Obama admin delays keystone pipeline decision again

[TemplarKormac]

Really, you can even mention the word compromise with this "my way or the highway" administration?

Obama Jobs bill for Republican Pipeline

You game?

you know they are only interested in "drill baby drill". they don't believe in infrastructure. they only believe in enriching exxon mobil et al...

but heaven forbid there should be environmental regs.

because G-d doesn't believe in stopping pollution.

Newsflash, God isn't an environmentalist. He destroyed the entire world with a flood to punish the sin of mankind, save Noah.

Think before you speak.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sure, oil companies get 4% of profit from the sales of oil. The government gets 15. Tell me, how does it benefit oil companies again? Oil companies average roughly 7 cents per gallon of gasoline, while the government nets 50 cents per gallon. So, once again, tell me how this benefits oil companies?

Wait, what?


Are you really asking how a pipeline bringing Canadian oil to ports for shipping to China benefits oil companies?

No. I'm asking who profits more. It isn't oil companies. Your hatred is misplaced, once again. Naturally, anyone will profit regardless, but to say it solely benefits those evil oil companies is dishonest.

First of all, that's not what you were "asking". See bolding above.

You really need to learn to respond to my posts, not your cartoonish idea of a "liberal" in your head. I don't think oil companies are "evil", nor do I "hate" them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am neither an environmentalist, nor a driver.

I don't "object" to the Keystone pipeline either. I just think it's ridiculously naive to think that it's actually going to tangibly benefit anyone other than oil companies.

Well then. If you aren't objecting, then what exactly are you doing? Arguing for the sake of arguing? Your statements and rhetoric suggest that you object to the pipeline. Why else would you say "I think it's ridiculously naive to think that it's going to tangibly benefit anyone other than oil companies" if not to voice objection to it?

I'm not "voicing objection" to the pipeline. I'm voicing objection to your claims of energy independence the moment the pipeline goes live.

Besides, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, it actually benefits the government more. They take in roughly 50 cents per gallon of gas sold in the United States. Oil companies make 7 cents for every gallon. Your distrust is misplaced, Doc.

Eh? "Distrust" has nothing to do with it.

And regardless of the semantics, it ultimately benefits the American people, whether you choose to take advantage of it or not. It is foolish not to take advantage of a natural resource purely because "it will only benefit X." That's like building a campfire and walking away from it simply because you think the logs fueling the fire would get more heat than you would.

I don't think you're understanding my argument at all.

I'm not "voicing objection" to the pipeline. I'm voicing objection to your claims of energy independence the moment the pipeline goes live.

Alas, you are unable to disprove it. OPEC is slowly becoming irrelevant. When this pipeline goes live, it will deprive it of one of its most loyal customers. That honor would go to China, who takes in more oil from them than we do these days.

Eh? "Distrust" has nothing to do with it.

Then why this obsession with oil companies? What made you think my statement was laughable?

I don't think you're understanding my argument at all.

No, because there isn't one. It's based on prejudice, not facts. You have not tried once to challenge me empirically or otherwise. First you call my statement laughable, then you presume to think I am naive, and then you simply tell me I don't understand your argument, all argumentum ad hominem.

Objections aren't arguments. They are expressions of displeasure, which themselves may or may not be rooted in reality. It's one thing to purely object, its another thing entirely to back it up with an actual argument.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wait, what?


Are you really asking how a pipeline bringing Canadian oil to ports for shipping to China benefits oil companies?

No. I'm asking who profits more. It isn't oil companies. Your hatred is misplaced, once again. Naturally, anyone will profit regardless, but to say it solely benefits those evil oil companies is dishonest.

First of all, that's not what you were "asking". See bolding above.

You really need to learn to respond to my posts, not your cartoonish idea of a "liberal" in your head. I don't think oil companies are "evil", nor do I "hate" them.

I can see you're getting unnerved. I did respond to your posts. You simply regarded them as naive, or laughable, or as a result of my lack of understanding. Your statements completely contradict what you just said. If you didn't think oil companies were "evil" then why are you so concerned with them benefiting from the profits they make on selling crude? To this very moment you are making an issue of it.

I am asking how this benefits oil companies more, since obviously both you and KNB believe they profit absurdly from the oil they sell. You ignore the one crucial fact that government profits much more than oil companies do. Thus, oil companies aren't living high off the hog. They are being fed the scraps.

 

[Avatar4321]

We will be lucky if he makes a decision by the end of his second term. The man doesn't have a decisive bone in his body.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Alas, you are unable to disprove it. OPEC is slowly becoming irrelevant. When this pipeline goes live, it will deprive it of one of its most loyal customers. That honor would go to China, who takes in more oil from them than we do these days.

I don't have to "disprove" it. The market will do that just fine. The Keystone pipeline won't "deprive" China of anything - if China wants to buy the oil, they won't stop selling it. You're ignoring some basic facts of the free market here.

Then why this obsession with oil companies? What made you think my statement was laughable?

I'm not "obsessed" with oil companies. I don't give a shit about oil companies. I think your statement is laughable and naive because it ignores reality. Oil is sold in a global free market, all a pipeline does is make it easier for them to sell it. It doesn't change who they sell it to.

No, because there isn't one. It's based on prejudice, not facts. You have not tried once to challenge me empirically or otherwise. First you call my statement laughable, then you presume to think I am naive, and then you simply tell me I don't understand your argument, all argumentum ad hominem.

This is what I mean by "not understanding my argument". You seem to think that I'm a character from a Mallard Fillmore comic. I haven't said anything about hating oil companies, or how they're evil, or anything even close to that. You just sorta made that up in your head.

Objections aren't arguments. They are expressions of displeasure, which themselves may or may not be rooted in reality. It's one thing to purely object, its another thing entirely to back it up with an actual argument.

As I've already said, I don't "object" to the pipeline. I'm ambivalent towards it.

 

[KNB]

You should object to the pipeline because it's useless and won't do shit to make America "energy independent."

 

[Moonglow]

maybe this will help you Temple..

In pushing for the Obama Administration’s approval of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the North American oil industry and its political patrons argue that the pipeline is necessary for American energy security and its construction will help wean America of dependence on Mideast oil. But a closer look at the new realities of the global oil market and at the companies who will profit from the pipeline reveals a completely different story: Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but rather transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.

“To issue a presidential permit for the Keystone XL, the Administration must find that the pipeline serves the national interest,” said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International. “An honest assessment shows that rather than serving U.S. interests, Keystone XL serves only the interests of tar sands producers and shippers, and a few Gulf Coast refiners aiming to export the oil.”

Valero has contracted to take at least 100,000 barrels of tar sands crude a day from Keystone XL until 2030. It’s publicly disclosed business model relies on refining heavy sour crude for export. It is upgrading its Port Arthur refinery to process heavy sour into diesel fuel. Its investor presentations clearly show it plans to ship diesel to Latin America and Europe.

Exposed: Keystone XL Pipeline Will Export Energy Security Overseas | NationofChange

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No. I'm asking who profits more. It isn't oil companies. Your hatred is misplaced, once again. Naturally, anyone will profit regardless, but to say it solely benefits those evil oil companies is dishonest.

First of all, that's not what you were "asking". See bolding above.

You really need to learn to respond to my posts, not your cartoonish idea of a "liberal" in your head. I don't think oil companies are "evil", nor do I "hate" them.

I can see you're getting unnerved. I did respond to your posts. You simply regarded them as naive, or laughable, or as a result of my lack of understanding. Your statements completely contradict what you just said. If you didn't think oil companies were "evil" then why are you so concerned with them benefiting from the profits they make on selling crude? To this very moment you are making an issue of it.

"Getting unnerved".

You didn't respond to my post. You responded to some liberal environmental cartoon character you have in your head, and assigned it to me. I don't care if oil companies benefit. It's just not enough of a reason for me support something.

