Keystone opponents:Which is worse a 1.4 million spill or 3,000 barrels

[Inthemiddle]

Exactly.

Calling everything I post a logical fallacy isn't an argument. It's a cop-out.

What argument do you think I'm making? Other than the fact that the OP is illogical, and that what you are saying is illogical? So yes, pointing out that damn near everything you are saying constitutes a fallacy is indeed an argument. Thanks for playing, though.

 

[bripat9643]

One, two, three logical fallacies.

You really didn't address what I said. You might as well admit you lost while you're behind.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly.

Calling everything I post a logical fallacy isn't an argument. It's a cop-out.

What argument do you think I'm making? Other than the fact that the OP is illogical, and that what you are saying is illogical? So yes, pointing out that damn near everything you are saying constitutes a fallacy is indeed an argument. Thanks for playing, though.

You aren't making any arguments. You're simply applying an inaccurate pejorative label to any criticism of your claims.

When are you going to describe all these "alternatives" to the pipeline you keep mentioning?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When the Valdez spill was from 257,000 to 750,000 barrels.
The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

No other accident since? Seriously? I mean SER-I-OUS-LY ??

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarians hold that neither State nor Fed government should have any say in environmental matters??? So if I want to dump toxic waste down the streets, that's fine???

WTF? I'm thinking I must be misunderstanding your meaning on the part in bold above.

No, that's a crime. Someone owns the property, and dumping toxic waste on someone's property is the worst kind of vandalism. It would also be considered reckless endangerment.

 

[Inthemiddle]

One, two, three logical fallacies.

You really didn't address what I said. You might as well admit you lost while you're behind.

Yes I did. You're babbling on illogically. That's all the addressing needed or deserved. It's amazing that you think illogical arguments deserve being treated like rational arguments.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You aren't making any arguments. You're simply applying an inaccurate pejorative label to any criticism of your claims.

When are you going to describe all these "alternatives" to the pipeline you keep mentioning?

Pejorative? If pointing out the fact that your arguments are flawed is "pejorative" than this country is really in crisis. Your arguments lack logical merit. That's not my fault.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Libertarians hold that neither State nor Fed government should have any say in environmental matters??? So if I want to dump toxic waste down the streets, that's fine???

WTF? I'm thinking I must be misunderstanding your meaning on the part in bold above.

No, that's a crime. Someone owns the property, and dumping toxic waste on someone's property is the worst kind of vandalism. It would also be considered reckless endangerment.

Fine. So is building a pipeline through Nebraska (which include thousands of miles of private property) okay if there are citizens who say "Not through MY private property, thank you!".
As that is the case in Nebraska, to such an extent that it would take eminent domain to overcome, it seems your position is that it should definitely not be built.

 

[Bern80]

How much more do the Citizens of the United States have to endure to keep the Robber Barons of the energy sector filthy rich?

Wars? Corrupted Environment? Corrupted Political System?

Enough already. We need to use our resources to come up with alternatives..not exploit the old tech.

It isn't 'old tech'. The technology for producing improves all the time, making it more efficient and yes, CLEANER. It is the cheapest to produce and thus cheapest to consume most efficient form of energy currently available.

Yea.....it really......

......SOUNDS like it.

If you spent half as much time attempting a modicum of coherence in your posts as you do spending time doing goofy font size and color shit to them people might actually be able to have a conversation with you.

 

[kwc57]

Nice strawman.
GOP & Libertarians say the power should be in the hands of the state. The governor of Nebraska vehemently opposed it going through his state. So Yes or No: Should his views be ignored? Should the issue be delayed until a consensus is reached with the state?
Or is it screw the power or views of the state, if the GOP wants to invoke federal power to get their way?

There was no strawman and you know it. You said Obama is respecting the wishes of the Republicans. No he isn't and he never has. Obama is a statist and fears giving power to the states. He isn't respecting the concerns of Nebraska or any other state. He is using the State Department to block the pipeline for political purposes. He is anti-oil and anti-business. He keeps begging Congress to pass his "jobs bill", yet his own Speaker of the Senate is the one who keeps blocking it. Obama could bring good paying, long term jobs to Americans with the swipe of his pen if he would allow offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR and building the pipeline......and ease our dependence on foreign oil at the same time. The question is why isn't he?

Hmmm. Apparently you're having a hard time grasping what I write because you're wrong on virtually everything here. Let me try to make this simple (although the evidence seems to be that you will dodge anyway) and see if you are capable of direct answers on a point by point basis.

1. Do Republicans and Libertarians hold that states should have more power?
2. Do they hold they should regulate issues such as environment, rather than the Fed?
3. If the governor of Nebraska says his state doesn't want the pipeline going through, should the Fed exercise its' power to over-ride those wishes?

We'll just start with those three simple questions as i doubt you'll answer even those, directly.

Evidence of dodging? You're simply proving that you're full of shit, but I'll play.

1. yes
2. depends
3. no

Now, a little more detail.

Months ago, the governor asked the president to block the pipeline because of concerns to a major water source.

Nebraska governor asks Obama to nix Keystone pipeline | Reuters

Those concerns have been addressed and the governor signed legislation to reroute the pipeline.

