Would the Keystone Pipeline be a great economic asset to the United States? Hardly.

[Sallow]

What did you mean Airlines cost big on 9/11?
Did you mean because an airplane piloted by a hijacker?
Or after 9/11 3 days no flights cost airlines business?
Or after 9/11 passenger traffic down 20%?

What did you mean "9/11 costs"?

No. I mean that private airlines fought tooth and nail not to implement a new security bill introduced by Al Gore.

And I mean the costs incurred by four airplanes..hijacked in the SAME ******* DAY..that got used by hijackers..which were OWNED BY PRIVATE AIRLINES..WHO ******* FAILED TO STOP THEM IN ONE OF THE MOST HAIRBRAINED SCHEMES IN HISTORY.

Got it?

and then the hypocrite alllll gooooore got in a giant ******* jet aeroplane and zoomed all over hell and back..

Does non sequitur have any meaning in your world?

 

[The Rabbi]

Are we facing oil shortages now? Or for the next 2 decades or so?

Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. Oil companies are looking for ways to slow production. Why? They want to keep prices high.

And no 'transportation' is cost efficient. I find it interesting you mention Amtrak and completely leave out Airlines..which are privately owned and heavily subsidized by the government. They also cost us big. Like on 9/11.

What did you mean Airlines cost big on 9/11?
Did you mean because an airplane piloted by a hijacker?
Or after 9/11 3 days no flights cost airlines business?
Or after 9/11 passenger traffic down 20%?

What did you mean "9/11 costs"?

No. I mean that private airlines fought tooth and nail not to implement a new security bill introduced by Al Gore.

And I mean the costs incurred by four airplanes..hijacked in the SAME ******* DAY..that got used by hijackers..which were OWNED BY PRIVATE AIRLINES..WHO ******* FAILED TO STOP THEM IN ONE OF THE MOST HAIRBRAINED SCHEMES IN HISTORY.

Got it?

We've had much tighter security and we still have incidents on airlines. The security is illusory. No one is more secure.
The airlines failed to stop the hijackers because of gov't regulations that prohibited taking effective action.
So quit blaming the airlines and put the blame on the gov't where it belongs.

 

[Sallow]

What did you mean Airlines cost big on 9/11?
Did you mean because an airplane piloted by a hijacker?
Or after 9/11 3 days no flights cost airlines business?
Or after 9/11 passenger traffic down 20%?

What did you mean "9/11 costs"?

No. I mean that private airlines fought tooth and nail not to implement a new security bill introduced by Al Gore.

And I mean the costs incurred by four airplanes..hijacked in the SAME ******* DAY..that got used by hijackers..which were OWNED BY PRIVATE AIRLINES..WHO ******* FAILED TO STOP THEM IN ONE OF THE MOST HAIRBRAINED SCHEMES IN HISTORY.

Got it?

We've had much tighter security and we still have incidents on airlines. The security is illusory. No one is more secure.
The airlines failed to stop the hijackers because of gov't regulations that prohibited taking effective action.
So quit blaming the airlines and put the blame on the gov't where it belongs.

Oh bullshit.

They failed to stop them because they had 5 dollar an hour rent a cops checking passengers and lax regulations.

These weren't international flights..they were pretty easy to police.

Prior to that..I'd been to third world countries...LIKE HAITI..which had better security protocols.

It was the airlines that got rid of the Sky Marshal program..and they are still dead set against it.

 

[Stephanie]

No. I mean that private airlines fought tooth and nail not to implement a new security bill introduced by Al Gore.

And I mean the costs incurred by four airplanes..hijacked in the SAME ******* DAY..that got used by hijackers..which were OWNED BY PRIVATE AIRLINES..WHO ******* FAILED TO STOP THEM IN ONE OF THE MOST HAIRBRAINED SCHEMES IN HISTORY.

Got it?

We've had much tighter security and we still have incidents on airlines. The security is illusory. No one is more secure.
The airlines failed to stop the hijackers because of gov't regulations that prohibited taking effective action.
So quit blaming the airlines and put the blame on the gov't where it belongs.

Oh bullshit.

They failed to stop them because they had 5 dollar an hour rent a cops checking passengers and lax regulations.

These weren't international flights..they were pretty easy to police.

Prior to that..I'd been to third world countries...LIKE HAITI..which had better security protocols.

It was the airlines that got rid of the Sky Marshal program..and they are still dead set against it.

well I guess you better call for the banning of vans. that's what was used in the FIRST trade center bombing. and Ryder rental trucks cause that's what was used in Oklahoma city bombing...and the beat goes on

 

[Sallow]

We've had much tighter security and we still have incidents on airlines. The security is illusory. No one is more secure.
The airlines failed to stop the hijackers because of gov't regulations that prohibited taking effective action.
So quit blaming the airlines and put the blame on the gov't where it belongs.

Oh bullshit.

They failed to stop them because they had 5 dollar an hour rent a cops checking passengers and lax regulations.

These weren't international flights..they were pretty easy to police.

Prior to that..I'd been to third world countries...LIKE HAITI..which had better security protocols.

It was the airlines that got rid of the Sky Marshal program..and they are still dead set against it.

well I guess you better call for the banning of vans. that's what was used in the FIRST trade center bombing. and Ryder rental trucks cause that's what was used in Oklahoma city bombing...and the beat goes on

Banning? No. Searching? Yeah. Bonding of drivers? Yeah. Using dogs to sniff out explosives? Yeah. Recognizing high value targets? Yeah. Having think tanks that actually play out scenarios of possible terrorism and acting efficiently on those recommendations? Yeah. Listening to the nuts in the field and tracking them? Yeah.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:




http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.



And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase. The environmentalists win this argument.

I see, so just because Cornell puts out a study that poo-poos the economic effects of the Keystone pipeline, they are automatically correct because they oppose the construction just like you do and all the other claims are automatically wrong because they support it?

How do you know the claims made in this report are any more valid than the claims made by others?

But say for argument sake that Cornell is right and there will only be a few thousand temporary jobs. You're saying that those few thousand people should not be allowed to have a job for two years to support themselves and their families and at least get off government assistance for that time because a nonsensical ideological agenda is more important?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Of course

how hard is it to find a left wing educational institution
to "carry the water" for Papa Obama and the Left

 

[saveliberty]

While the overall impact may not be as great as hoped, it will add jobs. These are good paying jobs to boot. Seems like Mr. Obama was for job growth for a while. What changed?

Also, several liberal talking heads seemed to indicate Keystone was politically hard to stop now that Iran is threatening closure of the Straits. I would presume since that was a recent development, Cornell's report did not take that into account.

 

[Intense]

what is wrong with you cheering the denial for us to get jobs and energy?

3000 temporary jobs just isn't worth the environmental toll. Had it actually been 20,000 sustainable jobs, I'd be for it. But it's not.

If it had that..and provisions for adequate disaster recovery plans, a requirement that those jobs be held by Americans, a minimum requirement for barrels of oil sold to the US at cost (or a little better) and adequate enviromental impact studies..

I'd be all for it..and this should be part of a package that includes subsidies for alternative energy and high speed rail.

Not extending tax cuts and unemployment.

Why??? Why can't they stand on their own???

 

[Intense]

That Anyone would argue against the Pipe-line on the jobs being temporary is insane. Strike that, desperate. What Bullshit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rick Perry's take on the Kingstone debacle is hysterical. First, he doesn't' know that Canada is a foreign country and not part of the US and second, the nitwit thinks we will have use of the oil.

All things considered, the US gets very little out of this.

But, that won't stop the pubs from shoving it down our throats and then pretending they've produced jobs.

 

[Neotrotsky]

That Anyone would argue against the Pipe-line on the jobs being temporary is insane. Strike that, desperate. What Bullshit.

Good point


With Papa Obama's failing policies, he should not be
too picky when it comes to creating jobs

 

[Intense]

Rick Perry's take on the Kingstone debacle is hysterical. First, he doesn't' know that Canada is a foreign country and not part of the US and second, the nitwit thinks we will have use of the oil.

All things considered, the US gets very little out of this.

But, that won't stop the pubs from shoving it down our throats and then pretending they've produced jobs.

What the US primarily gets out of this is better assurance against Supply Disruption. Could you possibly be more disingenuous? Is there any level you would refuse to stoop to to sell your propaganda and misinform the Masses?

 

[saveliberty]

The oil in that pipeline would be processed in the US, so that is permanent work.

 

[justathought]

Just say no to American energy independance! We must keep being slaves to Opec! keep the status quo and save the fish!!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rick Perry's take on the Kingstone debacle is hysterical. First, he doesn't' know that Canada is a foreign country and not part of the US and second, the nitwit thinks we will have use of the oil.

All things considered, the US gets very little out of this.

But, that won't stop the pubs from shoving it down our throats and then pretending they've produced jobs.

What the US primarily gets out of this is better assurance against Supply Disruption. Could you possibly be more disingenuous? Is there any level you would refuse to stoop to to sell your propaganda and misinform the Masses?

How?

What little oil resulting from the Keystone Pipeline will go on the world market meaning that it will go to big oil. THAT is the real reason the GObP is pushing it.

Don't feel bad for not knowing this. When numbnuts Perry said it, the crowd apparently applauded him.

Perry: U.S. Should Buy More Canadian Oil So ‘We Don’t Have To Buy From A Foreign Source’ | The New York Times today has a quick run down of the biggest applause lines Rick Perry receives out on the campaign trail in Iowa. The Times reports that the crowd at one of Perry’s speeches “perked up” when the Texas governor talked energy and oil. “Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Perry said, adding that buying so much energy from foreign countries is “not good policy, it’s not good politics and frankly it‘s un-American.” (HT: JerAHolden)

Perry: U.S. Should Buy More Canadian Oil So 'We Don't Have To Buy From A Foreign Source' | ThinkProgress

(Yes, that's right. The quote is from a (gasp!) liberal site. Feel free to post something different from, oh, say, Blaze or lushbo.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just say no to American energy independance! We must keep being slaves to Opec! keep the status quo and save the fish!!!!

Please explain how this would contribute to our "energy independence".

Thank you.

 

[Neotrotsky]

How would it not

 

[Crackerjack]

»
The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.

That is not entirely correct. The Keystone XL pipeline will create a project for those people who lay pipelines (many, if not most, are blue-collar jobs). It's not about jobs, it is about projects for people who would otherwise be furloughed for lack of work.

By the way, anyone who is bellyaching about the "environmental toll" a pipeline has is just displaying their ignorance. Those pipes are sealed up tighter than Janet Reno's snatch. If you're really that concerned about the Ogallala, take it up with the farmers who are dumping pesticides all over the ground.

 

[Crackerjack]

The oil in that pipeline would be processed in the US, so that is permanent work.

Versus the oil being sold to China, refined, and then sold back to us at a steep premium, causing the price of everything to rise.

Way to **** over the poor for political reasons, leftists.