Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Nov 18, 2014.
OK, Republicans will bring it back in January, and then pass it.
Like the reporter, I am shocked that Harry Reid allowed her to bring this to the floor if it didn't have the support of enough democrats to get it passed. It is almost as if he set her up to fail. While her campaign was already in trouble this was the coffin nail. She's got grill marks on this side, turn her over. Her own party roasted her.
You spend your time whining when Harry doesn't bring up legislation for a vote. Seriously - this is unbelievably partisan and petty.
Do you think that Harry Reid just terminated any chance that she had of getting reelected? You can count that seat for the republicans. She's through.
I don't think she ever stood a chance - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/u...hallenger-pushes-landrieu-to-runoff.html?_r=0
It does seem that the democrats have thrown in the towel on this one.
Apparently, building the Keystone pipeline could lead to higher gas prices for people in the midwestern US.
Because all that nasty tar-sands Canadian oil is (right now) relatively costly to ship to the Gulf for refining and exporting, it has created a glut of supply in the middle of North America. Meaning we are enjoying low, low prices.
Economics, as a science and in the real world, is often considerably more complicated than most people realize. And its another reason we - as voters - need to be especially wary of politicians offering "common sense" solutions to social and economic problems. Chances are, people with "common sense" have no idea what they are talking about.
It's always been about getting the oil to a coast so that it can be exported outside of North America. I don't like the Keystone pipeline, but it's better than the other options of rail or the Northern Gateway pipeline, which hopefully will die before there is a massive spill from running tankers on the BC coast.
Instead of a pipeline, why not pour the oil into the Fraser River in Alberta and collect it when it flows into English Bay? Seems a reasonable solution.
I think you're right about the exporting. The Canadian energy firms are going to move their oil, one way or another, either through their own domestic pipelines to the Atlantic ocean, or by rail. The ironic thing about rail is that it poses a greater environmental risk and so-called carbon footprint than the 1,200-mile underground pipeline and will increase greenhouse gas emissions something like 40%.
Anyone read this little piece?
What I find vexing is the "need" for Keystone XL. The pipeline is already there, in place, it goes from Canada to Port Arthur. There is no need to add this section, all it does is shorten the trip by maybe a couple hundred miles. This is a massive wasted effort.
Basically, this is good news.
Theyll pass it again in january obviously
Or the postponement of bad news? For liberals and environmentalists?
Just curious, is the company who builds and/or maintains a pipeline responsible for liability and monetary payback when there is a spill?
More spill scare tactics? Really? How much of an environmental disaster has the Alaskan Pipeline been? The Trans-Alaska Pipeline has been there for 35 years. Here's a link so that you can read about it. How much oil has been spilled from trains during that time?
More oil spilled from trains in 2013 than in previous 4 decades, federal data show
You and your accusations. Don't be fearful of honest questions.
There's Been HOW Many Pipeline Spills in Alberta in The Last Four Months??
List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century Let's look at the year 2000 alone, then go review the other 14 years...
Bottom line, absolutely no reason to fear pipeline associated spills... please continue with your sputtering. And does anyone know who reponsibility falls upon? I assume the pipeline has an owner, but who knows what kind of special deals have been worked out shielding them from liability... for all I know, placing it on the tax payer.
Gee, you chose to answer a different question than the one asked. Should have figured that. I specifically asked you how much oil has spilled from the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline which has been here for 35 years. Good diversion technique.
NO, I asked an honest question and you accused me of using scare tactics, now that's diversionary.
The fact remains that the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline is 35 years old. It's path has not been turned into a desolate wasteland because of it. It's a great scare tactic but no one is afraid. Your party lost. The Keystone XL Pipeline will be approved in January 2015. The President will either sign it, or not. I'm betting it goes through.
It's your right to focus on a single pipeline and say we have no problems with pipelines, but I have to laugh when you accuse me of being diversionary. Very GOP of you.
I asked who would be liable for it? That's all I asked. Anyone know? (Obviously you do not.)
You are right, I don't know who is liable for it. Basically, you are really looking for any reason to try and stop the project but the American voters let their opinion be known. The Keystone XL Pipeline is coming. I hope that democrats continue to oppose it. It will help in 2016.