Keystone Pipeline leaks...

[brycejones]

Tajbot has yet to deny causing the spill. Probably part of a false flag operation to try and damage the environmental movement.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

But it's not an informed guess. It's just spitballing based on your anti-liberal fantasies. You're entitled to your opinion; you're not entitled to be free of criticism when you make a claim with no evidence to support it. If you want to sway anyone, you need to back up what you say.

Did you read the earlier link where the 2 women confessed to sabotaging the pipeline in the same area? No fantasy involved, they already admitted to doing it.

 

[Thebobo]

it's weird, but I'm more or less with tajjy here. I haven't seen Greenpeace as much more than an ecco-terrorism group for about 2 decades now. They've long ago lost their mission.

BTW: tajjy immediately jumping to the assumption that this instance is terrorism/sabotage is, of course, tajjy being the fucking idiot that he is.

It is weird because they don't kill people. There mission hasn't changed if anything they were more radical years ago maybe because you only hear the headlines.

 

[Thebobo]

Did you read the earlier link where the 2 women confessed to sabotaging the pipeline in the same area? No fantasy involved, they already admitted to doing it.

We all know it was the evil greenpeace run by hollywood elite who are paid by george soros who takes orders from hillary clinton who had sex with bill clinton! OMG you solved it! Amazing work there.

 

[Commodus]

Did you read the earlier link where the 2 women confessed to sabotaging the pipeline in the same area? No fantasy involved, they already admitted to doing it.

They didn't admit to this specific act, and they've made a point of targeting empty pipeline segments -- this would be inconsistent with their MO. Past activity by itself does not indicate that someone is responsible; you have to show that they committed the act in question. Think of it the way you would a court case: it doesn't matter if someone accused of theft has a previous theft conviction unless you can show that they were spotted at the scene at the time the theft took place. Otherwise, police could use this as an excuse to scapegoat ex-cons.

Coincidences like timing and activists' past histories give you reason to investigate the circumstances of an incident like this. They don't provide the real answer.

 

[brycejones]

They didn't admit to this specific act, and they've made a point of targeting empty pipeline segments -- this would be inconsistent with their MO. Past activity by itself does not indicate that someone is responsible; you have to show that they committed the act in question. Think of it the way you would a court case: it doesn't matter if someone accused of theft has a previous theft conviction unless you can show that they were spotted at the scene at the time the theft took place. Otherwise, police could use this as an excuse to scapegoat ex-cons.

Coincidences like timing and activists' past histories give you reason to investigate the circumstances of an incident like this. They don't provide the real answer.

Tajbot still has not denied involvement looks like he is trying to find some patsies for a crime he hasn’t denied being involved with.

 

[SlowSpyder]

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Fair enough when will I see these thousands of jobs and how long will these thousands of jobs last?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Fair enough when will I see these thousands of jobs and how long will these thousands of jobs last?

Don't know, maybe he's including all the police and such required to help keep the protesters at bay.

 

[brycejones]

Don't know, maybe he's including all the police and such required to help keep the protesters at bay.

Weak sauce even for you

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Don't know, maybe he's including all the police and such required to help keep the protesters at bay.

So no idea, is it safe assume if two years from now we don't have thousands of jobs from this pipeline the statement was in accurate?

 

[sdifox]

...
I have thrown bricks smarter than you. Keystone phase 4 does not replace 1, 2 and 3.

Also, Phase 1 was completed in June 2010, just over seven year old.

 

[Thebobo]

Lol good for environment.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Lol good for environment.

To be honest, I understand the concerns about the pipeline. I think the tribal land and the Native Americans' wishes should be considered. That being said, people being automatically against the pipeline because Trump is for it is silly. One way or another, we're going to consume this oil, it needs to get to its destination. Whether by sea, over roads, by rail, or by pipeline there are risks and impact to the environment to take into consideration.

 

[SlowSpyder]

...
I have thrown bricks smarter than you. Keystone phase 4 does not replace 1, 2 and 3.

Also, Phase 1 was completed in June 2010, just over seven year old.

The pipeline was commissioned in 2010, so that'd make Phase 1 by definition the old part of the pipeline. Seems like more reason to put money into the project. Also, looks like Phase 4 and Phase 1 have the same origin and destination...

 

[Thebobo]

To be honest, I understand the concerns about the pipeline. I think the tribal land and the Native Americans' wishes should be considered. That being said, people being automatically against the pipeline because Trump is for it is silly. One way or another, we're going to consume this oil, it needs to get to its destination. Whether by sea, over roads, by rail, or by pipeline there are risks and impact to the environment to take into consideration.

Your assumption people are against the pipeline just because of trump is incorrect. The people who are against it were against it for years during the Obama Administration. If Hillary had decided to go with the Keystone folks would be just as outraged. You understand that now? correct?

Your statement on who is consuming the oil is wrong. This oil is not going to our furnaces or vehicles in the USA it's being sent to refineries along the coast so it can be sent to other countries. All so foreign corporations can make more money. Meanwhile these foreign corporations used eminent domain on american citizens to steal their land and do harm to our environment for their profit. I would think the nationalism in the right would be against eminent domain specify from a non american entity. You understand that now? This is a bad deal, this does not make america great. It just makes the rich richer.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Fair enough when will I see these thousands of jobs and how long will these thousands of jobs last?

iirc it was like 30 permanent jobs.

 

[sdifox]

The pipeline was commissioned in 2010, so that'd make Phase 1 by definition the old part of the pipeline. Seems like more reason to put money into the project. Also, looks like Phase 4 and Phase 1 have the same origin and destination...

Same origin and dest <> replacement... 7 year vs 50 year service life...

 

[unseenmorbidity]

To be honest, I understand the concerns about the pipeline. I think the tribal land and the Native Americans' wishes should be considered. That being said, people being automatically against the pipeline because Trump is for it is silly. One way or another, we're going to consume this oil, it needs to get to its destination. Whether by sea, over roads, by rail, or by pipeline there are risks and impact to the environment to take into consideration.

Or we could ya know, transition away from fossil fuels...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Or we could ya know, transition away from fossil fuels...

I agree. But that's neither here nor there. The demand is there for this oil, having redundant lines or a secondary line that reduce wear on Phase1 isn't a bad idea. We should, as a longer term goal, be looking to cleaner renewable sources of energy. There is a very good chance, that somewhere along the way, your opinion was posted to me with the help of fossil fuels, at least partly, powering your device and the network / datacenter for the AT's server. So should we just push current infrastructure beyond its capacity for those fossil fuels, or look at safer ways of delivery?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Same origin and dest <> replacement... 7 year vs 50 year service life...

Name one method of delivery of oil that has never had a spill or mishap.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I agree. But that's neither here nor there. The demand is there for this oil, having redundant lines or a secondary line that reduce wear on Phase1 isn't a bad idea. We should, as a longer term goal, be looking to cleaner renewable sources of energy. There is a very good chance, that somewhere along the way, your opinion was posted to me with the help of fossil fuels, at least partly, powering your device and the network / datacenter for the AT's server. So should we just push current infrastructure beyond its capacity for those fossil fuels, or look at safer ways of delivery?

If after 9/11 we had spent the money we wasted on pointless wars and occupation on renewable energy, then we would already have a mostly green power grid.

The issue is that the fossil fuel industry owns, at least partially, the politicians, and therefore the govt.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If after 9/11 we had spent the money we wasted on pointless wars and occupation on renewable energy, then we would already have a mostly green power grid.

The issue is that the fossil fuel industry owns, at least partially, the politicians, and therefore the govt.

I agree with us going to Afghanistan, I get why we did that and think its justifiable. Iraq was a war built on lies that wasted trillions of dollars. I can think of 100 different ways that money could have been spent better, and that's not even getting into how many more innocent people would be alive today. Just a reminder, Hillary voted for the Iraq war, Trump called it a disaster and said we shouldn't have gone.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I agree with us going to Afghanistan, I get why we did that and think its justifiable. Iraq was a war built on lies that wasted trillions of dollars. I can think of 100 different ways that money could have been spent better, and that's not even getting into how many more innocent people would be alive today. Just a reminder, Hillary voted for the Iraq war, Trump called it a disaster and said we shouldn't have gone.

Talk is cheap. Trump is continuing the wars.... Scratch that, occupations.

EDIT: Actually, Idk if it's fair to say Trump is doing it. I'd bet my left nut that he isn't actually doing much of anything. He is just letting his cabinet do w/e the fuck it wants.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Talk is cheap. Trump is continuing the wars.... Scratch that, occupations.

EDIT: Actually, Idk if it's fair to say Trump is doing it. I'd bet my left nut that he isn't actually doing much of anything. He is just letting his cabinet do w/e the fuck it wants.

The last three presidents, D or R have. As much as I want us to wind down the occupations and stop being such a world cop type, I assume there is some reason that both blue and red administrations have kept a presence. Kind of a you break it you buy it? Well, Bush broke parts of the mideast.