Anyone who disputes this .. have lost touch with reality...

[rightwinger]

I see, so your view is that we consume the oil that's available, we don't buy the oil that we need. Gotcha.

BTW, they are considering shipping the oil to China. I'm curious how you think they plan to get it there...

I see a big advantage for Canada. How does it help the US?

Why should I care about a Canadian pipeline?

By creating thousands of jobs, numbnuts.

Temporary jobs with maybe a dozen permanent

If all we are interested in is a project thet creates jobs, why don't we invest in infrastructure that will help AMERICANS?

 

[kaz]

I see, so your view is that we consume the oil that's available, we don't buy the oil that we need. Gotcha.

BTW, they are considering shipping the oil to China. I'm curious how you think they plan to get it there...

I see a big advantage for Canada. How does it help the US?

Why should I care about a Canadian pipeline?

By creating thousands of jobs, numbnuts.

He's asking how he can get a check out of it. Seriously.

 

[Redfish]

I see, so your view is that we consume the oil that's available, we don't buy the oil that we need. Gotcha.

BTW, they are considering shipping the oil to China. I'm curious how you think they plan to get it there...

I see a big advantage for Canada. How does it help the US?

Why should I care about a Canadian pipeline?

Since we've established you only care if there's a check in it for you, you don't care.

he also does not care about the US jobs that would be created. doesn't matter to libs--just keep them on unemployment and welfare and they will vote democrap forever.

 

[kaz]

I see a big advantage for Canada. How does it help the US?

Why should I care about a Canadian pipeline?

By creating thousands of jobs, numbnuts.

Temporary jobs with maybe a dozen permanent

If all we are interested in is a project thet creates jobs, why don't we invest in infrastructure that will help AMERICANS?

OMG, you are a dim wit. You are always good for a laugh. Unfortunately, not laughing "with" you.

You don't understand the difference between private companies who create value and government who destroys value. And you never will. But that's the answer.

Why doesn't government just hire every unemployed person. And we should pay them six figures. Wow, wouldn't that create an economic boom?

LOL, what a dimwit.

 

[Redfish]

I see a big advantage for Canada. How does it help the US?

Why should I care about a Canadian pipeline?

By creating thousands of jobs, numbnuts.

Temporary jobs with maybe a dozen permanent

If all we are interested in is a project thet creates jobs, why don't we invest in infrastructure that will help AMERICANS?

a dozen????????? are you a complete fricken lunatic? how many people do you think it would take to build it? how many to work the refineries?

BTW, pipelines ARE infrastructure.

 

[kaz]

I see a big advantage for Canada. How does it help the US?

Why should I care about a Canadian pipeline?

Since we've established you only care if there's a check in it for you, you don't care.

he also does not care about the US jobs that would be created. doesn't matter to libs--just keep them on unemployment and welfare and they will vote democrap forever.

Yes, because voting Democrat has a check in it for him...

 

[Redfish]

Since we've established you only care if there's a check in it for you, you don't care.

he also does not care about the US jobs that would be created. doesn't matter to libs--just keep them on unemployment and welfare and they will vote democrap forever.

Yes, because voting Democrat has a check in it for him...

Yep, and when all of the "evil rich" leave the country who is going to write those checks? Its already happening in California and NY.

 

[nodoginnafight]

dozen????????? are you a complete fricken lunatic? how many people do you think it would take to build it? how many to work the refineries?

People are already working in the refineries.
How does this create new jobs?

I have no problems with the pipeline - but there hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976.

 

[Redfish]

dozen????????? are you a complete fricken lunatic? how many people do you think it would take to build it? how many to work the refineries?

People are already wotrking in the refineries.
How does this create new jobs?

Construction jobs to build several thousand miles of pipeline. More crude to the refineries means they need more employees to process it into gasoline, deisel, fuel oil, etc.

Hell, we might even see a new refinery built for the first time in years.