I am asking how this benefits oil companies more, since obviously both you and KNB believe they profit absurdly from the oil they sell. You ignore the one crucial fact that government profits much more than oil companies do. Thus, oil companies aren't living high off the hog. They are being fed the scraps.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I've made no arguments that come close to anything you've assigned to me.

 

[Moonglow]

We will be lucky if he makes a decision by the end of his second term. The man doesn't have a decisive bone in his body.

At least not to your satisfaction....

 

[Moonglow]

Like I have said before, the pipeline could be built if the Canadians pay us a fee for the US letting them use our land and refineries to export their oil....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Like I have said before, the pipeline could be built if the Canadians pay us a fee for the US letting them use our land and refineries to export their oil....

Well, they are. They're paying rent for the land that the pipeline crosses.

 

[Moonglow]

Like I have said before, the pipeline could be built if the Canadians pay us a fee for the US letting them use our land and refineries to export their oil....

Well, they are. They're paying rent for the land that the pipeline crosses.

Okay, have not researched that far....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Like I have said before, the pipeline could be built if the Canadians pay us a fee for the US letting them use our land and refineries to export their oil....

Well, they are. They're paying rent for the land that the pipeline crosses.

Okay, have not researched that far....

Either that, or they bought it outright.

 

[Avatar4321]

You should object to the pipeline because it's useless and won't do shit to make America "energy independent."

1) No one claimed it will make us energy independent. Won't hurt though.
2) People need to work. It is a useful project with little to no downside.
3) It seems to be a no brainer for someone who claims to be concerned about getting people to work.

 

[Moonglow]

The energy sector in the US needs workers, why send them to Canada?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You should object to the pipeline because it's useless and won't do shit to make America "energy independent."

1) No one claimed it will make us energy independent. Won't hurt though.

True, it won't hurt. Won't "help" much, either.

2) People need to work. It is a useful project with little to no downside.

The people who live under where it's going to be built may disagree with you on that.

3) It seems to be a no brainer for someone who claims to be concerned about getting people to work.

"Jobs" is not enough of a reason to support something like this. If I built a murder factory, it would employ a bunch of contractors. But as I said, there's no real reason for me to oppose it, either.

 

[TemplarKormac]

First of all, that's not what you were "asking". See bolding above.

You really need to learn to respond to my posts, not your cartoonish idea of a "liberal" in your head. I don't think oil companies are "evil", nor do I "hate" them.

I can see you're getting unnerved. I did respond to your posts. You simply regarded them as naive, or laughable, or as a result of my lack of understanding. Your statements completely contradict what you just said. If you didn't think oil companies were "evil" then why are you so concerned with them benefiting from the profits they make on selling crude? To this very moment you are making an issue of it.

"Getting unnerved".

You didn't respond to my post. You responded to some liberal environmental cartoon character you have in your head, and assigned it to me. I don't care if oil companies benefit. It's just not enough of a reason for me support something.

I am asking how this benefits oil companies more, since obviously both you and KNB believe they profit absurdly from the oil they sell. You ignore the one crucial fact that government profits much more than oil companies do. Thus, oil companies aren't living high off the hog. They are being fed the scraps.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I've made no arguments that come close to anything you've assigned to me.

You responded to some liberal environmental cartoon character you have in your head, and assigned it to me.

When spoon referred to you as an "environmental extremist" you justified that "cartoon character" by saying "That's very easy to say when the pipeline isn't running through your backyard." So how exactly should I construe that? So far all I have seen you do object to the pipeline.

"What is so important about it?" you asked me.

"Why do we need another when we have others doing the same thing?" you asked again. (paraphrased)

You just told Avatar that "Jobs aren't a sufficient reason to support something like this."

I don't care if oil companies benefit. It's just not enough of a reason for me support something.

You've stated to the contrary in this thread. You've mentioned how it would 'only benefit the oil companies' and as I can tell used it as a basis to justify this "ambivalence." Your statements betray you.

