To those who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline for environmental reasons

[rightwinger]

If not for the fact that Keystone pisses Republicans off so much........I would support it

 

[candycorn]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?

Most persons are able to drive on the Interstates. Will I be able to make use of the pipelines?

 

[airplanemechanic]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?

Most persons are able to drive on the Interstates. Will I be able to make use of the pipelines?

Yea, the gas in your tank would cost half of what it used to. THAT would benefit everyone.

And no, putting a road through the farmers field down the street benefits locals only. There is no benefit to the man living on 124 Main street in San Francisco. So it does NOT benefit the entire nation.

 

[candycorn]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?

Most persons are able to drive on the Interstates. Will I be able to make use of the pipelines?

Yea, the gas in your tank would cost half of what it used to. THAT would benefit everyone.

And no, putting a road through the farmers field down the street benefits locals only. There is no benefit to the man living on 124 Main street in San Francisco. So it does NOT benefit the entire nation.

Do you have a link to a credible source making that seemingly insane allegation that the price of gas would drop by 50% once KXL is up and running? Or are you just lying as most supporters of the pipeline have done?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Fracking caused prices to drop in half. Liberals were against fracking from day one. Do you have any proof that liberals were saying it would cause the price of gas to go down? No of course not. This pipeline would benefit the nation by bringing the price of gas down, or keeping it down. That benefits everyone with a vehicle. It's all supply and demand.

It would also benefit everyone involved in its construction, maintenance and processing of the oil that comes out of it.

 

[Siete]

LMAO ... two days ago RW's were bitching about low gas prices are killing jobs.

they don't know what to bitch about or WHY, so they just bitch. Must make them feel better to do the only thing they're capable of doing well.

I'll add, they're GREAT at talking about shit they have no idea about.


DRILL BABY DRILL ... lets get gas down to FREE !!!


WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO !!

 

[airplanemechanic]

I don't know who is an RW, whatever that is, complaining that its killing jobs. I certainly am not. Of course I'm not an RW whatever that is.

I am for the benefit of the majority. Low gas prices benefit everyone except those few who lose their jobs due to it. But if their jobs were only because of artificially inflated fuel prices, then I won't cry too many tears.

 

[Siete]

Fracking caused prices to drop in half. Liberals were against fracking from day one. Do you have any proof that liberals were saying it would cause the price of gas to go down? No of course not. This pipeline would benefit the nation by bringing the price of gas down, or keeping it down. That benefits everyone with a vehicle. It's all supply and demand.

It would also benefit everyone involved in its construction, maintenance and processing of the oil that comes out of it.

OPEC is the reason oil is ass deep and gas is cheap ... wake up.

 

[Camp]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?

Most persons are able to drive on the Interstates. Will I be able to make use of the pipelines?

Yea, the gas in your tank would cost half of what it used to. THAT would benefit everyone.

And no, putting a road through the farmers field down the street benefits locals only. There is no benefit to the man living on 124 Main street in San Francisco. So it does NOT benefit the entire nation.

You are full of crap dude. A guy living at 124 Main St., San Francisco would have great limits on his employment and business opportunities. Interstates 80, 280, 680, etc. make employment and business opportunities that he would not otherwise have. Those interstates, like interstates everywhere give people the opportunity to commute to jobs they would not have without the Interstate.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.

You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.

 

[airplanemechanic]

OPEC isn't setting the price of oil. Supply is.

 

[Siete]

OPEC isn't setting the price of oil. Supply is.

In recent days several members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and the United Arab Emirates — have cut prices to European and Asian buyers as competition for global market share has grown fierce.

With the price of the global benchmark, Brent crude oil, falling 1.5 percent on Monday to $88.89 a barrel, many analysts said Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s dominant member, might be rethinking its strategy.

Continue reading the main story
“Saudi comments indicate that it may have shifted from a strategy of holding prices at around $100 a barrel to a focus on market share,” said Jeff A. Dietert, head of research at Simmons & Company, an independent investment bank. “That means there is not an immediate floor on oil prices.” He said he thought that Saudi Arabia was trying to slow production growth in the United States.

Oil prices have reached levels not seen since the Middle East and North Africa turmoil began in 2011 because of an unusual combination of factors: Demand for petroleum products is declining worldwide, particularly in Europe, just as the global market is flooded with oil.

go twist a wrench on a single cylinder

 

[Camp]

Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.

You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.

All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.

 

[tinydancer]

Let's start here.

Myth: Keystone XL is an export pipeline to China and other nations.
Fact: Keystone XL is not an export pipeline.

It is a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries — which have signed up to 20-year binding commercial contracts to receive oil through Keystone XL.

This much-needed oil will allow refineries to create products that we all rely on every day — gasoline for our vehicles, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels to help transport goods throughout the continent.

It makes absolutely no sense for companies to purchase cheaper Canadian crude, and then pay (again) to ship that product overseas, while continuing to import higher-priced oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

- See more at: Myths addressed Exports Jobs Economic benefits and more Keystone XL Pipeline

Recent production increases, and reduction in demand has lowered the price so much till it's just barely feasible to even build the northern line that you insist is already built. We don't need it.

The original Keystone pipeline was completed last year. It takes tarsand oil to Illinois and the Gulf Coast. The one they want to build through the breadbasket of America is the Keystone XL.

Well this is a first. Some one who realizes that the bloody Keystone has been finished and has been pumping crude since last year.

You should also then be aware that the Keystone not only pumps Canuck crude to the coast but it picks up crude from your domestic producers as well as delivering crude to your midwest refineries.

As to your statement " that the XL will be built through the breadbasket of America" do you really see a problem with that?

The technology of these new pipelines are state of the art compared to the older pipelines that already exist across "the breadbasket of America".

Here's a visual.

 

[tinydancer]

Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.

You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.

All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.

Well Comrade Camp. Do you need crude as a nation? Why yes, yes you do. You use more than you produce so you must import crude. It has to get to market.

Pipelines are the most efficient way to do so. It's a no brainer that you have to build the infrastructure to get the crude to the refineries. Canadian and domestic. They need to be built not solely for profit but to transport a valuable raw material so it can be processed and refined.

 

[Camp]

Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.

You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.

All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.

Well Comrade Camp. Do you need crude as a nation? Why yes, yes you do. You use more than you produce so you must import crude. It has to get to market.

Pipelines are the most efficient way to do so. It's a no brainer that you have to build the infrastructure to get the crude to the refineries. Canadian and domestic. They need to be built not solely for profit but to transport a valuable raw material so it can be processed and refined.

We are doing just fine without that particular pipeline. It won't make a significant difference in the amount of oil we can access. Proponents like you try to make it sound like this particular stretch of pipeline is drastically needed. It isn't. As you have pointed out, we are getting the oil anyhow. This is just a battle between giant business interest about who gets to make the profits from transporting it.

 

[tinydancer]

Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.

You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.

All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.

Well Comrade Camp. Do you need crude as a nation? Why yes, yes you do. You use more than you produce so you must import crude. It has to get to market.

Pipelines are the most efficient way to do so. It's a no brainer that you have to build the infrastructure to get the crude to the refineries. Canadian and domestic. They need to be built not solely for profit but to transport a valuable raw material so it can be processed and refined.

We are doing just fine without that particular pipeline. It won't make a significant difference in the amount of oil we can access. Proponents like you try to make it sound like this particular stretch of pipeline is drastically needed. It isn't. As you have pointed out, we are getting the oil anyhow. This is just a battle between giant business interest about who gets to make the profits from transporting it.

Oh high and mighty Camp. Who are you to determine what is needed and not needed for your refineries?



I've never said drastically needed. Not little old moi.

Needed by Montana and North Dakota most certainly. They would tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine Camp because the XL is committed to pick up crude from their Bakken fields to get to refineries.

Just as the other Keystone picks up crude from other domestic producers.

It"s just a fucking pipeline. Just another mode of transportation. Get a grip.

The hypocrisy over the XL is astounding. No one made a peep over the Keystone being finished while the debate has raged on over the XL and no one has made a peep over the Alberta Clipper NOR the Southern Lights pipeline being built while this idiocy over the XL continues.

