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?
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Listening to Progressives on economics is like listening to Helen Keller on Impressionism
 
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 ..
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top