Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
...
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 02-13-2014 at 05:44 PM.
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.
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.
"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.
..
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
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.
Trenchant.
But in this case, both positions are incorrect. By picking one, you have a 100% chance of being incorrect.
Yes, set your sights higher than guaranteed failure.But I don't want to settle for that. And I don't see why we should.
I care so little about this (what politicians may say when asked about the Keystone Pipeline), it would likely boggle your mind.What would you want politicians to say when they're asked about this?
Are you a member of Congress, E.? If not, why are you agonizing about how you will vote on this bill?"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.
Connect With Us