Majority on Nebraska Supreme Court 4/3: Keystone Pipeline Land Grab UncConstitutional, but...

[Dante]

Majority on Nebraska Supreme Court 4/3: Keystone Pipeline Land Grab UncConstitutional, but...

A super majority is needed under Nebraska Constitution. The land grab law stands. It isn't exactly a win for either side - yet

 

[Mr. H.]

Yup.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Dante's a moron.

 

[Dante]

Yup.

always learn so much from your post.

 

[Mr. H.]

Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.

Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

 

[Dante]

Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.

Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.

When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)

difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company

 

[Mr. H.]

Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.

Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.

When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)

difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company

The Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.

Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.

I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.

 

[Dante]

Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.

Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.

When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)

difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company

The Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.

Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.

I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.

We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argument

 

[Mr. H.]

Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.

Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.

When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)

difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company

The Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.

Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.

I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.

We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argument

Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.

 

[Dante]

Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.

Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.

When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)

difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company

The Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.

Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.

I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.

We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argument

Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.

it's always a political decision.

You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry

 

[Mr. H.]

Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.

Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.

When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)

difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company

The Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.

Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.

I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.

We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argument

Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.

it's always a political decision.

You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry

I've worked in the petroleum industry for over 37 years. Don't you read my posts?

I'm informed enough to know that these very complex matters just don't simply boil themselves down to "taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". Catchy slogans like that are left up to folks such as yourself.

 

[Dante]

The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.

When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)

difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company

The Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.

Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.

I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.

We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argument

Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.

it's always a political decision.

You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry

I've worked in the petroleum industry for over 37 years. Don't you read my posts?

I'm informed enough to know that these very complex matters just don't simply boil themselves down to "taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". Catchy slogans like that are left up to folks such as yourself.

I thought so, but I forget or am not always sure about personal stuff online.

"taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". is not a catchy slogan, it is the gawd's honest truth

 

[Mr. H.]

The Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.

Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.

I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.

We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argument

Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.

it's always a political decision.

You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry

I've worked in the petroleum industry for over 37 years. Don't you read my posts?

I'm informed enough to know that these very complex matters just don't simply boil themselves down to "taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". Catchy slogans like that are left up to folks such as yourself.

I thought so, but I forget or am not always sure about personal stuff online.

"taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". is not a catchy slogan, it is the gawd's honest truth

Well, as I alluded to previously... the devil is in the details. None of which seem to have been made available in this thread.

And the details undoubtedly encompass reams and reams of technical and legal data. None of which I'm willing to peruse.

It's much easier to just resort to "you're an idiot, and I'm right".

 

[Dante]

We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argument

Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.

it's always a political decision.

You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry

I've worked in the petroleum industry for over 37 years. Don't you read my posts?

I'm informed enough to know that these very complex matters just don't simply boil themselves down to "taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". Catchy slogans like that are left up to folks such as yourself.

I thought so, but I forget or am not always sure about personal stuff online.

"taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". is not a catchy slogan, it is the gawd's honest truth

Well, as I alluded to previously... the devil is in the details. None of which seem to have been made available in this thread.

And the details undoubtedly encompass reams and reams of technical and legal data. None of which I'm willing to peruse.

It's much easier to just resort to "you're an idiot, and I'm right".

You are, and I am.