Most Republicans Few Democrats Support Keystone Pipeline Land Grab?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Most Republicans Few Democrats Support Keystone Pipeline Land Grab? There are the state politicians and the national politicians. The GOP overwhelmingly supports a foreign company taking land from Americans. Why?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

28 Democrats joined the Republican caucus in passing the bill:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15) and Bennie Thompson (MS-02) were not in attendance

 

[Vigilante]

 

[ScienceRocks]

You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Forcing Americans to sell their land to a Canadian company?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.

We built the freeways, not a Russian company.

Forcing Americans to sell their land to a Canadian company is like forcing Americans to sell land for infrastructure? How so?

The pipeline is not going to be part of an American infrastructure for Americans to use/enjoy.

Matthew GOP has been against land grabs that would benefit Americans. Why attack without explaining?

 

[OKTexas]

You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.

We built the freeways, not a Russian company.

Forcing Americans to sell their land to a Canadian company is like forcing Americans to sell land for infrastructure? How so?

The pipeline is not going to be part of an American infrastructure for Americans to use/enjoy.

Matthew GOP has been against land grabs that would benefit Americans. Why attack without explaining?

Little Dainty Boy doesn't understand the difference between paying for a right of way and purchasing land, most of the land in question is agricultural and the pipeline will have very little impact on the lands usage.

 

[Vigilante]

But the Obumanation can FORCE YOU to buy ObumaCare!!!!

 

[Freewill]

If the land can be bought without the use of eminent domain I am all for it.

In the last few years I have witnessed many miles of gas pipeling being run and I have not heard a word about the use of eminent domain. If it can be done to run pipelines in the east it certainly can be done in the west.

 

[Agit8r]

It is just like with torture and police-statism; they always embrace the worst elements of communism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Most Republicans Few Democrats Support Keystone Pipeline Land Grab? There are the state politicians and the national politicians. The GOP overwhelmingly supports a foreign company taking land from Americans. Why?

Land grab? Oh, so that's the new narrative?
Have you any clue the number of transcontinental pipelines there are spidering their way across out nation?
And for you lefties THIS is the ONE? This one pipeline is your cause celeb?
You know it....Everyone else with two brain molecules banging together that this is nothing but politics....
Obama has said it in not so many words on numerous occasions how he is opposed ot the expansion of fossil fuel exploration and technology. He is pot committed on his green agenda. This project is the one issue On which Obama and you have hung your hat. Why?
And don't give me liberal company line about, exports, aquifers, Canadian oil or any of the other talking points.
Once again, keep in mind there are tens of thousands of miles of oil and natural gas pipelines criss-crossing the nation....So why is it you are all picking on this one?

 

[percysunshine]

Most Republicans Few Democrats Support Keystone Pipeline Land Grab? There are the state politicians and the national politicians. The GOP overwhelmingly supports a foreign company taking land from Americans. Why?

.

With the price of oil where it is, and the grade of crude Keystone would transport, only a government would be stupid enough to make the capital outlay to build the thing.

Why is this an issue?

.

 

[Agit8r]

If the land can be bought without the use of eminent domain I am all for it.

In the last few years I have witnessed many miles of gas pipeling being run and I have not heard a word about the use of eminent domain. If it can be done to run pipelines in the east it certainly can be done in the west.

There has been a legal struggle for years, because Trans-Canada has been bullying ranchers with the threat of imminent domain the whole time:

Pipeline to Hell - Broowaha

-

 

[thereisnospoon]

28 Democrats joined the Republican caucus in passing the bill:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15) and Bennie Thompson (MS-02) were not in attendance

That's a good thing...now, all that are needed in the Senate are 14 democrats to cross the aisle.

 

[Freewill]

Here is a good article concerning the pipeline. Apparently they are using ED. But I would say offering the rancher 7000 dollars for a ROW is ridiculous.

TransCanada Tries To Seize U.S. Land For Keystone Pipeline - Forbes

As usual, the political cauldron has been thoroughly churned during this President’s tenure. Eight years ago, President George Bush issued Executive Order 13406which stated that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for public use with just compensation for the purpose of benefiting the general public, wording mirrored in the U.S. Constitution. Bush’s Order 13406 limits the use of eminent domain so it may not be used for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. While Bush’s Order applies only to the Feds, it certainly colors the same powers of the States and has an effect on the appellate courts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Forcing Americans to sell their land to a Canadian company?

Stop the nonsense.

 

[Freewill]

If the land can be bought without the use of eminent domain I am all for it.

In the last few years I have witnessed many miles of gas pipeling being run and I have not heard a word about the use of eminent domain. If it can be done to run pipelines in the east it certainly can be done in the west.

There has been a legal struggle for years, because Trans-Canada has been bullying ranchers with the threat of imminent domain the whole time:

Pipeline to Hell - Broowaha

-

This is where a leader steps in and tell Trans-Canada that they need to buy the land. Put up or shut up. It can be done. If this is just ranch land then bury the damn thing and there shouldn't be any complaints.

This is the same argument we had when the Alaskan pipeline was built. Nothing bad has happened, yet.

 

[BULLDOG]

You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.

Freeways are for the use of everybody. That pipeline is for the use of a foreign company. You don't see the difference?

 

[BULLDOG]

You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.

You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.

We built the freeways, not a Russian company.

Forcing Americans to sell their land to a Canadian company is like forcing Americans to sell land for infrastructure? How so?

The pipeline is not going to be part of an American infrastructure for Americans to use/enjoy.

Matthew GOP has been against land grabs that would benefit Americans. Why attack without explaining?

Little Dainty Boy doesn't understand the difference between paying for a right of way and purchasing land, most of the land in question is agricultural and the pipeline will have very little impact on the lands usage.

The land still belongs to the land owners and should not have it stolen from them for any reason.

 

[Agit8r]

If the land can be bought without the use of eminent domain I am all for it.

In the last few years I have witnessed many miles of gas pipeling being run and I have not heard a word about the use of eminent domain. If it can be done to run pipelines in the east it certainly can be done in the west.

There has been a legal struggle for years, because Trans-Canada has been bullying ranchers with the threat of imminent domain the whole time:

Pipeline to Hell - Broowaha

-

This is where a leader steps in and tell Trans-Canada that they need to buy the land. Put up or shut up. It can be done. If this is just ranch land then bury the damn thing and there shouldn't be any complaints.

This is the same argument we had when the Alaskan pipeline was built. Nothing bad has happened, yet.

Very little of Alaska is privately owned.