Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 110

Thread: Keystone Pipeline

  1. #61
    Go buy yourself a revolver and lead the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Tar Sands are not standard oil. When we put Arsenic and ph's together the carcinogenic effects increase almost 20 times.

    I don't know, folks. I'll say this much, I'm really starting to become a fan of the logic scribbled in those Georgia Guidstones. People are fuggin dangerous to humanity itself. Especially greedy people. Peaple who, in the billions and billions of years the Earth has existed, occupy it for merely a fragment of a hundred years and yet go out of their way to destroy and kill for some personal gain during their very short yet pathetic occupancy here.
    "Like an army falling, one by one by one" - Linkin Park



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline , how is the the pipe line going to reduce this , a large part of the refined tar sands will be diesel fuel .

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    I would love to see which pro oil republican would be for eminent domain
    Pretty much all of them I assume.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline , how is the the pipe line going to reduce this , a large part of the refined tar sands will be diesel fuel .
    it isn't.
    we'd be better off with a refinery in Canada.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Got a source?

    Are you maybe talking about the part of it that's in Canada?

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Answer: Because they have to get federal permits to build this pipeline, and Obama is not giving them to them.
    I'm not asking you the question, my fine rowey friend. I'm saying that this is what you could ask those you talk to. You could take the position that it is ridiculous that the building of a pipe is a political issue at all.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline , how is the the pipe line going to reduce this , a large part of the refined tar sands will be diesel fuel .
    Why should it matter if the pipeline reduces that number?

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I'm not asking you the question, my fine rowey friend. I'm saying that this is what you could ask those you talk to. You could take the position that it is ridiculous that the building of a pipe is a political issue at all.
    But that isn't a reason for opposing the law that Repulicans want to pass forcing Obama to approve it.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Why should it matter if the pipeline reduces that number?
    i would like to think that american people get something out of this , like cheaper gasoline , instead of paying 50 cents more .

    can someone tell me how this is good for the american people.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i would like to think that american people get something out of this , like cheaper gasoline , instead of paying 50 cents more .

    can someone tell me how this is good for the american people.
    i don't see how these refineries can produce anymore than they already are...
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i would like to think that american people get something out of this , like cheaper gasoline , instead of paying 50 cents more .

    can someone tell me how this is good for the american people.
    I don't see why that's any of the government's concern. Any time they try to figure out how to make the American people better off by telling them what economic transactions they can and can't make they're just going to mess everything up.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i would like to think that american people get something out of this , like cheaper gasoline , instead of paying 50 cents more .

    can someone tell me how this is good for the american people.
    Well. We have to remember that corporations are people too. Or so some say.


    9 times out of 10 when we hear a politician recite the old "the American people demand it!" gag, they're talking about these corporate fellers. Is very rare that they speak for natural citizens. In that regard, these corporate "Americans" stand to benefit greatly. They'll have free run on land and the means to profit without recourse to the effects on humanity itself as well as ecology.

    Now the natural people? I don't know. BOHICA, I suppose. Another great example of growth versus survival. Again, different strokes for different "folks".

    Canada has already been spilling this tar sand into rivers as it is and haven't even told their people until well after the fact. This is dangerous stuff. Especially in the hands of tyrants who seek to simply cash in.

    Here's a car that runs on water. And, interestingly enough...even TEA will do.



    Dern shame about that tsunami though.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 02-12-2014 at 06:34 PM.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    i guess i will just have to pay 25-50 cents more for a gallon of gas so someone can pipe their tar sands through america , refine it here ,cutting down on refining gasoline for us , ship it to china so they can make all the products we buy from them .

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i guess i will just have to pay 25-50 cents more for a gallon of gas so someone can pipe their tar sands through america , refine it here ,cutting down on refining gasoline for us , ship it to china so they can make all the products we buy from them .
    Why would you be paying more for gasoline if a cheaper and safer way to pump crude to American refineries is built?

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i guess i will just have to pay 25-50 cents more for a gallon of gas so someone can pipe their tar sands through america , refine it here ,cutting down on refining gasoline for us , ship it to china so they can make all the products we buy from them .
    It's not like this is special oil and special gasoline that you can put a special mark on every barrel and gallon and it matters where they get sold. Oil and gasoline are fungible commodities. If this pipeline increases the supply of gasoline over what it would be without this pipeline, then that will have the exact same effect on the price of gasoline everywhere. It's not like it will make it go down in one country and up in another.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    But that isn't a reason for opposing the law that Repulicans want to pass forcing Obama to approve it.
    If you are saying that you insist on taking specific positions on specific legislation as it stands that Congress is deliberating on, I don't know what to say. That's bizarre. I don't think you probably ever could support any such legislation unambiguously. Very, very rarely.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    If you are saying that you insist on taking specific positions on specific legislation as it stands that Congress is deliberating on, I don't know what to say. That's bizarre. I don't think you probably ever could support any such legislation unambiguously. Very, very rarely.
    Why is it bizarre? A legislator has to vote either yes or no on every piece of legislation.

    When other Republicans are talking about the Keystone Pipeline vote, that they have such strong opinions about, why should we not be able either to agree or disagree with them and say why they're right or wrong?

    Is the complaint against Obama for not allowing the pipeline a legitimate one or not? Should we be joining the chorus or no?
    Last edited by erowe1; 02-12-2014 at 06:57 PM.

  21. #78
    ...
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 02-13-2014 at 05:44 PM.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Why is it bizarre? A legislator has to vote either yes or no on every piece of legislation.

    When other Republicans are talking about the Keystone Pipeline vote, that they have such strong opinions about, why should we not be able either to agree or disagree with them and say why they're right or wrong?

    Is the complaint against Obama for not allowing the pipeline a legitimate one or not? Should we be joining the chorus or no?
    You are saying: "We should be able to take a clear, unambiguous stand regarding a vote on a piece of legislation which is ambiguous, highly complex, and wrapped up in all kinds of gimcrackery which either does or will infringe on the real rights of real people. So... just give me a simple answer, already! Should they pass the bill: yes, or no?"

    Is such a stand likely to be a correct stand? What do you think, E Rowe?

    I say no. I say that as a libertarian it makes far more sense, if you are determined to start having an opinion on the subject and holding forth on it to one and all whom you meet, to have that opinion be a rational and logical one that the victims of your oratory might have some hope of actually agreeing with or at least understanding. The opinion that rather than just myopically focusing on the minutia of this one cylindrical carrying tube, we need to back up and see that the entire energy policy is totally messed up, and that the government needs to stop micromanaging energy, that opinion is just such an opinion.

    To instead dissertate that "The Republicans should pass this bill! Rah, rah, rah!," or "The Democrats need to stop this bill! Boo, bill!" is highly problematic, in my view. Neither position is really libertarian. And so both positions are wrong. Also, going about with your bullhorn proclaiming the gospel of either position, regardless of which one, does not (in my opinion) further our long-term strategic goal: the rise of a free society.

    You want us to tell you: "Should I tell people Yea! or Nay!?" and I am saying: "Neither. Both answers are wrong, incomplete, and useless."
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 02-13-2014 at 07:22 AM.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    You are saying: "We should be able to take a clear, unambiguous stand regarding a vote on a piece of legislation which is ambiguous, highly complex, and wrapped up in all kinds of gimcrackery which either does or will infringe on the real rights of real people. So... just give me a simple answer, already! Should they pass the bill: yes, or no?"

    Is such a stand likely to be a correct stand? What do you think, E Rowe?
    Just randomly picking a position, yes or no, gives you a 50% chance of it being the correct stand. But I don't want to settle for that. And I don't see why we should.

    What would you want politicians to say when they're asked about this? "I have no position on the Keystone Pipeline." Well, when it comes up for a vote to force Obama to approve it, will you vote yes or no? "I have no position on how I will vote." I don't get that.
    Last edited by erowe1; 02-13-2014 at 08:25 AM.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    If this pipeline increases the supply of gasoline over what it would be without this pipeline, then that will have the exact same effect on the price of gasoline everywhere. It's not like it will make it go down in one country and up in another.
    Nice hypothesis. Doesn't work that way in reality.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  26. #82

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i would like to think that american people get something out of this , like cheaper gasoline , instead of paying 50 cents more .

    can someone tell me how this is good for the american people.
    Why would Americans pay more for gasoline?

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Why would Americans pay more for gasoline?
    the refiners will be refining the tar sands and exporting the product, while still exporting 117 million gallons a day .

    less supply , same demand .

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    the refiners will be refining the tar sands and exporting the product, while still exporting 117 million gallons a day .

    less supply , same demand .
    Why would there be less supply? That makes absolutely no sense. How would expanding an existing pipeline, therefore making delivering oil to the refineries quicker, cheaper, and safer somehow reduce supply of gasoline?

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Why would there be less supply? That makes absolutely no sense. How would expanding an existing pipeline, therefore making delivering oil to the refineries quicker, cheaper, and safer somehow reduce supply of gasoline?
    maybe the quality of crude would be less, thus less products could be made from it?
    the facility can only make so many burn throughs at a time. lesser crude would produce fewer products per cycle.
    Gulf of mexico oil is very high quality.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  31. #87
    Supporting Member
    North Carolina



    Posts
    2,946
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    If this pipeline uses eminent domain, I can't think of any reason to support it. The claims of all the jobs that will be created seems dubious to me at best. Perhaps jobs will be created constructing the pipeline, but jobs will be lost trucking the stuff.

    Combine that with threats that Canada will have it refined in China if "we don't act and act now" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
    Last edited by Southron; 02-13-2014 at 05:13 PM.
    Equality is a false god.

    Armatissimi e Liberissimi

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    maybe the quality of crude would be less, thus less products could be made from it?
    the facility can only make so many burn throughs at a time. lesser crude would produce fewer products per cycle.
    Gulf of mexico oil is very high quality.
    That is true, but Gulf oil is still going to be processed there. It's not like theres anywhere else for Gulf oil to be processed into gasoline. Mexico has no refineries, Colombia has no refineries, Venezuela has no refineries...



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    That is true, but Gulf oil is still going to be processed there. It's not like theres anywhere else for Gulf oil to be processed into gasoline. Mexico has no refineries, Colombia has no refineries, Venezuela has no refineries...
    which brings me to a previous question- i don't see how they can refine anymore. they've been at max production.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Just randomly picking a position, yes or no, gives you a 50% chance of it being the correct stand.
    Trenchant.

    But in this case, both positions are incorrect. By picking one, you have a 100% chance of being incorrect.

    But I don't want to settle for that. And I don't see why we should.
    Yes, set your sights higher than guaranteed failure.

    What would you want politicians to say when they're asked about this?
    I care so little about this (what politicians may say when asked about the Keystone Pipeline), it would likely boggle your mind.

    "I have no position on the Keystone Pipeline." Well, when it comes up for a vote to force Obama to approve it, will you vote yes or no? "I have no position on how I will vote." I don't get that.
    Are you a member of Congress, E.? If not, why are you agonizing about how you will vote on this bill?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Keystone Pipeline Company Withdraws Bid for Pipeline
    By Zippyjuan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-2015, 01:44 PM
  2. Senate approves Keystone XL pipeline
    By Natural Citizen in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 02-13-2015, 11:08 AM
  3. Mitt Romney to build Keystone Pipeline himself
    By alucard13mmfmj in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-23-2012, 02:12 AM
  4. Property Rights: Keystone XL Pipeline
    By Golden Rule in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 10:26 AM
  5. What is up with the Keystone XL Pipeline?
    By Brian4Liberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-26-2012, 07:09 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •