Keystone Pipeline

[Seraphim]

Go buy yourself a revolver and lead the way.

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.

 

[ILUVRP]

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 .

 

[erowe1]

I would love to see which pro oil republican would be for eminent domain

Pretty much all of them I assume.

 

[torchbearer]

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.

 

[eduardo89]

Got a source?

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

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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.

 

[erowe1]

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?

 

[erowe1]

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.

 

[ILUVRP]

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.

 

[torchbearer]

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...

 

[erowe1]

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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

 

[ILUVRP]

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 .

 

[eduardo89]

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?

 

[erowe1]

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.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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.

 

[erowe1]

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?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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."

 

[erowe1]

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.