It's a big dog and mother trucking dog pony show by the left. It's all bullshit.

 

[chikenwing]

Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.

You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.

All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.

Well Comrade Camp. Do you need crude as a nation? Why yes, yes you do. You use more than you produce so you must import crude. It has to get to market.

Pipelines are the most efficient way to do so. It's a no brainer that you have to build the infrastructure to get the crude to the refineries. Canadian and domestic. They need to be built not solely for profit but to transport a valuable raw material so it can be processed and refined.

We are doing just fine without that particular pipeline. It won't make a significant difference in the amount of oil we can access. Proponents like you try to make it sound like this particular stretch of pipeline is drastically needed. It isn't. As you have pointed out, we are getting the oil anyhow. This is just a battle between giant business interest about who gets to make the profits from transporting it.

NO we are not,our systems as a whole are old and need repair/replace,the problem is people like yourself that don't understand much about what they are crowing about.

Just one thought,do you think a company would pour billions into a project if they were thinking we are getting by ok the way were are??

THINK!!!

 

[Moonglow]

OPEC isn't setting the price of oil. Supply is.

In recent days several members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and the United Arab Emirates — have cut prices to European and Asian buyers as competition for global market share has grown fierce.

With the price of the global benchmark, Brent crude oil, falling 1.5 percent on Monday to $88.89 a barrel, many analysts said Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s dominant member, might be rethinking its strategy.

Continue reading the main story
“Saudi comments indicate that it may have shifted from a strategy of holding prices at around $100 a barrel to a focus on market share,” said Jeff A. Dietert, head of research at Simmons & Company, an independent investment bank. “That means there is not an immediate floor on oil prices.” He said he thought that Saudi Arabia was trying to slow production growth in the United States.

Oil prices have reached levels not seen since the Middle East and North Africa turmoil began in 2011 because of an unusual combination of factors: Demand for petroleum products is declining worldwide, particularly in Europe, just as the global market is flooded with oil.

go twist a wrench on a single cylinder

Now the pieces are moving on the chess board...The Saudis seek to undercut Russian customers...heh-heh....Arab mafia....

 

[Camp]

Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.

You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.

All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.

Well Comrade Camp. Do you need crude as a nation? Why yes, yes you do. You use more than you produce so you must import crude. It has to get to market.

Pipelines are the most efficient way to do so. It's a no brainer that you have to build the infrastructure to get the crude to the refineries. Canadian and domestic. They need to be built not solely for profit but to transport a valuable raw material so it can be processed and refined.

We are doing just fine without that particular pipeline. It won't make a significant difference in the amount of oil we can access. Proponents like you try to make it sound like this particular stretch of pipeline is drastically needed. It isn't. As you have pointed out, we are getting the oil anyhow. This is just a battle between giant business interest about who gets to make the profits from transporting it.

Oh high and mighty Camp. Who are you to determine what is needed and not needed for your refineries?



I've never said drastically needed. Not little old moi.

Needed by Montana and North Dakota most certainly. They would tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine Camp because the XL is committed to pick up crude from their Bakken fields to get to refineries.

Just as the other Keystone picks up crude from other domestic producers.

It"s just a fucking pipeline. Just another mode of transportation. Get a grip.

The hypocrisy over the XL is astounding. No one made a peep over the Keystone being finished while the debate has raged on over the XL and no one has made a peep over the Alberta Clipper NOR the Southern Lights pipeline being built while this idiocy over the XL continues.

It's a big dog and mother trucking pony show by the left. It's all bullshit.

But the show put on by the folks who will profit from the pipeline are not putting on a dog and pony show? It is only the landowners and citizens concerned about the impact on the environment that put on the dog and pony show.
When did it become wrong for citizens to voice their opinions and demonstrate for or against public concerns? Ranchers and others who live in an area don't want a pipeline running through their area. Why are they evil bad people for wanting to protect their living space from intrusion of private industry? Why are the interest of private business being viewed as more important than the interest of citizens?
Normally eminent domain is used when there is an overwhelming benefit to the community as a whole. The community in this particular case does not believe that overwhelming benefit has been proven. Why shouldn't they have the right to stand up for what they believe in?