Your claim of ambivalence means you see both the pros and the cons, not just the cons of something. But to the contrary you have offered up nothing but one dissenting opinion after the other. You have stated no reasons as of yet of why you support it. You however didn't mind listing all the lowlights.

You have no basis for your "ambivalence" just rationales you have yourself fashioned to guide your reasoning and decision making. I'm beginning to think you are hiding behind neutrality, not actually being neutral. Yours is a false neutrality. Nobody can be truly neutral. I can see you're biases against this project as clear as day.

Genetic argument, yes. But I'm stating an observation. Your stances are confusing; moreover, I've seen more liberals agree with you on this topic than not.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Alas, you are unable to disprove it. OPEC is slowly becoming irrelevant. When this pipeline goes live, it will deprive it of one of its most loyal customers. That honor would go to China, who takes in more oil from them than we do these days.

I don't have to "disprove" it. The market will do that just fine. The Keystone pipeline won't "deprive" China of anything - if China wants to buy the oil, they won't stop selling it. You're ignoring some basic facts of the free market here.

Then why this obsession with oil companies? What made you think my statement was laughable?

I'm not "obsessed" with oil companies. I don't give a shit about oil companies. I think your statement is laughable and naive because it ignores reality. Oil is sold in a global free market, all a pipeline does is make it easier for them to sell it. It doesn't change who they sell it to.

No, because there isn't one. It's based on prejudice, not facts. You have not tried once to challenge me empirically or otherwise. First you call my statement laughable, then you presume to think I am naive, and then you simply tell me I don't understand your argument, all argumentum ad hominem.

This is what I mean by "not understanding my argument". You seem to think that I'm a character from a Mallard Fillmore comic. I haven't said anything about hating oil companies, or how they're evil, or anything even close to that. You just sorta made that up in your head.

Objections aren't arguments. They are expressions of displeasure, which themselves may or may not be rooted in reality. It's one thing to purely object, its another thing entirely to back it up with an actual argument.

As I've already said, I don't "object" to the pipeline. I'm ambivalent towards it.

I don't have to "disprove" it. The market will do that just fine. The Keystone pipeline won't "deprive" China of anything - if China wants to buy the oil, they won't stop selling it. You're ignoring some basic facts of the free market here.

I never said it would deprive China of anything. I said completing this pipeline would deprive OPEC of one of it's most loyal customers. Leaving China as the biggest consumer of their oil, not the US. Please, try to read carefully. Because you predicated the entirety of your post on that belief, the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

I'm not "obsessed" with oil companies. I don't give a shit about oil companies. I think your statement is laughable and naive because it ignores reality. Oil is sold in a global free market, all a pipeline does is make it easier for them to sell it. It doesn't change who they sell it to.

A red herring. You've also made passive aggressive comments about how this oil, this pipeline would do nothing but profit these oil companies, as if to mean it in some derogatory fashion. You are right, it does benefit them. Who else sells the oil? However, you ignore the mutual benefit. They get the money, the average citizen gets the gas they need to get to work on. Yes, I'm talking about symbiosis here. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps maybe the reason you don't drive is because you don't like where or whom your money would be going to.

This is what I mean by "not understanding my argument". You seem to think that I'm a character from a Mallard Fillmore comic. I haven't said anything about hating oil companies, or how they're evil, or anything even close to that. You just sorta made that up in your head.

Wrong. You have done everything possible to justify my reasoning. Oh and I know how a politician or in this instance, a debater, reacts when called on a controversial belief. "Oh you just made that up in your head." Yes, I see that as nothing but a deflection. You are calling me crazy, not addressing the issue.

As I've already said, I don't "object" to the pipeline. I'm ambivalent towards it.

How can you be ambivalent when you have done nothing but state your misgivings about the pipeline?

 

[KNB]

This will provide more jobs and more energy than the Keystone XL pipeline:

The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI