good job standing up to big oil what did you drive today or what did you ride what are you wearing. if you you didn't ride in a wooden wagon pulled by horses or wear cotton rags you didn't
Obama says yes to Keystone! As Democrats in Congress perked up over the TransCanada announcement, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski went to the floor of the Senate to squash any celebration. She complained that in her home state, the Trans Alaska Pipeline was only "half full" with oil because Democrats had blocked new drilling in the environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as some offshore drilling projects.
@melnick1985 Whatever Redford is, coward he is NOT & never was. He gets threats all the time for his stance on the state of the environment, etc., yet he still puts out the word in spite of this.
@TheClam88 And you can speak towards that how? I know how much education Robert Redford has due to it being public knowledge, you on the other hand don't even know who I am. So you are speaking from a position of complete and utter ignorance and yet puport to claim something as if you have a clue?
You are a prime example of a person who follow this type of thinking like a sheep and puts "actors" on a pedestal as if being in front of a camera made them smarter then the common man.
WIN for environmentalists??? I guess if you're ONLY considering American environmentalists, the self-absorbed type who really just want a clean place to live. "The planet, save the planet." LOL We haven't figured out how to care for each other, they're gonna save the F-ing PLANET??? Sure. Instead of gas-guzzling US getting oil from a responsible neighbor, we let the Chinese get this oil. We all know what tidy environmentalists THEY are... think of how much worse it is that China gets the oil.
@Brdstfff The majority of United States oil comes from Canada and Mexico. Very little comes from the mideast (~18%). Yes, saying no to the XL pipeline is, because it had hundreds of safety concerns. Not because it had anything to do with oil, but it wasn't anywhere nearly as safe as they were claiming. Do your research.
They'll be LUCKY if their gas is only $10 a gallon!
Once Canada shuts off the taps, the Arabs and Venezuelans can name their price. As gas prices rise, so does price of everything else - food, clothing, etc - because everything is eventually shipped by truck to retailers.
We in Canada will be getting insanely rich while gas prices in America rise faster than they've ever seen before. I wonder how grateful they'll be to Obama when that happens!
Who one earth is the U.S. buying oil from that "creating nukes" from the money?
Last time I checked Saudi Arabia wasn't in the nuke making businesses, tho its well known that the U.S. will deal with anyone as long as it suits their agenda. Operation Paper Clip made it all to evident that "America" thinks war crimes are only punishable when its the enemy doing the crimes.
You haven't heard of the deal between Iran and Venezuela? Iran plans to put medium-range nuclear weapons in Venezuela. Guess what the target will be? The U.S. buys most of its oil from Venezuela. Cooperating with enemies makes you an enemy.
Wahhabi muslims are the most radical, violent muslims on Earth. The Saudis are Wahhabi.
We in Canada sell oil to America at bargain prices. We'll just sell it elsewhere and get more money for it. Americans can fuck off and die.
There is NO connection between Venezuela, and Iran... You are really breaking the stupid barrier with that one. Venezuela is the only reason people in the U.S. can still afford to pay their heating bills, Mr. Chavez has been more the generous with the ungrateful people of that country.
lets get real. The pipeline would have created six thousand temp job, we have 20 million unmployed! this is just a well orchastrated move by the republican shills to deny the middle class the continued tax break in March.
@CardinalACK Ohohoh, you so funny. XL pipeline had major problems, and the majority of our oil comes from areas other than the middle east and in stable economies.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who predicted and warned against the economic crisis, who understood and explained the reasons for it, and who offers a viable solution.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who really means it when he says he wants to bring our troops home and scale down our unsustainable and unreasonable empire.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is serious about slashing spending and eliminating taxes.
Vote for a candidate that stands for liberty, freedom, and fighting against increasing state tyranny! A candidate that has been consistent in their beliefs for dozens of years. A candidate standing for small government and an end to America's bloated and unsustainable empire.
Vote up, spread the message, and inform family and friends; support real change. This upcoming election really matters, and liberty can win.
The democrats and republicans want war!Ron Paul only one ANTI-WAR!! Don't vote for flip-flop republican or democrats!Vote as if your children's and grandchildren's future depend on it.
@Ultra68 Why do i say this? am I politically motivated? Am i some kind of Labor expert? no, however the researchers at Cornell's Gobal Labor Institute are, toss this into google and enjoy:
@StAverti All construction projects are temporary. Some trades may only work for a few weeks. Others the full duration. Being this may be a federally funded project in part, I am certain it would be Union; David Bacon Act. Whereby a simple laborer will earn in excess of $42/hr. Thats +/-$174,720 for two years. $350m for 2000 workers. The should help the economy some. If Obama held that thought with all projects, the high speed rail, and shovel ready projects should be abandonded.
@Ultra68 I have to disagree, because the entirety of the pipeline has/ will been built by Canadian companies (most of it already is). The only jobs US citizens can hope for are installation jobs, union or not the few thousand temp jobs cannot make up for the hundreds of millions to a billion lost from agricultural production, tourist and rec industries, and the oil refineries that would be forced to close in the north and mid west. We stand to lose far more than even unions help.
@Ultra68 It is a vast over simplification to think this is simply an environmental issue. Of course it is a concern for the environment, but the only economic gain is for Canada, who would be able to ship their oil all over the world from the gulf coast; at the cost of hundreds of millions from our agriculture, tourism, recreation, and existing oil refineries in the mid west that rely on the oil that will be routed to the gulf coast and shipped to refineries in many other countries.
@Ultra68 And unfortunately, the US federal government has no funding for this project. It is funded in full by the Canadian stake holders. So the type of income you propose is virtually impossible.
@StAverti Not to mention the estimated increase in mid west oil prices is orders of magnitude higher than your estimated income with Union regulations (around 2-4 billion dollar increase... Annually!)
@Ultra68 And the gain of these 2,000- 4,400 temp jobs comes with a loss of agricultural jobs and overall farm land. the US has been steady as the TOP world exported of corn in the world. Why reduce our potential export market, destroy the Ag jobs as well as lose tourist and rec money (and incidentally tourist and recreation jobs) where the pipeline cuts through, all for a marginal amount of temp jobs for U.S. Citizens? all while raising gas prices in the mid west and disturbing ecology?
@StAverti I’m in the construction industry, including environmental restoration projects and water conservation retrofits. Ecological impact assessment is part of every project. In this instant, one must consider the ecological and economical impacts. Obama has chosen to ignore the economical side of the equation; politically motivated. Regardless, petroleum will always be in demand. It’s a necessary evil I guess that one must think responsibly. You can’t simply ignore it.
@StAverti I’m in the construction industry, including environmental restoration projects and water conservation retrofits. Ecological impact assessment is part of every project. In this instant, one must consider the ecological and economical impacts. Obama has chosen to ignore the economical side of the equation; politically motivated. Regardless, petroleum will always be in demand. It’s a necessary evil I guess that one must think responsibly. You can’t simply ignore it.
@StAverti Dont get me wrong. The environment should always be at the top of all priorities. As well as any job loss as you mentioned. So the debate continues. As a side note; I dont like how politicians have tied this pipeline to the payroll tax bill. Political blackmail.
@Ultra68 I believe people have been saying that because every "new" job introduced by this particular project (As reported in the company's own report) is a less than 2 year position. The maximum number of US citizens that can even get one of these < 2 yr jobs is 4,400. Not because we think so, because that is what their budget has allotted.
Lying Porch Nigger = Massa like Obama = Bush. Long live the United States OF Israel. Hail to Usury. Hail to the Blood Letters. Hail to the 14-trillion dollar debt amounting to over 80-trillion in repayments and growing! Hail to hypocrisy, lies, deception, war, death and destruction! Hail to the Chosen Ones!
Yes, this sounds offensive, because it is! Research! Here are easy vids...
watch?v=T8Tsrc85cwg
watch?v=vwmqYHu37U0
watch?v=VbnplgnVG4s
Ron Paul is not owned by this corruption. Last chance!
Just another jaded idiot putting blatantly false ideas before real people, and real problems. If it were up to people like uzi we would kill everyone who wasn't just like him, and willingly trade solid long standing careers, productive agriculture, and a healthful environment for a handful of less than two year temp jobs.
But you don't care, you know that. I already linked those sources and numbers. You just either can't read or ignore actual facts and analysis. Our Farmers are losing land that when combined along the track of the pipeline was worth hundreds of millions per year alone (now it is worth nothing), our petrol processing plants that currently process much of our Canadian oil would go under (more billions), and we would get.... between 2000 and 4000 temp jobs that would end before 2 years time..
We would not have any better access, we already process the oil we would be getting in the mid west. All you are doing is allowing them to ship much of the oil we already get to OTHER countries at the cost of out plants in the mid west. The result of which is higher gas prices in the central united states. This has already been calculated by many economists and financial analysts, and the price increase is calculated to be between 10 and 30 cents per gallon (depending on which author you cite)
and the fact we will have better access to Canadian oil, over 700,000 barrels or more from a friendly country. best all the way around for Canda and the US.
The pipeline will give over $500 billion in taxes to local and state entities. and there is not one scintilla are particle of evidence that the pipleline will destroy agri jobs or farms. none. nothing but liberal propaganda and those who hate oil.
Technically you ARE liberals, but you don't seem to understand that words have defined meanings. I presented objective proof to substantiate my statements, and the fact of the matter is the processing plants in the mid west will lose all the oil that would be diverted to the gulf coast, driving oil prices higher than current. Farmers in the path of the project are fighting TransCanada, who has pulled eminent domain in OUR COUNTRY. The 2,000 to 4,000 less than 2 yr jobs aren't worth the losses.
@StAverti there is no "Technically" about it. you continue to show your stupidity. I cannot understand how anyone cannot distinguish between conservative and Liberal. you are either playing stupid or you have to be mentally retarded. and nothing you have said proves a damn thing. pathetic.
You have presented NO original research that shows the XL pipeline will have any real benefit to the US. You only throw out numbers orders of magnitude greater than the highest values in the Original proposal of the project. I have presented my argument, substantive university and financial research that supports it and journalism exposing the trouble the project is causing US farmers who have to now fight eminent domain to keep their land. You sir, have presented nothing but partisan rhetoric.
@StAverti I have presented plenty of evidence while you have presented opinion & liberal biased research. Partisan rhetoric? what a hypocrite. You tried numerous times of trying to "Frame" the debate and change the "narrative" to insinuate that those who oppose it are " liberals" when liberals are the one's who oppose this & any type of oil drilling ANYWHERE in the US. You have no clue of American Politics & those parties involved. You should study that before you issue wild accusations.
The original (and falsely high) original plan would only have brought 7 billion in revenue (most of which would go to TransCanada. The proposal had at most 4,700 construction jobs that would last less than 2 years per, and all the fabrication is already done (by Canadian companies). The loss of Agricultural jobs would far outweigh the temp jobs produced. I have presented more than enough research and analysis by far too many sources for you to claim each and every one was "biased"
@StAverti and I have presented evidence to contridict the leftist studies you promote. not gonna be up you anyway libturd, after Nov 2012, the pipeline will be built. not a damn thing you can do about. just like all the furor over the Alaskan pipeline, this will be the same.
The pipeline pose little environmental risk according to the very liberal NYT, and the fact we could get 40% or more of our oil from a friendly country instead of hostile ones. Plus up to $500 billion in revenue for states and local govts from taxes. of course, libturds place ideology ahead of jobs and the country. pathetic.
Sound logical Argument: The negative effects of the pipeline (loss of agri jobs, productive farm land, etc) [not even considering environmental damage] are not out weighed by the marginal job gain we can expect from the project (2,000- 4,700 less than 2 year temp jobs). The end result of the pipeline will be an increase in oil prices in the Mid west (10-30 cents), and cheaper costs for the Canadian exporters. Therefore the project is NOT beneficial whatsoever to the US economy.
@StAverti :increase in oil Prices? hogwash. total bullshit. over 700,000 barrels of oil would be avaliable. and the environmental damage are speculative. just agri jobs to be lost. total Projections used by those who oppose the use of oil like you in the USA.
@StAverti i must be serious here. are you like a teenager or something? because the comments you make really are glaring in either your completely clueless about American politics, or you are seriously inept when it come to acutal reality. wow
@uzimodem The US is the worlds largest exporter of grain products. I've already cited the personal financial trouble farmers whose land is in the way of the pipeline faces, as well as the very few and temporary jobs actually provided by the pipeline
And you two still dodge the issue..... god you are insufferable. Respond to the actual issue or stop wasting my time. Just because your time is useless doesn't mean some of our time is actually valuable.
@uzimodem University Research is not biased, and if you feel that way you can ignore their report and read their citations. The farmers themselves are also not biased in the sense you presume, they simply have to fight for their land.
@uzimodem Sound logical Argument: The negative effects of the pipeline (loss of agri jobs, productive farm land, etc) [not even considering environmental damage] are not out weighed by the marginal job gain we can expect from the project (2,000- 4,700 less than 2 year temp jobs). The end result of the pipeline will be an increase in oil prices in the Mid west (10-30 cents), and cheaper costs for the Canadian exporters. Therefore the project is NOT beneficial whatsoever to the US economy.
The New York Times is not Liberal? LOL now that is funny. You are right Eagle. this camel thumper has not clue. that is like saying Fox News is liberal and MSNBC is conservative. LOL wow.
I invite the two of you to provide any university research that shows the opposite, or to cite the proposal by Trans Canada itself. The facts don't change. Our farmers lose, our economy loses, Canada wins, and we are worse off than before.
@StAverti you are not a citizen. any American would know what conservatives and liberals are, you do not. you say the NYT times in not liberal. evidence enough right there
@StAverti my intellecut is just fine camel thumper. being an american, I can tell that the NYT is liberal, and what conservatives and liberals are and what hey represent. you have shown you have no clue on that.
@StAverti and you HAVE NEVER put a sound logical argument together in this whole debate. You dont even know the difference between liberal or conservative!! LOL
Now, I have provided links to both boots on the ground journalism documenting the direct impact on farmers, as well as the macro-scale economic reality of the pipeline. University research as well as the farmers who stand to lose land and work both support my argument, that the pipeline will be a net negative effect on our country in every sense of the word. No economic improvement, no social improvement, and no job improvement. THE END.
of the 30 million Americans who classified as "POOR", have at least 1 car. so yes, they poor do suffer more along with the middle class due to high gas prices. how anyone with a IQ bigger then their shoe size cannot comphrehend that, must be a complete and utter idiot. Like StAverti.
poor and the middle class are hurt by the high gas prices and yet the libturds could care less. and that of killing jobs by denying the pipeline. Great job Obumbles!!
@uzimodem I'm poor, I don't have a car... Can't afford one, so i don't use one. Gas prices don't hurt me at all. Now if you really want to argue, go into the non fuel uses of petrochemicals, that would be a good one to support your argument.
@uzimodem And you too should review the articles i posted Uzi, they will put the at MOST 4,700 temp jobs we might gain from the pipeline to contrast against the jobs and land we would lose. I provided a NY times article and a report from Cornell University. Those should be suitably lay and professionally oriented to quell any unease you might have with understanding the issue.
@uzimodem Cornell is an Ivy league institution, it is one of the eminent universities in this country, and further, if you don't believe their direct statements, you can follow their links to view the information directly.
And you still haven't answered the issue of killing US jobs and productivity for Canada to ship their oil cheaper.... keep running around issue... you're doing a great job of making yourselves look like tards doing it.
@StAverti I LMFAO!! the New Times IS CERTAINLY A LIBERAL PAPER!!!! wow. you certainly do not live in this country, and if you do, your are fucking immigrant who has totally NO CONCEPT of American Politics or what libeal or conservative means here. Outrageous.
@uzimodem Preposterous, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics does not agree with your claims that you support via a for profit organization. When I ask for evidence i like to see REAL evidence not profit driven analysis.
@StAverti :those were valid numbers and not from a biased organization. just another example of your double standards. if they do not coincide with your "opinions" you dismiss them. pathetic. another sourse, which is PRO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, states: only 1 in 5 use public transportation in there area, while 73% have to drive to due the area they live in a limited public transit. that from Transportation of America, again a PRO TRANSIT organization pushing for more public transportation.
@usaeagle1776 Which doesn't address the use of public transport by the poor, only the general population.... your numbers mean nothing. And ys, your source is not the most reputable because it is a biased organization.
And you still haven't answered how killing US jobs to make Canadian ones helps us any. You have had plenty of time to respond to that, yet you continue not to. Just leave with your tail between your legs like a good b!tch and don't come back until you can answer that simple question.
@StAverti and you still spew unfounded allegations based on your opinion. Just leave, since you have no clue how America functions you camel thumping arab.
@usaeagle1776 Again, dodging the issue. How long are you going to beat around the bush? just answer it already or shut up... It's like talking with toddlers.
@StAverti again, you cant back up your lies and ineundo. like tallking to a brain dead retard. and your not even and American. go back to mud hut camel thumper.
@usaeagle1776 Well i supplied the source, the US bueau of transportation statistics. and their reports suggest at most, 16% of automobile drivers are "poor"
That is "drivers" not owners. So even the 16% is high to be suggesting that that full number are struggling with as prices as they likely do not own the vehicles they drive and some are probably only using them for short and seldom trips.
The fact that the left in this country will place the ideology that they believe in in place of the country is quite evident. The environmental whacks would rather see American suffer then not. Poor Americans pay the price for high oil, while the rich could care less. And for the jobs, these leftist punks could care less.
@uzimodem Most "poor" live in major cities and use public transit. Yes transit does still require oil (in some places), but many of the truly poor could care less about oil prices because the transport they use is subsidized and has little impact on them. You are obviously out of touch with the real "poor" in this country...
@StAverti that is totat bullshit. Just goes to show how you are totally incompetent & continue to make up shit up. You also show you ignorance since you dont live in the US. Gas prices hurt POOR people more then any other group. the Rich could care less what the price is. only 5% of Americans use public transit to go to work. Since most American do not live in major cities, 69% use private transit. Those figures from the " American Public Transportation Association." get your facts straight.
@uzimodem Wow, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. over 50% of US population lives in cities, and the vast majority of the severely impoverished use public transit. If you have enough money to own a car you are not poor. You get your facts straight silly liberal.
@StAverti LOL you ask for sources and yet you still cannot accept it, hence your incompetence. You have no competence in this debate you liberal hack.
@uzimodem And again, you presume continuing the status quo will some how make the poor better off. I wont even ask how you think cheaper prices for Canadian oil barons will help the poor in the US, you have no plausible answer for such ludicrous talk. But I will again pose the same question I have been that you have yet to answer, how does continuing the status quo compare with producing millions of good jobs that are aimed at updating infrastructure for other fuels? Short answer is it doesn't.
I provided at least an order of magnitude more proof for my claims as you two did yours. It can't be helped if you are too dull to answer a very simple question. The fact is you can't answer it without admitting you were incorrect and should have educated yourselves on the situation before opening your big mouths. Since you still can't seem to stop dodging the one important issue, it's obvious that you have no place in this discussion.
@StAverti you have provided personal opinions, inuendo and baseless allegations based on your hatred of oil and hatred of this country to try and do anything to provide jobs. you are completely clueless as are all libturds like yourself.
I mean it's not like the US tourism industry matters, they only generate hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Why not f*ck with that industry though just so Canada can have a pretty pipeline right through our farm land and over our most important aquifers. I bet you two don't even know where the water you get from your tap comes from... I bet it just comes from the magic liberal water fairy doesn't it...
Even beyond that your sad excuses for arguments hold no water. If we really wanted jobs and to reduce the U.S. dependance on foreign oil, we would make millions of jobs in creating and updating infrastructure to run on alternative energy and fuel sources. Tons of money to be made, no dependance on oil, lots of jobs to be had.... Keep crying about a Canadian pipeline, but your arguments (as if they could even be called that) are moot.
@StAverti No matter. the "alternative" is a falsehood. oil is what drives our civilization and no matter what you or Ted Danson says, it will be so for the next 100 years. best you deal with reality. but then, i bet you wont.
@uzimodem The reality that you want jobs, and no more dependance on foreign oil... but when there are exceptional alternatives to achieve both you scoff and don't pursue them? Just like you silly liberals.
@StAverti you must be a fucking immigrant from a thirdworld shithole, since you have no clue of what liberal is and that of conservatives. your pathetic attempt at calling me a liberal when I am a Reagan Conservative is laughable. you are so pathetic you libturd dipshit.
cant wait till nov 2012 when we unleash the awesome potential of this country to move towards independence from foreign oil. Libturds will be furious everywhere!!! LOL
@usaeagle1776 You mean when Canada gets to ship its oil to south America and the Eastern world cheaper.... yea that helps us a lot. Or did you forget that this ISN'T Canada, and even if any of that oil did come to the US... it is still FOREIGN OIL.
@usaeagle1776 Exactly, we already buy too much oil from Canada.... Why ruin plenty of great American jobs in other sectors just to fuel your lust for oil.... you presume we would be getting any more oil than we already are. I would love to know why. At best we will shift the spatial distribution of where the oil we already get is processed. No one has suggested that oil is exclusively for the U.S., and quite frankly it isn't. You don't sacrifice one industry over another and claim you made jobs.
You at like the oil industry has some vested interest in the U.S., It doesn't. It is run entirely by multinational corporations who only care about getting the most money. We will still get our oil from the same places, because that's where the oil is... We will still get it from the middle east too. You haven't addressed why a pipeline to the gulf coast benefits the US more than the jobs and farmland we would use. Or didn't you know that agriculture is our largest export market? Obviously not.
@StAverti "you at like"? dont know what that means. Best to get oil from a country that is stable and that of an ally then a foe. how dumb are you? very dumb it would seem.and the pipeline will not be the end of farming you idiot. your hatred of oil is apparent. just another green energy dumbass. best the poor pay higher gas prices so you can have your fucking liberal ideology huh? asshole.
@usaeagle1776 As you already pointed out, we already get most of our oil from Canada, And the fact that you complain about act getting auto-corrected to at is just sad. The pipeline will require a lot of land right through the most productive farm lands our country has. Many farms will lose a good bit of land, and some smaller farms will lose all of their land. The recreation and tourist businesses in the Northern Mid west will lose a tremendous amount of revenue as well.
@StAverti you are broken record...blah blah blah. absolutely no evidence that the "recreation" industry would lose anything. just more "making" shit up.
@usaeagle1776 I'm tired of you stupid liberals mucking about; either answer why you think destroying jobs we already have and hurting our agri and rec businesses is justified by giving the Canadians some money and easier means to process their oil and continue the status quo at a cheaper price for them, or shut up. The reason none of you have answered is because you know you are absolutely unequivocally wrong. Destroying our jobs to make Canada a few is not good for us.
@StAverti you really are dumbfuck. I am no liberal you stupid mutherucker. I am not your fucking bitch either cocksucker. you throw out wild allegations with no proof, and you want me to answer and prove your bullshit? fucking moron.
@usaeagle1776 And if you want to keep pretending i hate oil or something, then why not produce a coherent argument against making millions of US jobs to update and repurpose our infrastructure to support other fuel and energy forms? The result of that course of action is plenty of jobs, and reducing dependance on foreign oil. Please explain at depth how that is a negative course of action for our country. I will save you some trouble and tell you that it's impossible, but by all means try.
@StAverti Pretending? you are the queen of that. Again, no evidence of loss of jobs for the pipeline. You continue to spout your "fantasies" of you hatred oil and what it would do. I seriously think you are mentally ill.
@usaeagle1776 The evidence of job loss at its very fundamental is the proposed route of the pipeline. Obviously you don't know anything about the project, or assume the pipe will magically float in the sky if you don't understand that it takes up space, and that further space beyond just the physical pipe has to be taken as easement. The evidence for the loss of rec money is the figures presented on the tourist draw of pipelines... People tend not to visit parks full of crap like pipelines.
@StAverti : The fact we already have thousands of miles of pipelines across the country (as stated before since you cannot read or comphrehend) refutes your wild basless and emotional assertions. you still continue to push your "theories" and "opinions" with no evidence of any kind. this is really getting tiresome.
@usaeagle1776 now stop ignoring the issue, answer to your ignorance. I am not going to post the question you need to answer again. Either explain why destroying US jobs for Canadian jobs helps our economy or stop wasting your own useless time.
@usaeagle1776 Cal me a broken record all you want, you and Uzi are the ones ignoring the question and dodging any semblance of intelligent response. So please address the question or forfeit.
@StAverti the fact that you cannot support you own allegations, and yet you want me to refute them at the same time!! LOL The pipeline will be given the go ahead after Nov 2012 when conservatives throw out the lbturds. you might as well get used to that fact.
@StAverti : fact is that this ONE pipeline is going to be the apocolypse for farming in the USA is beyond idiotic. it is utter incompetence in the realm of common sense, which you have NONE. the fact that we have an infrastructure of existing lines carrying gas, natural gas etc through out the country proves your incoherent ramblings mute. fact that LIBERALS are cheering this, like Redford and that conservatives are decrying it, shows how out of touch you are with reality. You are pathetic.
@uzimodem Unfortunately a thousand miles of pipeline needs at least a thousand miles of land, just the direct pipeline itself will take thousands of acres of otherwise arable farmland off the market, let alone the easements and buffer space that would have to be included and would further be unusable. And even that is just agribusiness, not even getting into the huge loss of tourism and recreation revenue for the businesses that rely on it in the north central US
@StAverti and yet the apocolypse you profess is pure bullshit. obviously, you dont want the US to be energy independent, for whatever perverted reason. sickening.
Ol' libturd Redford gonna be singing the blues when the conservatives take power in Nov 2012. gonna get that pipeline, and do more drilling and more jobs. something the man child incompetent in the White House has been opposed too all along.
This isn't even very fun anymore, at least earlier you could almost keep up :/ I guess it just goes to show that the under-educated, overly-loquacious can keep up in childish banter, but can't even keep their heads above water in any real discourse.
Modern liberalism: big govt, big spending, entitements, believing the govt is always the answer. that is what liberalism is. not "CLASSIC." are you kidding? LOL
@uzimodem What's the problem, also there is no such thing as "modern" liberalism, i think you mean social liberalism.... but hey I ALREADY do EVERYTHING for you lazy parasites. Go back to sucking on your welfare tit.
@StAverti there is no problem dipshit. you bring "CLASSIC" because you know that liberalism of today is NOT CLASSIC. since you couldnt weave that into your little narrative. go back and suck the gov tit yourself dumbass.
@uzimodem There are many forms of liberalism in today's day and age, but it seems you silly liberals never bothered to pay attention in civics or philosophy class huh.
@StAverti your right. since i am not a liberal, i am not privy to that information. but you know all about liberalism, you being a liberal. do tell libturd.
@StAverti philosophical discourse? LOL now that is funny. this from a person who cannot tell conservative or liberal, or what modern liberalism is and that it is in use today, epsecially by people like you!! belly laugh. wow,
DUMB
TheBenilly28 14 hours ago
good job standing up to big oil what did you drive today or what did you ride what are you wearing. if you you didn't ride in a wooden wagon pulled by horses or wear cotton rags you didn't
good job standing up to big oil. HYPOCRITE
TheBenilly28 14 hours ago
Obama says yes to Keystone! As Democrats in Congress perked up over the TransCanada announcement, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski went to the floor of the Senate to squash any celebration. She complained that in her home state, the Trans Alaska Pipeline was only "half full" with oil because Democrats had blocked new drilling in the environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as some offshore drilling projects.
HyperMediaNews 1 week ago
Go Bob! Go Bama!
lorindalew 3 weeks ago
Well, if Robert Redford said it , then it must be Gospel.
Rompcom 3 weeks ago
Thanks you Obama! Just like Robert Redford said, for standing up to big oil!!!
FireDragonTanya 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Redford you coward! You will say anything to get attention!
Redford, you're such a martyr for Mother Earth, give him his Oscar and let the rest of us get jobs and opportunity!
melnick1985 1 month ago
@melnick1985 Whatever Redford is, coward he is NOT & never was. He gets threats all the time for his stance on the state of the environment, etc., yet he still puts out the word in spite of this.
TheClam88 1 month ago 4
@Stiletos Redford's a helluva lot more educated than you are Jack.
TheClam88 1 month ago
@TheClam88 And you can speak towards that how? I know how much education Robert Redford has due to it being public knowledge, you on the other hand don't even know who I am. So you are speaking from a position of complete and utter ignorance and yet puport to claim something as if you have a clue?
You are a prime example of a person who follow this type of thinking like a sheep and puts "actors" on a pedestal as if being in front of a camera made them smarter then the common man.
Stiletos 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WIN for environmentalists??? I guess if you're ONLY considering American environmentalists, the self-absorbed type who really just want a clean place to live. "The planet, save the planet." LOL We haven't figured out how to care for each other, they're gonna save the F-ing PLANET??? Sure. Instead of gas-guzzling US getting oil from a responsible neighbor, we let the Chinese get this oil. We all know what tidy environmentalists THEY are... think of how much worse it is that China gets the oil.
corrigasm 1 month ago
...so US money continues funding terrorism in middle east
ukipwarrior 1 month ago
@Brdstfff The majority of United States oil comes from Canada and Mexico. Very little comes from the mideast (~18%). Yes, saying no to the XL pipeline is, because it had hundreds of safety concerns. Not because it had anything to do with oil, but it wasn't anywhere nearly as safe as they were claiming. Do your research.
TheJohndills 1 month ago
@CardinalACK
They'll be LUCKY if their gas is only $10 a gallon!
Once Canada shuts off the taps, the Arabs and Venezuelans can name their price. As gas prices rise, so does price of everything else - food, clothing, etc - because everything is eventually shipped by truck to retailers.
We in Canada will be getting insanely rich while gas prices in America rise faster than they've ever seen before. I wonder how grateful they'll be to Obama when that happens!
Brdstfff 1 month ago
@Brdstfff
Who one earth is the U.S. buying oil from that "creating nukes" from the money?
Last time I checked Saudi Arabia wasn't in the nuke making businesses, tho its well known that the U.S. will deal with anyone as long as it suits their agenda. Operation Paper Clip made it all to evident that "America" thinks war crimes are only punishable when its the enemy doing the crimes.
NeutralExistence 1 month ago
@NeutralExistence
You haven't heard of the deal between Iran and Venezuela? Iran plans to put medium-range nuclear weapons in Venezuela. Guess what the target will be? The U.S. buys most of its oil from Venezuela. Cooperating with enemies makes you an enemy.
Wahhabi muslims are the most radical, violent muslims on Earth. The Saudis are Wahhabi.
We in Canada sell oil to America at bargain prices. We'll just sell it elsewhere and get more money for it. Americans can fuck off and die.
Brdstfff 1 month ago
@Brdstfff
Oh my lord, I laughed so hard I almost died....
Then I realized that you are probably serious...
There is NO connection between Venezuela, and Iran... You are really breaking the stupid barrier with that one. Venezuela is the only reason people in the U.S. can still afford to pay their heating bills, Mr. Chavez has been more the generous with the ungrateful people of that country.
/watch?v=scgsTsOUrBQ
NeutralExistence 1 month ago
lets get real. The pipeline would have created six thousand temp job, we have 20 million unmployed! this is just a well orchastrated move by the republican shills to deny the middle class the continued tax break in March.
glazierEd 1 month ago
@glazierEd
Short term profits over the future health of our entire nation.
You sir, are the reason we are living in a polluted shit hole.
NeutralExistence 1 month ago
Comment removed
logotype702 1 month ago
@CardinalACK Ohohoh, you so funny. XL pipeline had major problems, and the majority of our oil comes from areas other than the middle east and in stable economies.
TheJohndills 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is the only candidate who predicted and warned against the economic crisis, who understood and explained the reasons for it, and who offers a viable solution.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who really means it when he says he wants to bring our troops home and scale down our unsustainable and unreasonable empire.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is serious about slashing spending and eliminating taxes.
Vote RON PAUL 2012!
sainegve 2 months ago
Well Done & Thank You Mr President !!
Merry Christmas and
Happy OBAMA 2012 to You.
willypdyer 2 months ago
@willypdyer YES!!
TheClam88 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012!
Vote for a candidate that stands for liberty, freedom, and fighting against increasing state tyranny! A candidate that has been consistent in their beliefs for dozens of years. A candidate standing for small government and an end to America's bloated and unsustainable empire.
Vote up, spread the message, and inform family and friends; support real change. This upcoming election really matters, and liberty can win.
RapsAlive 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The democrats and republicans want war!Ron Paul only one ANTI-WAR!! Don't vote for flip-flop republican or democrats!Vote as if your children's and grandchildren's future depend on it.
Vote RON PAUL!
sainegve 2 months ago
@Ultra68 Why do i say this? am I politically motivated? Am i some kind of Labor expert? no, however the researchers at Cornell's Gobal Labor Institute are, toss this into google and enjoy:
ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti All construction projects are temporary. Some trades may only work for a few weeks. Others the full duration. Being this may be a federally funded project in part, I am certain it would be Union; David Bacon Act. Whereby a simple laborer will earn in excess of $42/hr. Thats +/-$174,720 for two years. $350m for 2000 workers. The should help the economy some. If Obama held that thought with all projects, the high speed rail, and shovel ready projects should be abandonded.
Ultra68 2 months ago
@Ultra68 I have to disagree, because the entirety of the pipeline has/ will been built by Canadian companies (most of it already is). The only jobs US citizens can hope for are installation jobs, union or not the few thousand temp jobs cannot make up for the hundreds of millions to a billion lost from agricultural production, tourist and rec industries, and the oil refineries that would be forced to close in the north and mid west. We stand to lose far more than even unions help.
StAverti 2 months ago
@Ultra68 It is a vast over simplification to think this is simply an environmental issue. Of course it is a concern for the environment, but the only economic gain is for Canada, who would be able to ship their oil all over the world from the gulf coast; at the cost of hundreds of millions from our agriculture, tourism, recreation, and existing oil refineries in the mid west that rely on the oil that will be routed to the gulf coast and shipped to refineries in many other countries.
StAverti 2 months ago
@Ultra68 And unfortunately, the US federal government has no funding for this project. It is funded in full by the Canadian stake holders. So the type of income you propose is virtually impossible.
StAverti 2 months ago
@StAverti Not to mention the estimated increase in mid west oil prices is orders of magnitude higher than your estimated income with Union regulations (around 2-4 billion dollar increase... Annually!)
StAverti 2 months ago
@Ultra68 And the gain of these 2,000- 4,400 temp jobs comes with a loss of agricultural jobs and overall farm land. the US has been steady as the TOP world exported of corn in the world. Why reduce our potential export market, destroy the Ag jobs as well as lose tourist and rec money (and incidentally tourist and recreation jobs) where the pipeline cuts through, all for a marginal amount of temp jobs for U.S. Citizens? all while raising gas prices in the mid west and disturbing ecology?
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti I’m in the construction industry, including environmental restoration projects and water conservation retrofits. Ecological impact assessment is part of every project. In this instant, one must consider the ecological and economical impacts. Obama has chosen to ignore the economical side of the equation; politically motivated. Regardless, petroleum will always be in demand. It’s a necessary evil I guess that one must think responsibly. You can’t simply ignore it.
Ultra68 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StAverti I’m in the construction industry, including environmental restoration projects and water conservation retrofits. Ecological impact assessment is part of every project. In this instant, one must consider the ecological and economical impacts. Obama has chosen to ignore the economical side of the equation; politically motivated. Regardless, petroleum will always be in demand. It’s a necessary evil I guess that one must think responsibly. You can’t simply ignore it.
Ultra68 2 months ago
@StAverti Dont get me wrong. The environment should always be at the top of all priorities. As well as any job loss as you mentioned. So the debate continues. As a side note; I dont like how politicians have tied this pipeline to the payroll tax bill. Political blackmail.
Ultra68 2 months ago
@Ultra68 I believe people have been saying that because every "new" job introduced by this particular project (As reported in the company's own report) is a less than 2 year position. The maximum number of US citizens that can even get one of these < 2 yr jobs is 4,400. Not because we think so, because that is what their budget has allotted.
StAverti 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lying Porch Nigger = Massa like Obama = Bush. Long live the United States OF Israel. Hail to Usury. Hail to the Blood Letters. Hail to the 14-trillion dollar debt amounting to over 80-trillion in repayments and growing! Hail to hypocrisy, lies, deception, war, death and destruction! Hail to the Chosen Ones!
Yes, this sounds offensive, because it is! Research! Here are easy vids...
watch?v=T8Tsrc85cwg
watch?v=vwmqYHu37U0
watch?v=VbnplgnVG4s
Ron Paul is not owned by this corruption. Last chance!
NZDuriahheap 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only Ron Paul! Don't vote for flip-flop republican or democrats!Vote as if your children's and grandchildren's future depend on it.
Vote RON PAUL!
sainegve 3 months ago
Just another jaded idiot putting blatantly false ideas before real people, and real problems. If it were up to people like uzi we would kill everyone who wasn't just like him, and willingly trade solid long standing careers, productive agriculture, and a healthful environment for a handful of less than two year temp jobs.
StAverti 3 months ago
just another leftist putting ideology before the country. if it were up to them, we would be back riding horse and buggies. pathetic.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Isn't it nice when country AND ideology can work together
stellarworker 3 months ago
@stellarworker work? where is it working?
uzimodem 3 months ago
Green plants have ensured there has been no rise and the level of carbon dioxide in the air for two centuries
JonThm 3 months ago
But you don't care, you know that. I already linked those sources and numbers. You just either can't read or ignore actual facts and analysis. Our Farmers are losing land that when combined along the track of the pipeline was worth hundreds of millions per year alone (now it is worth nothing), our petrol processing plants that currently process much of our Canadian oil would go under (more billions), and we would get.... between 2000 and 4000 temp jobs that would end before 2 years time..
StAverti 3 months ago
We would not have any better access, we already process the oil we would be getting in the mid west. All you are doing is allowing them to ship much of the oil we already get to OTHER countries at the cost of out plants in the mid west. The result of which is higher gas prices in the central united states. This has already been calculated by many economists and financial analysts, and the price increase is calculated to be between 10 and 30 cents per gallon (depending on which author you cite)
StAverti 3 months ago
and the fact we will have better access to Canadian oil, over 700,000 barrels or more from a friendly country. best all the way around for Canda and the US.
uzimodem 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The pipeline will give over $500 billion in taxes to local and state entities. and there is not one scintilla are particle of evidence that the pipleline will destroy agri jobs or farms. none. nothing but liberal propaganda and those who hate oil.
uzimodem 3 months ago
Comment removed
uzimodem 3 months ago
Technically you ARE liberals, but you don't seem to understand that words have defined meanings. I presented objective proof to substantiate my statements, and the fact of the matter is the processing plants in the mid west will lose all the oil that would be diverted to the gulf coast, driving oil prices higher than current. Farmers in the path of the project are fighting TransCanada, who has pulled eminent domain in OUR COUNTRY. The 2,000 to 4,000 less than 2 yr jobs aren't worth the losses.
StAverti 3 months ago
Comment removed
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StAverti there is no "Technically" about it. you continue to show your stupidity. I cannot understand how anyone cannot distinguish between conservative and Liberal. you are either playing stupid or you have to be mentally retarded. and nothing you have said proves a damn thing. pathetic.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
You have presented NO original research that shows the XL pipeline will have any real benefit to the US. You only throw out numbers orders of magnitude greater than the highest values in the Original proposal of the project. I have presented my argument, substantive university and financial research that supports it and journalism exposing the trouble the project is causing US farmers who have to now fight eminent domain to keep their land. You sir, have presented nothing but partisan rhetoric.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti I have presented plenty of evidence while you have presented opinion & liberal biased research. Partisan rhetoric? what a hypocrite. You tried numerous times of trying to "Frame" the debate and change the "narrative" to insinuate that those who oppose it are " liberals" when liberals are the one's who oppose this & any type of oil drilling ANYWHERE in the US. You have no clue of American Politics & those parties involved. You should study that before you issue wild accusations.
uzimodem 3 months ago
The original (and falsely high) original plan would only have brought 7 billion in revenue (most of which would go to TransCanada. The proposal had at most 4,700 construction jobs that would last less than 2 years per, and all the fabrication is already done (by Canadian companies). The loss of Agricultural jobs would far outweigh the temp jobs produced. I have presented more than enough research and analysis by far too many sources for you to claim each and every one was "biased"
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti and I have presented evidence to contridict the leftist studies you promote. not gonna be up you anyway libturd, after Nov 2012, the pipeline will be built. not a damn thing you can do about. just like all the furor over the Alaskan pipeline, this will be the same.
uzimodem 3 months ago
The pipeline pose little environmental risk according to the very liberal NYT, and the fact we could get 40% or more of our oil from a friendly country instead of hostile ones. Plus up to $500 billion in revenue for states and local govts from taxes. of course, libturds place ideology ahead of jobs and the country. pathetic.
uzimodem 3 months ago
Sound logical Argument: The negative effects of the pipeline (loss of agri jobs, productive farm land, etc) [not even considering environmental damage] are not out weighed by the marginal job gain we can expect from the project (2,000- 4,700 less than 2 year temp jobs). The end result of the pipeline will be an increase in oil prices in the Mid west (10-30 cents), and cheaper costs for the Canadian exporters. Therefore the project is NOT beneficial whatsoever to the US economy.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti references:
"Say No to Tar Sands Pipeline". NRDC. 2010-03-10.
"Massive oil pipeline to be checked for defective steel" St. Louis Post-Dispatch (2010-12-09).
"Gulf Disaster Raises Alarms about Alberta to Texas Pipeline". Dembicki, Geoff (2010-06-21).The Tyee.
"Pressure in U.S. mounts against oilsands pipeline".O'Meara, Dina (2010-12-08). Calgary Herald.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti References (cont):
"Keystone 'exaggerated rhetoric' untrue".Hussein, Yadullah (2011-09-23). Financial Post.
"Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL". ILR School Global Labor Institute. September 2011.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti :increase in oil Prices? hogwash. total bullshit. over 700,000 barrels of oil would be avaliable. and the environmental damage are speculative. just agri jobs to be lost. total Projections used by those who oppose the use of oil like you in the USA.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
for anyone to say the NYT is not liberal, surely has no clue. that is amazing.
uzimodem 3 months ago
the NYT is liberal...LOL that is just too funny to ignore!!
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 It's a newspaper, the articles express the intent of the individual authors.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti i must be serious here. are you like a teenager or something? because the comments you make really are glaring in either your completely clueless about American politics, or you are seriously inept when it come to acutal reality. wow
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 Well if you are really curious I am a professional geoscientist. But that is neither here nor there.
StAverti 3 months ago
only 3% of Americans live on farms, and there are less the 2 million farms left the US.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem The US is the worlds largest exporter of grain products. I've already cited the personal financial trouble farmers whose land is in the way of the pipeline faces, as well as the very few and temporary jobs actually provided by the pipeline
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti there are less then 2 million farms and of those half are owned by corporations, where the majority of the food is created. jeez
uzimodem 3 months ago
And you two still dodge the issue..... god you are insufferable. Respond to the actual issue or stop wasting my time. Just because your time is useless doesn't mean some of our time is actually valuable.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti and yet you still are have no produced anything that is not biased information. you still produce nothing but lies and propaganda.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem University Research is not biased, and if you feel that way you can ignore their report and read their citations. The farmers themselves are also not biased in the sense you presume, they simply have to fight for their land.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti universities are predominately liberal. so yes, they are biased.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Universities are predominantly home to objective researchers. so no they are not biased.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti still living in fantasy land huh? wow. I am beginning to pity you. really.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Sound logical Argument: The negative effects of the pipeline (loss of agri jobs, productive farm land, etc) [not even considering environmental damage] are not out weighed by the marginal job gain we can expect from the project (2,000- 4,700 less than 2 year temp jobs). The end result of the pipeline will be an increase in oil prices in the Mid west (10-30 cents), and cheaper costs for the Canadian exporters. Therefore the project is NOT beneficial whatsoever to the US economy.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti in your opinion and that of liberals who oppose this. we have been thru this propaganda before.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem It is not opinion, I have and will shortly re present objective research and data that support that conclusion
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti good luck with that.
uzimodem 3 months ago
The New York Times is not Liberal? LOL now that is funny. You are right Eagle. this camel thumper has not clue. that is like saying Fox News is liberal and MSNBC is conservative. LOL wow.
uzimodem 3 months ago
I invite the two of you to provide any university research that shows the opposite, or to cite the proposal by Trans Canada itself. The facts don't change. Our farmers lose, our economy loses, Canada wins, and we are worse off than before.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti they are not your farmers, since you dont even live here. that is a given.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem I am a proud citizen of the United States of America. Much more than you Mexican communists can say for yourselves.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti you are not a citizen. any American would know what conservatives and liberals are, you do not. you say the NYT times in not liberal. evidence enough right there
uzimodem 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uzimodem Not my fault you didn't pass highschool
StAverti 3 months ago
@uzimodem how else would you have such a limited intellect
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti my intellecut is just fine camel thumper. being an american, I can tell that the NYT is liberal, and what conservatives and liberals are and what hey represent. you have shown you have no clue on that.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem And you still can't put a sound logical argument together.. how shameful
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti and you HAVE NEVER put a sound logical argument together in this whole debate. You dont even know the difference between liberal or conservative!! LOL
uzimodem 3 months ago
Now, I have provided links to both boots on the ground journalism documenting the direct impact on farmers, as well as the macro-scale economic reality of the pipeline. University research as well as the farmers who stand to lose land and work both support my argument, that the pipeline will be a net negative effect on our country in every sense of the word. No economic improvement, no social improvement, and no job improvement. THE END.
StAverti 3 months ago
of the 30 million Americans who classified as "POOR", have at least 1 car. so yes, they poor do suffer more along with the middle class due to high gas prices. how anyone with a IQ bigger then their shoe size cannot comphrehend that, must be a complete and utter idiot. Like StAverti.
uzimodem 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uzimodem And again you show that you have no mind for statistics or sociology.
StAverti 3 months ago
poor and the middle class are hurt by the high gas prices and yet the libturds could care less. and that of killing jobs by denying the pipeline. Great job Obumbles!!
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem I'm poor, I don't have a car... Can't afford one, so i don't use one. Gas prices don't hurt me at all. Now if you really want to argue, go into the non fuel uses of petrochemicals, that would be a good one to support your argument.
StAverti 3 months ago
@uzimodem And you too should review the articles i posted Uzi, they will put the at MOST 4,700 temp jobs we might gain from the pipeline to contrast against the jobs and land we would lose. I provided a NY times article and a report from Cornell University. Those should be suitably lay and professionally oriented to quell any unease you might have with understanding the issue.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti :from a biase liberal university. yeah right.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Cornell is an Ivy league institution, it is one of the eminent universities in this country, and further, if you don't believe their direct statements, you can follow their links to view the information directly.
StAverti 3 months ago
And you still haven't answered the issue of killing US jobs and productivity for Canada to ship their oil cheaper.... keep running around issue... you're doing a great job of making yourselves look like tards doing it.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti: what source says that jobs would be killed? name it. I would like to read that.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 I can't link the articles, but you can google them yourself :
Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist (NY times)
and
Pipe dreams?
Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost
by the Construction of Keystone XL
a report by cornell university global labor institute
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti aww, a liberal organization. yeah, they are not biased. LOL pathetic.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 And the NY times is most certainly not a liberal institution.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti I LMFAO!! the New Times IS CERTAINLY A LIBERAL PAPER!!!! wow. you certainly do not live in this country, and if you do, your are fucking immigrant who has totally NO CONCEPT of American Politics or what libeal or conservative means here. Outrageous.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
STaverti aks people to back up there comments, yet he never does. just lies, propaganda and ineundo. what a hypocrite.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Preposterous, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics does not agree with your claims that you support via a for profit organization. When I ask for evidence i like to see REAL evidence not profit driven analysis.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti :those were valid numbers and not from a biased organization. just another example of your double standards. if they do not coincide with your "opinions" you dismiss them. pathetic. another sourse, which is PRO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, states: only 1 in 5 use public transportation in there area, while 73% have to drive to due the area they live in a limited public transit. that from Transportation of America, again a PRO TRANSIT organization pushing for more public transportation.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 Which doesn't address the use of public transport by the poor, only the general population.... your numbers mean nothing. And ys, your source is not the most reputable because it is a biased organization.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti Transportation America is PRO TRANSIT. so yes they are biased, in that they WANT MORE PUBLIC TRANSIT dipshit. jeez, what a fucking retard.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
And you still haven't answered how killing US jobs to make Canadian ones helps us any. You have had plenty of time to respond to that, yet you continue not to. Just leave with your tail between your legs like a good b!tch and don't come back until you can answer that simple question.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti and you still spew unfounded allegations based on your opinion. Just leave, since you have no clue how America functions you camel thumping arab.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 Again, dodging the issue. How long are you going to beat around the bush? just answer it already or shut up... It's like talking with toddlers.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti again, you cant back up your lies and ineundo. like tallking to a brain dead retard. and your not even and American. go back to mud hut camel thumper.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 Well i supplied the source, the US bueau of transportation statistics. and their reports suggest at most, 16% of automobile drivers are "poor"
StAverti 3 months ago
That is "drivers" not owners. So even the 16% is high to be suggesting that that full number are struggling with as prices as they likely do not own the vehicles they drive and some are probably only using them for short and seldom trips.
StAverti 3 months ago
The fact that the left in this country will place the ideology that they believe in in place of the country is quite evident. The environmental whacks would rather see American suffer then not. Poor Americans pay the price for high oil, while the rich could care less. And for the jobs, these leftist punks could care less.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Most "poor" live in major cities and use public transit. Yes transit does still require oil (in some places), but many of the truly poor could care less about oil prices because the transport they use is subsidized and has little impact on them. You are obviously out of touch with the real "poor" in this country...
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti that is totat bullshit. Just goes to show how you are totally incompetent & continue to make up shit up. You also show you ignorance since you dont live in the US. Gas prices hurt POOR people more then any other group. the Rich could care less what the price is. only 5% of Americans use public transit to go to work. Since most American do not live in major cities, 69% use private transit. Those figures from the " American Public Transportation Association." get your facts straight.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Wow, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. over 50% of US population lives in cities, and the vast majority of the severely impoverished use public transit. If you have enough money to own a car you are not poor. You get your facts straight silly liberal.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti LOL you ask for sources and yet you still cannot accept it, hence your incompetence. You have no competence in this debate you liberal hack.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem And again, you presume continuing the status quo will some how make the poor better off. I wont even ask how you think cheaper prices for Canadian oil barons will help the poor in the US, you have no plausible answer for such ludicrous talk. But I will again pose the same question I have been that you have yet to answer, how does continuing the status quo compare with producing millions of good jobs that are aimed at updating infrastructure for other fuels? Short answer is it doesn't.
StAverti 3 months ago
I provided at least an order of magnitude more proof for my claims as you two did yours. It can't be helped if you are too dull to answer a very simple question. The fact is you can't answer it without admitting you were incorrect and should have educated yourselves on the situation before opening your big mouths. Since you still can't seem to stop dodging the one important issue, it's obvious that you have no place in this discussion.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti you have provided personal opinions, inuendo and baseless allegations based on your hatred of oil and hatred of this country to try and do anything to provide jobs. you are completely clueless as are all libturds like yourself.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
I mean it's not like the US tourism industry matters, they only generate hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Why not f*ck with that industry though just so Canada can have a pretty pipeline right through our farm land and over our most important aquifers. I bet you two don't even know where the water you get from your tap comes from... I bet it just comes from the magic liberal water fairy doesn't it...
StAverti 3 months ago
Even beyond that your sad excuses for arguments hold no water. If we really wanted jobs and to reduce the U.S. dependance on foreign oil, we would make millions of jobs in creating and updating infrastructure to run on alternative energy and fuel sources. Tons of money to be made, no dependance on oil, lots of jobs to be had.... Keep crying about a Canadian pipeline, but your arguments (as if they could even be called that) are moot.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti No matter. the "alternative" is a falsehood. oil is what drives our civilization and no matter what you or Ted Danson says, it will be so for the next 100 years. best you deal with reality. but then, i bet you wont.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem The reality that you want jobs, and no more dependance on foreign oil... but when there are exceptional alternatives to achieve both you scoff and don't pursue them? Just like you silly liberals.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti you must be a fucking immigrant from a thirdworld shithole, since you have no clue of what liberal is and that of conservatives. your pathetic attempt at calling me a liberal when I am a Reagan Conservative is laughable. you are so pathetic you libturd dipshit.
uzimodem 3 months ago
cant wait till nov 2012 when we unleash the awesome potential of this country to move towards independence from foreign oil. Libturds will be furious everywhere!!! LOL
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 You mean when Canada gets to ship its oil to south America and the Eastern world cheaper.... yea that helps us a lot. Or did you forget that this ISN'T Canada, and even if any of that oil did come to the US... it is still FOREIGN OIL.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti we are the biggest customer for canada, so they sell it others. that is business, which you know nothing about.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 Exactly, we already buy too much oil from Canada.... Why ruin plenty of great American jobs in other sectors just to fuel your lust for oil.... you presume we would be getting any more oil than we already are. I would love to know why. At best we will shift the spatial distribution of where the oil we already get is processed. No one has suggested that oil is exclusively for the U.S., and quite frankly it isn't. You don't sacrifice one industry over another and claim you made jobs.
StAverti 3 months ago
You at like the oil industry has some vested interest in the U.S., It doesn't. It is run entirely by multinational corporations who only care about getting the most money. We will still get our oil from the same places, because that's where the oil is... We will still get it from the middle east too. You haven't addressed why a pipeline to the gulf coast benefits the US more than the jobs and farmland we would use. Or didn't you know that agriculture is our largest export market? Obviously not.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti "you at like"? dont know what that means. Best to get oil from a country that is stable and that of an ally then a foe. how dumb are you? very dumb it would seem.and the pipeline will not be the end of farming you idiot. your hatred of oil is apparent. just another green energy dumbass. best the poor pay higher gas prices so you can have your fucking liberal ideology huh? asshole.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 As you already pointed out, we already get most of our oil from Canada, And the fact that you complain about act getting auto-corrected to at is just sad. The pipeline will require a lot of land right through the most productive farm lands our country has. Many farms will lose a good bit of land, and some smaller farms will lose all of their land. The recreation and tourist businesses in the Northern Mid west will lose a tremendous amount of revenue as well.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti you are broken record...blah blah blah. absolutely no evidence that the "recreation" industry would lose anything. just more "making" shit up.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 I'm tired of you stupid liberals mucking about; either answer why you think destroying jobs we already have and hurting our agri and rec businesses is justified by giving the Canadians some money and easier means to process their oil and continue the status quo at a cheaper price for them, or shut up. The reason none of you have answered is because you know you are absolutely unequivocally wrong. Destroying our jobs to make Canada a few is not good for us.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti you really are dumbfuck. I am no liberal you stupid mutherucker. I am not your fucking bitch either cocksucker. you throw out wild allegations with no proof, and you want me to answer and prove your bullshit? fucking moron.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 And if you want to keep pretending i hate oil or something, then why not produce a coherent argument against making millions of US jobs to update and repurpose our infrastructure to support other fuel and energy forms? The result of that course of action is plenty of jobs, and reducing dependance on foreign oil. Please explain at depth how that is a negative course of action for our country. I will save you some trouble and tell you that it's impossible, but by all means try.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti Pretending? you are the queen of that. Again, no evidence of loss of jobs for the pipeline. You continue to spout your "fantasies" of you hatred oil and what it would do. I seriously think you are mentally ill.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 The evidence of job loss at its very fundamental is the proposed route of the pipeline. Obviously you don't know anything about the project, or assume the pipe will magically float in the sky if you don't understand that it takes up space, and that further space beyond just the physical pipe has to be taken as easement. The evidence for the loss of rec money is the figures presented on the tourist draw of pipelines... People tend not to visit parks full of crap like pipelines.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti : The fact we already have thousands of miles of pipelines across the country (as stated before since you cannot read or comphrehend) refutes your wild basless and emotional assertions. you still continue to push your "theories" and "opinions" with no evidence of any kind. this is really getting tiresome.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 now stop ignoring the issue, answer to your ignorance. I am not going to post the question you need to answer again. Either explain why destroying US jobs for Canadian jobs helps our economy or stop wasting your own useless time.
StAverti 3 months ago
@usaeagle1776 Cal me a broken record all you want, you and Uzi are the ones ignoring the question and dodging any semblance of intelligent response. So please address the question or forfeit.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti the fact that you cannot support you own allegations, and yet you want me to refute them at the same time!! LOL The pipeline will be given the go ahead after Nov 2012 when conservatives throw out the lbturds. you might as well get used to that fact.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@StAverti : fact is that this ONE pipeline is going to be the apocolypse for farming in the USA is beyond idiotic. it is utter incompetence in the realm of common sense, which you have NONE. the fact that we have an infrastructure of existing lines carrying gas, natural gas etc through out the country proves your incoherent ramblings mute. fact that LIBERALS are cheering this, like Redford and that conservatives are decrying it, shows how out of touch you are with reality. You are pathetic.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Tell that to the thousands of Farmers who will lose land and productivity to the project.
StAverti 3 months ago
@uzimodem Unfortunately a thousand miles of pipeline needs at least a thousand miles of land, just the direct pipeline itself will take thousands of acres of otherwise arable farmland off the market, let alone the easements and buffer space that would have to be included and would further be unusable. And even that is just agribusiness, not even getting into the huge loss of tourism and recreation revenue for the businesses that rely on it in the north central US
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti and yet the apocolypse you profess is pure bullshit. obviously, you dont want the US to be energy independent, for whatever perverted reason. sickening.
uzimodem 3 months ago
Comment removed
uzimodem 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ol' libturd Redford gonna be singing the blues when the conservatives take power in Nov 2012. gonna get that pipeline, and do more drilling and more jobs. something the man child incompetent in the White House has been opposed too all along.
uzimodem 3 months ago
Comment removed
uzimodem 3 months ago
This isn't even very fun anymore, at least earlier you could almost keep up :/ I guess it just goes to show that the under-educated, overly-loquacious can keep up in childish banter, but can't even keep their heads above water in any real discourse.
StAverti 3 months ago
Modern liberalism: big govt, big spending, entitements, believing the govt is always the answer. that is what liberalism is. not "CLASSIC." are you kidding? LOL
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem What's the problem, also there is no such thing as "modern" liberalism, i think you mean social liberalism.... but hey I ALREADY do EVERYTHING for you lazy parasites. Go back to sucking on your welfare tit.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti there is no problem dipshit. you bring "CLASSIC" because you know that liberalism of today is NOT CLASSIC. since you couldnt weave that into your little narrative. go back and suck the gov tit yourself dumbass.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem There are many forms of liberalism in today's day and age, but it seems you silly liberals never bothered to pay attention in civics or philosophy class huh.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti your right. since i am not a liberal, i am not privy to that information. but you know all about liberalism, you being a liberal. do tell libturd.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Privy to philosophy? being a liberal makes you ignorant to basic philosophy ? well no wonder you silly liberals never get anything done.
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti not a liberal. but you are. do tell.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem your political bias has no bearing on whether you payed attention in primary school
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti your politcal confusion obviously shows you never payed attention at any school you attended libturd.
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem and your ignorance shows that you are incapable of philosophical discourse. Your point?
StAverti 3 months ago
@StAverti philosophical discourse? LOL now that is funny. this from a person who cannot tell conservative or liberal, or what modern liberalism is and that it is in use today, epsecially by people like you!! belly laugh. wow,
uzimodem 3 months ago
@uzimodem Again, i don't know why you keep pretending this "modern" liberalism is an actual philosophy.... it just makes you sound retarded.
StAverti 3 months ago