Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 125,900
- 90,778
- 3,635
He still doesn't understand.So you were wrong in your claims about what he said.Your reply does not match what you are relying to. You are presenting a new argument in order to evade what you quoted. Strawman."Pipelines are safer and greener than trains and trucks."Which of the three statements that you quoted of me in post 119 were you debating?It doesn't and I never said it does.How does ownership of the oil effect which method of transportation is safer or greener?No, I didn't argue against your statement that pipelines are greener than trains and trucks. My reply was, "which is fine for oil that is ours."Post 119. You argued against my statement that pipelines are greener than trains and trucks. Every one of your posts after that had the same strawman argument against the same statement.I never said it does. In case you missed it, in regards to transporting oil which is of little or no benefit for the U.S., I posit we should use neither. Both are risks to the environment and we shouldn't be assuming that risk. Especially with tar sands oil which is even more catastrophic for the environment. If Canada wants to refine their tar sands oil, let them build the refineries to do so in Canada.This doesn't make trains and trucks greener or safer than pipelines.Yes, it matters. If it's foreign oil we are transporting across the U.S. to be exported, there is no benefit for the U.S., so why do it?Doesn't matter if it is ours. Regardless of who's oil it is, pipelines are safer and greener than trains and trucks.Which is fine for oil that is ours.
Again, pipelines are greener than trains and trucks. Regardless of which country owns the oil, pipelines are still greener than trains and trucks.
Again... reading is fundamental.
To which I replied, "which is fine for oil that is ours. We shouldn't be risking our environment, by train or by pipeline, for another country's oil."
Are you still confused?
Ohhh