groundwater in Nebraska and I don't want any risk to that.
Click to expand...

Please explain how a pipeline located under the surface is a hazard to the aquifer located thousands of feet BELOW a limestone layer that the oil leaking on or near the surface cannot penetrate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom