XL Pipeline Runs Right Through Obama's Ass

Samson

Póg Mo Thóin
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
27,332
Reaction score
4,228
Points
245
Location
A Higher Plain
:razz:

Looks like the "Community Organizer" will have his hands full.......

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=28304
Copyright 2011 Toronto Star Newspapers Limited



Obama has promised a decision by year's end on the $7 billion, 2,700-kilometre pipeline that would ship Canadian oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, traversing six U.S. states.

The project promises 20,000 jobs and the economy has been perhaps the only issue in the U.S. campaign so far.

Now, it is being described as a "defining political issue'' for the U.S. president as two of his core constituencies, the environmental movement and the U.S. labour movement line up against each other........


On Tuesday alone, readers of The New York Times website could watch a video by Robert Redford and read a story of heavy handed actions by TransCanada.

Redford called the Alberta crude "the dirtiest oil on the planet" and delivered a tough message to the U.S. president.

"Stand up for the future you know we deserve," he said. "Say 'no' to the Keystone XL."
I doubt Redford needs a job: Anyone disagree?
 
Last edited:

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,996
Reaction score
14,467
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
why do we have to pay 7 billion for an oil pipeline? Why do tax payers have to pay for any oil pipeline for any amount of money when the oil industry is already very profitable?

haven't read the article yet, but is the 7 billion on us or it is just permission to cross state lines or eminent domain issues?

i know, i know, read the article.... :(
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,996
Reaction score
14,467
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
samson.......give a link please!
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
:razz:

Looks like the "Community Organizer" will have his hands full.......

Obama has promised a decision by year's end on the $7 billion, 2,700-kilometre pipeline that would ship Canadian oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, traversing six U.S. states.

The project promises 20,000 jobs and the economy has been perhaps the only issue in the U.S. campaign so far.

Now, it is being described as a "defining political issue'' for the U.S. president as two of his core constituencies, the environmental movement and the U.S. labour movement line up against each other........


On Tuesday alone, readers of The New York Times website could watch a video by Robert Redford and read a story of heavy handed actions by TransCanada.

Redford called the Alberta crude "the dirtiest oil on the planet" and delivered a tough message to the U.S. president.

"Stand up for the future you know we deserve," he said. "Say 'no' to the Keystone XL."
I doubt Redford needs a job: Anyone disagree?
Inadvertently sammieboy made a point. Redford does not need job so those with an open mind will listen more carefully to his argument than one offered by those who have a financial interest.

Of course, this thread is one of many partisan threads begun by an Obama hater whose vision is 'colored'. Why that is so is open to debate, but I digress. The issue is protecting the environment, nothing in the thread offers an explanation of the objections of Redford or others whose special interest is in protecting our environment.

Reasonable people will take the time to examine all aspects of such a proposal and seek a win-win solution. Odd-balls will always engage in zero sum games.
 
OP
Samson

Samson

Póg Mo Thóin
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
27,332
Reaction score
4,228
Points
245
Location
A Higher Plain
why do we have to pay 7 billion for an oil pipeline? Why do tax payers have to pay for any oil pipeline for any amount of money when the oil industry is already very profitable?

haven't read the article yet, but is the 7 billion on us or it is just permission to cross state lines or eminent domain issues?

i know, i know, read the article.... :(
"We" are not paying for the pipeline.

It is being built by TransCanada and ConocoPhillips.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems. And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.

In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition. It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,996
Reaction score
14,467
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems. And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.

In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition. It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing? isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
 
OP
Samson

Samson

Póg Mo Thóin
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
27,332
Reaction score
4,228
Points
245
Location
A Higher Plain
Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems. And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.

In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition. It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing? isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
Actually you are both streching.

A. Obama's problem is that he is NOT objecting to the XL Keystone.
B. Where are these homeowner's who are objecting to anyone buying their home, Care? These days, I wish like hell anyone would pay anything like above market price for my home!
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,996
Reaction score
14,467
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems. And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.

In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition. It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing? isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
Actually you are both streching.

A. Obama's problem is that he is NOT objecting to the XL Keystone.
B. Where are these homeowner's who are objecting to anyone buying their home, Care? These days, I wish like hell anyone would pay anything like above market price for my home!
your article dear, mentioned homeowners in Texas.
 
OP
Samson

Samson

Póg Mo Thóin
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
27,332
Reaction score
4,228
Points
245
Location
A Higher Plain
home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing? isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
Actually you are both streching.

A. Obama's problem is that he is NOT objecting to the XL Keystone.
B. Where are these homeowner's who are objecting to anyone buying their home, Care? These days, I wish like hell anyone would pay anything like above market price for my home!
your article dear, mentioned homeowners in Texas.
Indeed it does (actually it paraphrases a NYT article). But you are implying that anyone is blaming Obama for point, which is not mentioned:

The newspaper [NYT] also carried a report about TransCanada's aggressive land acquisition practices along the route of the proposed pipeline, raising questions about whether a foreign company can use the U.S. eminent domain legislation to force their pipeline on private property.

The report said TransCanada has already started more than 50 court actions against landowners who refused to allow access to the pipeline on their property and the newspaper quoted landowners in Texas saying they had never seen a company act so aggressively.
In fact, the reason the article includes this is because the Obama Administration's opinion in the eminent domain matter is MISSING: They are not rising to side with the homeownes OR the XL pipline.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,996
Reaction score
14,467
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Actually you are both streching.

A. Obama's problem is that he is NOT objecting to the XL Keystone.
B. Where are these homeowner's who are objecting to anyone buying their home, Care? These days, I wish like hell anyone would pay anything like above market price for my home!
your article dear, mentioned homeowners in Texas.
Indeed it does (actually it paraphrases a NYT article). But you are implying that anyone is blaming Obama for point, which is not mentioned:

The newspaper [NYT] also carried a report about TransCanada's aggressive land acquisition practices along the route of the proposed pipeline, raising questions about whether a foreign company can use the U.S. eminent domain legislation to force their pipeline on private property.

The report said TransCanada has already started more than 50 court actions against landowners who refused to allow access to the pipeline on their property and the newspaper quoted landowners in Texas saying they had never seen a company act so aggressively.
In fact, the reason the article includes this is because the Obama Administration's opinion in the eminent domain matter is MISSING: They are not rising to side with the homeownes OR the XL pipline.
yes, i get that now, ty, but i was responding to BM's post comment!
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems. And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.

In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition. It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing? isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
supposed to be two different thoughts. I can see where the confusion would arise. 1) They are pretty darn agressive from what the article says. This causes resentments.

2) Totally different topic now....... We have pipelines all over the place. Building this one has all kinds of positive, in terms of jobs and increased trade with an ally and weaning ourselves from Mid east oil. There is so much positive I wonder at folks finding the negative to this. Over the last two and half years we have seen a consistant pattern of Obama being offered a solution that works and a way of making things worse, he usually opts for the latter. This particular story offers him a trifecta. He can piss off the canadians, cost jobs and insure our dependence on mid east oil at a single stroke. For a sensible leader this choice should be obvious. Since Obama is leaning away from the logical sensible choice, the question arises as to why is leaning that way.
 
OP
Samson

Samson

Póg Mo Thóin
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
27,332
Reaction score
4,228
Points
245
Location
A Higher Plain
your article dear, mentioned homeowners in Texas.
Indeed it does (actually it paraphrases a NYT article). But you are implying that anyone is blaming Obama for point, which is not mentioned:

The newspaper [NYT] also carried a report about TransCanada's aggressive land acquisition practices along the route of the proposed pipeline, raising questions about whether a foreign company can use the U.S. eminent domain legislation to force their pipeline on private property.

The report said TransCanada has already started more than 50 court actions against landowners who refused to allow access to the pipeline on their property and the newspaper quoted landowners in Texas saying they had never seen a company act so aggressively.
In fact, the reason the article includes this is because the Obama Administration's opinion in the eminent domain matter is MISSING: They are not rising to side with the homeownes OR the XL pipline.
yes, i get that now, ty, but i was responding to BM's post comment!
I'm still highly suspicious of the NYT article's claim that there are TX (or ANY) homeowners complaining about selling their homes in a terribly depressed real estate market, and would really be interested to know exactly who they were.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
Well, since the Kelo decision a while ago eminent domain can be up to ever higher levels of abuse.

I have to admit I got suckered into an ADD part of the story that really wasn't all that relavent to the story but always bugs me. Main thing is Obama is offered a really cool way of making all kinds of things go right, and seems to be deliberately making the wrong choice.
 
OP
Samson

Samson

Póg Mo Thóin
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
27,332
Reaction score
4,228
Points
245
Location
A Higher Plain
Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems. And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.

In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition. It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing? isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
supposed to be two different thoughts. I can see where the confusion would arise. 1) They are pretty darn agressive from what the article says. This causes resentments.

2) Totally different topic now....... We have pipelines all over the place. Building this one has all kinds of positive, in terms of jobs and increased trade with an ally and weaning ourselves from Mid east oil. There is so much positive I wonder at folks finding the negative to this. Over the last two and half years we have seen a consistant pattern of Obama being offered a solution that works and a way of making things worse, he usually opts for the latter. This particular story offers him a trifecta. He can piss off the canadians, cost jobs and insure our dependence on mid east oil at a single stroke. For a sensible leader this choice should be obvious. Since Obama is leaning away from the logical sensible choice, the question arises as to why is leaning that way.
1. The article that claims the pipeline company is aggressive comes from the NYT which also ran the ad from Robert Redford: Consider the source.

2. Actually, Obama is NOT leaning away from either choice: That's the issue. As he straddles both sides of the issue, it will run right through his, um, "middle."
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Best read on what the effects of the processing of the tar sands are on the environment. Just another way of stretching out the time we are dependent on resources that are not ours, resources that diminsh the environment and create a lessor future for the children and grandchildren of this nation.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Best read on what the effects of the processing of the tar sands are on the environment. Just another way of stretching out the time we are dependent on resources that are not ours, resources that diminsh the environment and create a lessor future for the children and grandchildren of this nation.
Suggesting some read up on an issue is good advice but rarely taken. And, who are we to trust on such matters? I suspect there are opinions from authorities on both sides of this and every issue, and the pros and cons are easily manipulated by those who have a stake in the decision.

At first look it seems a no brainer, why not go forward and build the pipeline. But as asked above, who pays and who benefits? It's always a good strategy to follow the money.
 

Kiki Cannoli

Have you met my shadow?
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
3,047
Reaction score
973
Points
48
Location
Really south of the border
What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?

And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers? I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?

And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers? I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.
Interesting post; I suppose the Alaskan Pipeline project is the best source to predict how many permanent jobs will such a project create. Anyone know?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top