• 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!

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

  • I live close by the pipeline and I do NOT support it.

    Votes: 5 7.4%

  • I live close by the pipeline and I do support it.

    Votes: 3 4.4%

  • I do not live close by the pipeline and I do NOT support it.

    Votes: 23 33.8%

  • I do not live close by the pipeline and I do support it.

    Votes: 34 50.0%

  • I am not American and I do NOT support it.

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • I am not American and I do support it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I have no opinion.

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Total voters
    68
americanwoman

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
34,181
Reaction score
32,801
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?
 
If it were too be approved I would live fairly close to it, and I also do not support it.
 
Close being simply any two points inside Texas is like saying that NYC is close to Atlanta, GA. ;)
 
americanwoman said:
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?
Click to expand...

I do not live close, and I could support it with certain conditions: that all the environmental analysis is done and planning for accidents is done, that agreements are made to keep the oil in continental North America, things like that. Where we are on all that I am not sure as I don't really follow this issue much.
 
americanwoman said:
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?
Click to expand...

My city is so built up that that it's kind of a moot question for me personally, but taking the nature of the question at face value, no I would not support it going through my back yard. I wouldn't want the eye sore or the potential environmental problems for a solution that brings us no closer to addressing long term moves away from fossil fuels.
 
Redress said:
I do not live close, and I could support it with certain conditions: that all the environmental analysis is done and planning for accidents is done, that agreements are made to keep the oil in continental North America, things like that. Where we are on all that I am not sure as I don't really follow this issue much.
Click to expand...

bold mine

Is there a precedent for that (in the U.S. I mean)?
 
Cardinal said:
bold mine

Is there a precedent for that (in the U.S. I mean)?
Click to expand...

Not sure. I know the amendment to the bill was proposed. I agree with it. Why should we let Canada ship their oil through the US, with inevitable leaks, only to have them turn around and sell it overseas?
 
Redress said:
Not sure. I know the amendment to the bill was proposed. I agree with it. Why should we let Canada ship their oil through the US, with inevitable leaks, only to have them turn around and sell it overseas?
Click to expand...

Why indeed? It would be unique to have the phrase "energy independence" actually mean something for a change when referring to oil.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Close being simply any two points inside Texas is like saying that NYC is close to Atlanta, GA. ;)
Click to expand...

True but all things considered someone from the very northeastern point in TX would have much more of a common interest with someone in southwestern TX than someone in NYC compared to Atlanta. Since it's going through the state, it would effect your fellow Texans.
 
americanwoman said:
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?
Click to expand...

So you are a NIMBY?
 
americanwoman said:
True but all things considered someone from the very northeastern point in TX would have much more of a common interest with someone in southwestern TX than someone in NYC compared to Atlanta. Since it's going through the state, it would effect your fellow Texans.
Click to expand...

My point is that a pipeline running halfway between NYC and Atlanta (somewhere in VA) would not be said to be close to either city.
 
americanwoman said:
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?
Click to expand...

I think the pipeline is a good idea. What I can't understand is all the hoopla over an addition of 2,000 miles or so of additional pipeline when this country already has 186,000 of liquid oil pipelines already. This pipeline will have safety features the other 186,000 miles do not. Besides, pipelines are a whole lot safer and emit less pollution then transporting all that oil via train and truck. The oil will be transported, it is just a question of how.

Now I am not for the use of eminent Domain and that stops me from being gung ho about the pipeline. As for living close to a pipeline, I would wager a whole bunch of people would be surprised where these pipelines run and how close they do live to one.
 
It almost passed the current Senate, missing by 1 vote. It will probably definitely pass the 2015 Congress and sit on the President's desk waiting for his veto. But if it creates enough temp jobs and lowering oil prices, in comparison to environmental impact, there will be pressure on Obama to sign it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My point is that a pipeline running halfway between NYC and Atlanta (somewhere in VA) would not be said to be close to either city.
Click to expand...

You are picking nits sir.
 
Redress said:
I do not live close, and I could support it with certain conditions: that all the environmental analysis is done and planning for accidents is done, that agreements are made to keep the oil in continental North America, things like that. Where we are on all that I am not sure as I don't really follow this issue much.
Click to expand...

I might even agree with you.
 
Energy jobs pay above-average income to blue-collar non-college graduate workers. Why we wouldn't want more is beyond me.
 
americanwoman said:
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?
Click to expand...

I live in a neighboring state, but not really all that close.

I do not support it simply because it's not up to us to make it easier to ship Canadian oil to China.
 
cpwill said:
Energy jobs pay above-average income to blue-collar non-college graduate workers. Why we wouldn't want more is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I think the estimate was that after completion it would generate about 50 full time jobs. Not even a dent economically.
 
Redress said:
You are picking nits sir.
Click to expand...

So is one trying to show a relationship between distance from a thing and support/opposition to it. ;)

Is the point to show some sort of NIMBY thing?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So is one trying to show a relationship between distance from a thing and support/opposition to it. ;)

Is the point to show some sort of NIMBY thing?
Click to expand...

I would assume that is the point, and either people will react differently based on distance or not, and the poll is 100 % unscientific, and sometimes it is easier to work with the person who makes a poll than work against them.
 
Redress said:
I would assume that is the point, and either people will react differently based on distance or not, and the poll is 100 % unscientific, and sometimes it is easier to work with the person who makes a poll than work against them.
Click to expand...

Many folks in Texas support the project because of the added jobs and revenue it would bring to the state. Oil getting to the gulf refineries by pipeline is less dangerous than by the use of rail to get it there.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many folks in Texas support the project because of the added jobs and revenue it would bring to the state. Oil getting to the gulf refineries by pipeline is less dangerous than by the use of rail to get it there.
Click to expand...

That has exactly nothing to do with what I said.
 
rocket88 said:
I think the estimate was that after completion it would generate about 50 full time jobs. Not even a dent economically.
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah, and I've seen estimates that claim it would actually net reduce jobs, too; all ridiculous attempts to avoid a wedge between the environmentalist and union portions of the Democrat party.

Worth noting, however, is the same state department assessment said that it would indirectly create 38,000 jobs.

But by that measure (the one you presented) ALL construction jobs are "just temporary jobs". That seems to me to be a rather tough position for the party of Shovel Ready Stimulus to sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom