Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.
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.
But how do you feel about the plan to allow immigrant GUEST visas, without any limitations, millions upon millions, daily/monthly/yearly crossing the border to come here and work? This is the new republican plan...from what I have been reading? Don't you think that would cost more low level working Americans their jobs and also use up our resources? Im not certain how I feel about it, would need more info than what I have read on it...it was a Breibart article so who knows if it is true?What is interesting is how much the left wing opposes this on the pretense that it is a foriegn country. Yet on the other hand they defend foreign countries dumping their citizen in our county. Something that will cost the US tax payers a whole lot more then a pipeline.
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?
But how do you feel about the plan to allow immigrant GUEST visas, without any limitations, millions upon millions, daily/monthly/yearly crossing the border to come here and work? This is the new republican plan...from what I have been reading? Don't you think that would cost more low level working Americans their jobs and also use up our resources? Im not certain how I feel about it, would need more info than what I have read on it...it was a Breibart article so who knows if it is true?What is interesting is how much the left wing opposes this on the pretense that it is a foriegn country. Yet on the other hand they defend foreign countries dumping their citizen in our county. Something that will cost the US tax payers a whole lot more then a pipeline.
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?
Forcing Americans to sell their land to a Canadian company?
for who?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?
Canada's oil will be cheaper? OK by me.
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?
We built the freeways, not a Russian company.You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.
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.
you would sell American liberty and freedom for a nickle or two?Forcing Americans to sell their land to a Canadian company?
I'm still celebrating today. Half my life savings have been invested in TransCanada for 20 years. And lord god the useful idiots here are clueless. It's frightening.
Democrats have conservatives because they are a coalition party.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
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.You would of went crazy when we built the freeways. Sometimes, a nation needs to build infrastructure.
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.
Stolen, where are they going to take it. They are not taking the land, they are paying for subsurface use, virtually every tract of land in this country contains a right of way in one form or another. You lefties are real drama queens.
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?
Wrong again, it will also transport US oil to market. Maybe you should do a bit of reading on the subject to avoid further foot in mouth disease.
You might want to start here. The southern leg is already up and running.
For First Time TransCanada Says Tar Sands Flowing to Gulf in Keystone XL South DeSmogBlog
If Trans Canada did not use or have to use eminent domain to make citizens relinquish their land and were willing to pay land owners whatever it took to buy them out for the pipeline, that would be one step in the right direction of making this happen imho....and maybe they should just run this wider pipe along side Keystone 1,2,3 instead of this new xl route near the aqua-fir?
The other scary part about this is tar sand oil... it is heavier than water, so with any spill, it is not an easy clean up, with the oil floating on top of water....this stuff sinks so the potential of a great disaster to our soil and water resources is huge...
On the other hand...
Some day in the future, our Nation could need this dirty tar sand oil from Canada...so we probably should not burn our bridges before we cross them...
If Trans Canada did not use or have to use eminent domain to make citizens relinquish their land and were willing to pay land owners whatever it took to buy them out for the pipeline, that would be one step in the right direction of making this happen imho....and maybe they should just run this wider pipe along side Keystone 1,2,3 instead of this new xl route near the aqua-fir?
The other scary part about this is tar sand oil... it is heavier than water, so with any spill, it is not an easy clean up, with the oil floating on top of water....this stuff sinks so the potential of a great disaster to our soil and water resources is huge...
On the other hand...
Some day in the future, our Nation could need this dirty tar sand oil from Canada...so we probably should not burn our bridges before we cross them...
It is not oil. It is diluted bitumen. Oil transported in the US is subject to a fee for each barrel that goes to a fund used for spill cleanup. The bitumen does not required that fee.