 

[natstew]

Over six thousand items ther than fuels are made from petroleum. These products represent jobs:

Petroleum By-products[edit]

Over 6000 items are made from petroleum waste by-products including: Fertilizer, Linoleum, Perfume, Insecticide, Petroleum Jelly, Soap, Vitamin Capsules. See link to partial list of 144 by-products listed by Ranken Energy A partial list of products made from petroleum

You Libtards never tell the whole story. Just as with coal, fuel is only part of the story.

 

[nodoginnafight]

dozen????????? are you a complete fricken lunatic? how many people do you think it would take to build it? how many to work the refineries?

People are already wotrking in the refineries.
How does this create new jobs?

Construction jobs to build several thousand miles of pipeline. More crude to the refineries means they need more employees to process it into gasoline, deisel, fuel oil, etc.

Hell, we might even see a new refinery built for the first time in years.

OK, the construction jobs are the temporary ones he was talking about.

Most refineries in the U.S. are operating at or very near capacity now. So not much room for more hiring there.

Build a new refinery - for the first time in nearly 40 years? Maybe, but I doubt it.

The lack of refining capacity is what the oil companies are doing to keep the price of gasoline up no matter what the cost of oil is.

So are the oil companies paying for this pipeline? Are the taxpayers subsidizing this project to benefit oil companies? Because they don't need our help. Record profits - they're doing fine. Are they leasing the land?

Like I said - I have no problem with the pipeline - but it isn't the great "boon" for the American people the way proponents are trying to sell it.

 

[BlindBoo]

How do we know, in the long run, these oil spills don't help the environment?

No, but they do not permanently destroy is either. millions of gallons were spilled into the gulf in 2010, today the gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back.

Oil is a natural substance, it is leaking into the ocean all the time. It is not the evil destructive chemical that the libtards make it out to be.

BP certainly appreciates your efforts.

Gulf Ecosystem in Crisis Three Years After BP Spill

Natural substances can be pretty nasty stuff.

http://www.coqa-inc.org/Components Paper.pdf

http://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/bemidji/results/intro-final.pdf

 

[BlindBoo]

dozen????????? are you a complete fricken lunatic? how many people do you think it would take to build it? how many to work the refineries?

People are already working in the refineries.
How does this create new jobs?

I have no problems with the pipeline - but there hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976.

The capacity of the current refineries have been increasing since then too. At least in Texas.

Texas Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries

 

[kaz]

How do we know, in the long run, these oil spills don't help the environment?

No, but they do not permanently destroy is either. millions of gallons were spilled into the gulf in 2010, today the gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back.

Oil is a natural substance, it is leaking into the ocean all the time. It is not the evil destructive chemical that the libtards make it out to be.

BP certainly appreciates your efforts.

Gulf Ecosystem in Crisis Three Years After BP Spill

Natural substances can be pretty nasty stuff

So you follow the typical leftist model of criticizing every solution without solving anything and then sitting back and being smug and superior. I'm always impressed by that. You guys pull it off so well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, but they do not permanently destroy is either. millions of gallons were spilled into the gulf in 2010, today the gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back.

Oil is a natural substance, it is leaking into the ocean all the time. It is not the evil destructive chemical that the libtards make it out to be.

BP certainly appreciates your efforts.

Gulf Ecosystem in Crisis Three Years After BP Spill

Natural substances can be pretty nasty stuff

Gee, coal shale and fossil fuels are natural substances. Firstly, if you want to get technical, hydroelectric dams take advantage of another natural substance. Water. It can be just as dangerous to the surrounding environment as oil can. Firstly because if a dam breaks, people could die, towns, cities and ecosystems can be flooded or destroyed. But hey, only oil is the dangerous thing here. Nice logic, liberals.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, but they do not permanently destroy is either. millions of gallons were spilled into the gulf in 2010, today the gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back.

Oil is a natural substance, it is leaking into the ocean all the time. It is not the evil destructive chemical that the libtards make it out to be.

BP certainly appreciates your efforts.

Gulf Ecosystem in Crisis Three Years After BP Spill

Natural substances can be pretty nasty stuff

So you follow the typical leftist model of criticizing every solution without solving anything and then sitting back and being smug and superior. I'm always impressed by that. You guys pull it off so well.

Sorry I didn't see Redfish offering any solutions. Firstly the BP platitudes like "gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back". All statements of supposed fact with no supporting links. Secondly, about the oil is Natural line. I address with the two links you deleted from your response that listed (1) the various contaminate found in crude oil and (2)how those contaminates can affect our fresh water supplies.

Anything else?

 

[BlindBoo]

No, but they do not permanently destroy is either. millions of gallons were spilled into the gulf in 2010, today the gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back.

Oil is a natural substance, it is leaking into the ocean all the time. It is not the evil destructive chemical that the libtards make it out to be.

BP certainly appreciates your efforts.

Gulf Ecosystem in Crisis Three Years After BP Spill

Natural substances can be pretty nasty stuff

Gee, coal shale and fossil fuels are natural substances. Firstly, if you want to get technical, hydroelectric dams take advantage of another natural substance. Water. It can be just as dangerous to the surrounding environment as oil can. Firstly because if a dam breaks, people could die, towns, cities and ecosystems can be flooded or destroyed. But hey, only oil is the dangerous thing here. Nice logic, liberals.

Holy shit. Asteroids and Comets are natural too and they can destroy the earth and every living creature on it. Damn me, I didn't mention those either.....

 

[nodoginnafight]

hydroelectric dams take advantage of another natural substance. Water. It can be just as dangerous to the surrounding environment as oil can.

Hydroelectric does have an environmental impact. Not nearly as significant as an oil spill, but it does have an impact.

No energy source is without risk - even wind and solar carry some drawbacks.

But some are less of a risk than others.

 

[kaz]

BP certainly appreciates your efforts.

Gulf Ecosystem in Crisis Three Years After BP Spill

Natural substances can be pretty nasty stuff

So you follow the typical leftist model of criticizing every solution without solving anything and then sitting back and being smug and superior. I'm always impressed by that. You guys pull it off so well.

Sorry I didn't see Redfish offering any solutions. Firstly the BP platitudes like "gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back". All statements of supposed fact with no supporting links. Secondly, about the oil is Natural line. I address with the two links you deleted from your response that listed (1) the various contaminate found in crude oil and (2)how those contaminates can affect our fresh water supplies.

Anything else?

Nothing other than the question I asked you. Repeating your criticisms of different solutions agrees with what I said about you.

OK, I'll stipulate that if we did not need energy, then I would not want oil, oil isn't perfect.

However, that isn't a choice. My solution is to focus on US energy first, Canadian energy second. Then buy what we need elsewhere, which if we keep working on the first two solutions won't require getting to step three for too much longer.

Transporting oil across land is safer than shipping it across the sea. Transporting it in pipelines is safer than transporting it in vehicles. It is also cheaper and creates less emissions.

So, I am looking at the admittedly non-perfect solutions and picking the best ones. You are just criticizing them all. So, again, what is your solution. Which using your model then we have the option of criticizing as not perfect and rejecting, right?

 

[kaz]

hydroelectric dams take advantage of another natural substance. Water. It can be just as dangerous to the surrounding environment as oil can.

Hydroelectric does have an environmental impact. Not nearly as significant as an oil spill, but it does have an impact.

No energy source is without risk - even wind and solar carry some drawbacks.

But some are less of a risk than others.

Environmentalists want to abolish hydroelectric because of the environmental impact. They like to drive SUVs to the rallies.

Wind and solar other than on a small, local scale are just excuses for government to waste massive amounts of money and get almost nothing back.

For a guy who just chastised me for thinking you're a stereotypical liberal, I am seeing you all over the board arguing stereotypical liberal positions on every one...