Forget the environment: Two other ways to look at Keystone

R

rdean

Guest
We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we could use one more.

We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we don't need one more.

Personally, if we are going to create 42,000 part time jobs, why not work on bridges? Or roads? Or dams?
 

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,806
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we could use one more.

We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we don't need one more.

Personally, if we are going to create 42,000 part time jobs, why not work on bridges? Or roads? Or dams?
You and your soppy ilk are obviously clueless as to the scope, design, and implications of this project. They are broad and far-reaching. Shut your ignorant pie hole when discussing matters of which you know little to nothing. :slap:
 

Rozman

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
16,683
Reaction score
3,090
Points
290
Location
Brooklyn,NY
Most people seem OK with this project....
Except a few tree huggers and Valerie Jarrett and therefore Obama.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,779
Reaction score
11,092
Points
2,040
We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we could use one more.

We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we don't need one more.

Personally, if we are going to create 42,000 part time jobs, why not work on bridges? Or roads? Or dams?
How does this pipeline prevent us from working on bridges, or roads, or dams?

Take out the Gaia-worship aspect of this, and there is zero reason for this work to be prevented.

And construction work isn't a "part-time" job, its a transient full time job, which is different.
 
OP
R

rdean

Guest
We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we could use one more.

We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we don't need one more.

Personally, if we are going to create 42,000 part time jobs, why not work on bridges? Or roads? Or dams?
How does this pipeline prevent us from working on bridges, or roads, or dams?

Take out the Gaia-worship aspect of this, and there is zero reason for this work to be prevented.

And construction work isn't a "part-time" job, its a transient full time job, which is different.
The only permanent jobs on the pipeline will be the 35 or so that will try to maintain it. Perhaps the thousands of truck drivers we lay off can apply for those?
Unless you want to build pipelines everywhere forever, it's not a transient full time job. It will be for part of this year and part of the next. After that, it's gone.
 

boilermaker55

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
552
Points
140
You mean like gun registration and the waiting period from all who want to sell/ purchase a gun.


Most people seem OK with this project....
Except a few tree huggers and Valerie Jarrett and therefore Obama.
 

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
34,325
Reaction score
3,971
Points
1,130
Listening to Progressives on economics is like listening to Helen Keller on Impressionism
listening to you talk about anything is like a conversation with the south end of Mr Ed after 2 bags of oats ..
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,779
Reaction score
11,092
Points
2,040
We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we could use one more.

We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we don't need one more.

Personally, if we are going to create 42,000 part time jobs, why not work on bridges? Or roads? Or dams?
How does this pipeline prevent us from working on bridges, or roads, or dams?

Take out the Gaia-worship aspect of this, and there is zero reason for this work to be prevented.

And construction work isn't a "part-time" job, its a transient full time job, which is different.
The only permanent jobs on the pipeline will be the 35 or so that will try to maintain it. Perhaps the thousands of truck drivers we lay off can apply for those?
Unless you want to build pipelines everywhere forever, it's not a transient full time job. It will be for part of this year and part of the next. After that, it's gone.
We ARE building pipelines. The only reason this is an issue is that it crosses an international border. Plus trucking is a flexible business that changes monthly orders of magnitude greater than any change created by the pipeline. Also, crude oil is mostly shipped via train or barge (if not by pipeline), not truck.

Constructions workers who dig and install pipelines do not work ONLY on pipelines.
 
OP
R

rdean

Guest
We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we could use one more.

We already have 76 pipelines to Canada, we don't need one more.

Personally, if we are going to create 42,000 part time jobs, why not work on bridges? Or roads? Or dams?
How does this pipeline prevent us from working on bridges, or roads, or dams?

Take out the Gaia-worship aspect of this, and there is zero reason for this work to be prevented.

And construction work isn't a "part-time" job, its a transient full time job, which is different.
The only permanent jobs on the pipeline will be the 35 or so that will try to maintain it. Perhaps the thousands of truck drivers we lay off can apply for those?
Unless you want to build pipelines everywhere forever, it's not a transient full time job. It will be for part of this year and part of the next. After that, it's gone.
We ARE building pipelines. The only reason this is an issue is that it crosses an international border. Plus trucking is a flexible business that changes monthly orders of magnitude greater than any change created by the pipeline. Also, crude oil is mostly shipped via train or barge (if not by pipeline), not truck.

Constructions workers who dig and install pipelines do not work ONLY on pipelines.
You said: Also, crude oil is mostly shipped via train or barge (if not by pipeline), not truck.

amount of oil shipped by truck - Google Search

And this, from the right's "GOD", Fox:

Oil Shipped by Rail Truck as Pipelines Play Catch-Up Fox Business

The right always accuses me of lying and having no links. If they were as honest as me and actually go looked things up, we could have a conversation. But, alas, all they have are GOP talking points. In their tiny world, that's all they need. Why bother with facts?
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,594
Reaction score
28,385
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Listening to Progressives on economics is like listening to Helen Keller on Impressionism
listening to you talk about anything is like a conversation with the south end of Mr Ed after 2 bags of oats ..
Progressives have destroyed every economy they ever ran from Detroit to Communist China and the USSR. American Progressives are to the LEFT of former communists in China and Russia.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top