Nebraska governor signs bills to reroute Keystone pipeline | Reuters

"Nebraska lawmakers on Tuesday voted unanimously to move the pipeline and to spend money on the environmental study, sending the bills to Heineman's desk.

He was quick to sign them, bringing to a close a 15-day special legislative session called solely to craft pipeline regulations.

"Our work is done," Heineman said. "I want to say thank you to our citizens and our lawmakers."

At issue was the potential environmental impact a pipeline could have on the Sandhills region and the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to many cities and ranches and supports the agriculture industry with water for irrigation.

Nebraska forged ahead with pipeline legislation even after the State Department's decision to put off giving TransCanada a permit for the Keystone XL line until 2013."

The governor is no longer opposed to the pipeline. His original concerns were with the route which has been dealt with.

Since the issue is resolved, Why is the Obama administration still involving themselves and denying a permit? This article talks about Obama caving to environmental interests in making his decisions. To suggest as you have that Obama is respecting the wishes of Republicans is laughable at best.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-usa-keystone-pipeline-idUSTRE7BM1A620111223

 

[JDzBrain]

To keep saying the governor of Nebraska is opposing it...when he is NOT...as some cover for Obama is simply disingenuous at best!

The ONLY reason Obama wanted to DELAY the decision till January 2013 and after the election is so he didn't piss off groups he needs to have a chance at re election next year. It is TOTALLY political on his part.

If he green lights it...there go the NUT job ACORN type activist that worked so hard getting dead people to the polls the last time.

If he stops it, not only does he piss off unions who contributed 3/4s of a BILLION dollars to his election the last time, but he pisses off every single THINKING American who KNOWS this is one of the smartest things we can do if we want to stop being held hostage by the middle east!

Either way...he loses the election!

So, the argument that this is anything but a political move on the part of Obama and this administration is the REAL straw man!

This thing has been studied to DEATH. MORE than 3 years. The Obama administration alone has done an 18 month long study that cost tax payers MILLIONS on top of what had already been spent and they STILL couldn't find a reason to stop it.

IT'S TIME!

Oh, and just for the record, because of the 2 month tax holiday extension Congress passed, he IS going to have to make a choice. That choice WILL be to build the pipeline. Why, cause the nut jobs are very few and so mindless they will mostly support him no matter what he does. Unions and the American public are BIG groups that he can NEVER win without.

STRICTLY a political calculation...cause THAT is who the man is!

 

[bripat9643]

One, two, three logical fallacies.

You really didn't address what I said. You might as well admit you lost while you're behind.

Yes I did. You're babbling on illogically. That's all the addressing needed or deserved. It's amazing that you think illogical arguments deserve being treated like rational arguments.

I'll leave it to the people reading this thread to decide who's "babbling illogically."

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

You aren't making any arguments. You're simply applying an inaccurate pejorative label to any criticism of your claims.

When are you going to describe all these "alternatives" to the pipeline you keep mentioning?

Pejorative? If pointing out the fact that your arguments are flawed is "pejorative" than this country is really in crisis. Your arguments lack logical merit. That's not my fault.

Simply labeling everything I say a "logical fallacy" isn't pointing out anything. All you're doing is applying a pejorative label to everything I say. Your so-called "logical fallacies" are stuff you made up from whole cloth.

 

[bripat9643]

Fine. So is building a pipeline through Nebraska (which include thousands of miles of private property) okay if there are citizens who say "Not through MY private property, thank you!".
As that is the case in Nebraska, to such an extent that it would take eminent domain to overcome, it seems your position is that it should definitely not be built.

When the federal and state government outlaws eminent domain, get back to me. The only issue here is what should be done given current law, not in some fantasy libertarian world.

 

[bripat9643]

If you spent half as much time attempting a modicum of coherence in your posts as you do spending time doing goofy font size and color shit to them people might actually be able to have a conversation with you.

that's why I put him on my ignore list. I'm tired of having my screen cluttered with his shit.

Try it. You'll experience a new found sense of peace coming over you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Comparing a pipeline to a tanker is invalid.

 

[bripat9643]

Comparing a pipeline to a tanker is invalid.

What rule of logic says that?

 

[healthmyths]

Comparing a pipeline to a tanker is invalid.

The title is clear! Which is worse: 1 million barrels spill or 3,000 barrels ?

I mean why is there ANY question but I would rather have 3,000 barrels spilling on DRY LAND then ONE MILLION in the ocean!

 

[kwc57]

If you spent half as much time attempting a modicum of coherence in your posts as you do spending time doing goofy font size and color shit to them people might actually be able to have a conversation with you.

that's why I put him on my ignore list. I'm tired of having my screen cluttered with his shit.

Try it. You'll experience a new found sense of peace coming over you.

Amen to that! I've been on message boards for years and years and he is the only person I've ever put on ignore. I can't even tell you what political persuasion he is because I don't read posts that make my eyes bleed.

 

[Samson]

Comparing a pipeline to a tanker is invalid.

The title is clear! Which is worse: 1 million barrels spill or 3,000 barrels ?

I mean why is there ANY question but I would rather have 3,000 barrels spilling on DRY LAND then ONE MILLION in the ocean!

You are working under a terribly false assumption that opponents of the XL Keystone are rational.

They see no reason for ONE DROP of oil spilt ANYWHERE as long as they can successfully live in mud huts eating raw cabbage.