Keystone XL pipeline - why the fuss?

[CADsortaGUY]

HSR is public $$$

KXL is EVIL private $$$

fixed?

 

[doubledeluxe]

In case nobody knows the USA is so far behind in infrastructure that developing nations are now ahead of us. We quite frankly stink.

INVEST IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE!

This project was dumb from the beginning.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

In case nobody knows the USA is so far behind in infrastructure that developing nations are now ahead of us. We quite frankly stink.

INVEST IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE!

This project was dumb from the beginning.

??? the investment in this project is private money. There is plenty of gov't cheese for other infrastructure.

 

[Bowfinger]

nice try but it's just not the facts. Look at the list you posted - it's not as cut and dry as you claim - not even close.

Yawn. Same old CAD. Never, ever, ever wrong ... about anything.

Your talking points "facts" notwithstanding, there is at least as much nuance in the Keystone issue as there is in the GOP-opposed issues I mention. Yes, Keystone creates a lot of jobs, and that's a good thing for however long it takes to complete the project. Plus for Keystone. It also is great for the bottom line of some companies, both Canadian and U.S. The drawbacks are the risk of contaminating a critical aquifer, the environmental damage of making it less expensive to add more CO2 to the atmosphere, the potential economic impact of moving oil from where it can marginally benefit the U.S. (specifically, the upper Midwest) to export ports where it will provide little benefit to us, and apparently the use of eminent domain to take private property for the benefit of those companies' bottom lines. Couple that with the outright dishonesty of its proponents, and it's perfectly rational to question whether it's in our interests or not.

Oh and I didn't say anything about "the left" or it being "unique" to you. Try reading instead of letting your knee fire right off.

You never did take that Sylvan class. Pity. If your reading comprehension was competent, you might recognize I was addressing xBiffx's nonsense. That's who I replied to before you butted in. So I first slapped down your usual duhversion, then returned to my original point: Biffy's comment was gratuitous partisan noise, completely ignoring the fact that both parties are selective in when they do and do not embrace the "will of the people." I'm sorry that this fact offends your RNC devotion, but I know you can soon ignore it and plow ahead in bliss.

 

[doubledeluxe]

??? the investment in this project is private money. There is plenty of gov't cheese for other infrastructure.

Where is this imaginary money you speak of?

 

[Bitek]

HSR is public $$$

KXL is private $$$

So are infrastructure jobs good or bad now? Just curious.

??? the investment in this project is private money. There is plenty of gov't cheese for other infrastructure.

Sounds like you can't decide.

Ebil public money creates ebil jobs and pork infrastructure right?

Private projects can only be good.


As said, I'm agnostic on the KXL issue, but at least I'm consistant. I'm not the ones decrying public spending on infrastructure projects, meanwhile falling over backwards to be an all-volunteer lobbyist army for some foriegn oil company, all on the basis it will spur a handful of American jobs too.

Seriously, what's the personal investment you all have in this?

Private engineering, materials and construction companies benefit and pay real wages when building private or public projects.

Good roads and transportation systems do far more for America than this silly pipeline. Private companies are negatively affected when they are losing time to market due to slow and inefficent American roads vs other developed and competing nations.

 

[Fern]

I think I asked this before, and can't remember the answer.

Why build a pipeline to Texas?
-snip-

The keystone (XL) pipeline now discussed only goes to Nebraska, not Texas.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I don't understand the benefit of this pipeline to the American people.

1. Build pipeline. At most a couple thousand temporary jobs building it.
2. Oil flows to Texas where they export it tax free? Am I reading this right?

So basically it does nothing to alleviate our dependence on hostile countries. It does not bring in tax revenue. It generates a handful of permanent positions and a few thousand temporary ones.

We would be far better off using this money to build better roads and infrastructure that matters to Americans.

IIRC, it's not being built with our money.

People complain about the jobs lasting only a couple of years and being temporary. Our stimulus was mostly about repaving roads. How long does a repaving job last? How long does a bridge construction job last? Those are equally as short term yet I hear no similar complaints.

Fern

 

[doubledeluxe]

Initially I agreed with you Fern. I didn't comment until a few days ago. The thing with this project is that it really doesn't benefit us. It does create a few temporary 2 year contracts. It creates 35 full time positions. They then are planning on exporting the oil tax free. It will do nothing for our oil consumption.

So basically the whole project revolves around companies wanting to build pipeline across half the US so they can skimp out on taxes.

 

[Fern]

Initially I agreed with you Fern. I didn't comment until a few days ago. The thing with this project is that it really doesn't benefit us. It does create a few temporary 2 year contracts. It creates 35 full time positions. They then are planning on exporting the oil tax free. It will do nothing for our oil consumption.

So basically the whole project revolves around companies wanting to build pipeline across half the US so they can skimp out on taxes.

I don't know, or claim, that it does anything for "our consumption". Oil is a global commodity, in that sense nothing about it does anything for just our consumption, but everything (e.g., foreign deposits discovered, the Saudi's increasing production) affects us, or our price.

The pipeline is just going to Nebraska; so it's much less than halfway across the US. However, it will be 'picking up' US oil in Montana etc. I'm hearing that 15% of the oil will be US sourced.

I suppose benefits for us include:

- Freeing up rail transport/truck shipping capacity.

- About $55-138 million (depending on the source of info) in increased revenue from annual real estate taxes for the counties the pipeline extension passes through.

- A bunch of revenue from the increase in jobs etc even if only for a few years.

- Helps out US refiners who use the Keystone oil instead of more expensive shipments from Venezuela etc.

Yeah, the oil is exported from a tax free zone. I haven't had time to research it, but at first glance it would seem the reselling of the oil/gas to overseas customers is the tax free part. But I'm not sure that the Canadian companies' profit on the initial sale to those companies located in the tax free zone is tax free. I.e., we may get some income tax revenue from the oil traveling through the US in the pipeline.

The main opposition seems to be environmental and focuses on the 'dirty' of the oil. Government reports indicate that CO2 will be lessened by the pipeline so the environmental concerns seem irrational. They seem to be hoping that killing the pipeline will deter Canadian oil production. That's just not going to happen. The thing's been delayed for, what, 6 years now and it hasn't deterred Canadian production.

It's not a huge issue for me, but as I see no legitimate reason for opposition I support it.

Fern

 

[doubledeluxe]

Although your first point of freeing up rail and roads might be valid I used to depend on freight forwarders for my business and the only time I had a hard time getting a container was due to seasonal things like cotton picking season. So I'm not sure oil is that big a deal. Granted oil is not shipped by container but I never was told that there were not enough trucks or trains. Just not enough containers. Our rails and roads give priority to perishable goods too so oil is never going to get a priority as far as I know. This might be a problem to those making their money on oil but it does not affect me or you.

No clue about the taxes. That's news to me. How much of that is offset by people having to give up land due to imminent domain? I don't mean in a dollars and cents way but basically isn't that number just saying that they are taking land away from people so that they can tax others more?

When it comes to jobs I just feel that if that was really a concern for people then they would build new roads and bridges. Granted I would never argue against these temporary jobs but what has been billed to us is that it would generate so many jobs. No it won't. They over inflated the jobs numbers significantly. The US government estimated it would be a tiny fraction of what was claimed.

As far as helping out refineries I would much rather help them out by investing our time and energy into alternative energy rather than tar sand oil. That's just my personal opinion though. Have you seen anything that indicates that it's better for us to use tar sand oil than just using Venezuelan oil across the gulf? If you were to instead say it would reduce our dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia I would be all ears but that's not the case at all. All this pipeline does is allow oil companies to export oil tax free. It's not being used to reduce our dependence on anyone.

 

[Bitek]

I don't know, or claim, that it does anything for "our consumption". Oil is a global commodity, in that sense nothing about it does anything for just our consumption, but everything (e.g., foreign deposits discovered, the Saudi's increasing production) affects us, or our price.

The pipeline is just going to Nebraska; so it's much less than halfway across the US. However, it will be 'picking up' US oil in Montana etc. I'm hearing that 15% of the oil will be US sourced.

I suppose benefits for us include:

- Freeing up rail transport/truck shipping capacity.

- About $55-138 million (depending on the source of info) in increased revenue from annual real estate taxes for the counties the pipeline extension passes through.

- A bunch of revenue from the increase in jobs etc even if only for a few years.

- Helps out US refiners who use the Keystone oil instead of more expensive shipments from Venezuela etc.

Yeah, the oil is exported from a tax free zone. I haven't had time to research it, but at first glance it would seem the reselling of the oil/gas to overseas customers is the tax free part. But I'm not sure that the Canadian companies' profit on the initial sale to those companies located in the tax free zone is tax free. I.e., we may get some income tax revenue from the oil traveling through the US in the pipeline.

The main opposition seems to be environmental and focuses on the 'dirty' of the oil. Government reports indicate that CO2 will be lessened by the pipeline so the environmental concerns seem irrational. They seem to be hoping that killing the pipeline will deter Canadian oil production. That's just not going to happen. The thing's been delayed for, what, 6 years now and it hasn't deterred Canadian production.

It's not a huge issue for me, but as I see no legitimate reason for opposition I support it.

Fern

I think for some that is true, for a whole lot more it's just a negotiating tactic. The truth is the GOP is not getting this for free, and certainly not by strongarming Obama. They can go f themselves, he's got the veto.

So they need to deal. They get KXL, they need to give in on something. Sen Markey is out there pushing renewable E credits that the GOP has been holding up.

Perhaps that, maybe something else. Either way, pull up to the table and deal. That's what it's been about all this time.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yawn. Same old CAD. Never, ever, ever wrong ... about anything.

Your talking points "facts" notwithstanding, there is at least as much nuance in the Keystone issue as there is in the GOP-opposed issues I mention. Yes, Keystone creates a lot of jobs, and that's a good thing for however long it takes to complete the project. Plus for Keystone. It also is great for the bottom line of some companies, both Canadian and U.S. The drawbacks are the risk of contaminating a critical aquifer, the environmental damage of making it less expensive to add more CO2 to the atmosphere, the potential economic impact of moving oil from where it can marginally benefit the U.S. (specifically, the upper Midwest) to export ports where it will provide little benefit to us, and apparently the use of eminent domain to take private property for the benefit of those companies' bottom lines. Couple that with the outright dishonesty of its proponents, and it's perfectly rational to question whether it's in our interests or not.


You never did take that Sylvan class. Pity. If your reading comprehension was competent, you might recognize I was addressing xBiffx's nonsense. That's who I replied to before you butted in. So I first slapped down your usual duhversion, then returned to my original point: Biffy's comment was gratuitous partisan noise, completely ignoring the fact that both parties are selective in when they do and do not embrace the "will of the people." I'm sorry that this fact offends your RNC devotion, but I know you can soon ignore it and plow ahead in bliss.

Ah right... when shown wrong you claim the other guy won't admit anything. Same old BS from leftist(who claims to be independent)...

Yes, there are environmental concerns - I've never stated there wasn't, however they are trivial at best. As you have seen posted in this thread there are thousands of miles already buried, this is a rather small increase relative to the existing piping.
"the environmental damage of making it less expensive to add more CO2 to the atmosphere" Are you infuckingsane? The oil is going to be exported one way or another and currently it's putting much more co2 into the atmosphere due to not having the pipeline.
eminent domain sucks - I don't like it any more than you do. I believe we need to change it. however, current law allows for it.
"outright dishonesty" oh really? so these unnamed dishonest things people are saying hurt your feelings?
The debate shouldn't even be this big. It should have been built years ago but has been held up by BHO and you leftists. YOU people made this into more than it should have been. Again this isn't gov't monies building it so there is no reason to debate whether we do or don't benefit from it IMO. This is a private/corp issue - not one for the President to be holding up.

I never needed to take remedial comprehension, but if you would have as suggested years ago you'd have known better than to reply to me using quotes I never stated. You should have addressed those concerns with him. Do better next time.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The keystone (XL) pipeline now discussed only goes to Nebraska, not Texas.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The other sections of the Keystone are already completed. The portion under discussion, the XL, only goes to Nebraska.

On your illustration it's the blue dotted line that terminates in Steele City, Nebraska.

Fern

 

[cubby1223]

Bottom line is we don't need it.

There is already a pipeline that has excess capacity.
It could be decades until that excess is reached.

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/proj_docs/index.htm

The only reason they want to go to Texas is because the area is a trade free zone and they can sell the oil to China and other countries.

And if it doesn't hit the export market by way of paying the U.S. as it's transported through, the product will head out without any revenues to the U.S.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/canada-oks-oil-pipeline-pacific-coast

The options with the Keystone pipeline is either act now and gain something, or not act and lose. Canada is not a land-locked nation. The oil will be exported across the globe, the only question is will the U.S. be the recipient of any monies as the oil leaves Canada?

 

[Bowfinger]

Ah right... when shown wrong you claim the other guy won't admit anything. ...

Shown? ROFLMAO! You showed us literally nothing. You just waved you hands and made two totally unsupported claims, that the Keystone issue is "cut and dry" and that the eight issues I mentioned are all "vague". That's it, your empty declaration without any evidence of any sort. (And you couldn't address even one of the eight issues I listed. instead creating a straw man about immigration. Fail.) I realize you are used to listening to some wing-nut blowhard spouting random talking points and accepting them as gospel, but we intelligent, reasoning people have a higher standard. We expect facts and sound reasoning. You offered neither.

Yes, there are environmental concerns ...

Good. So you recognize Keystone is not so "cut and dry."

however they are trivial at best.

There's another one of those unsupported talking points you blindly accept as gospel.

As you have seen posted in this thread there are thousands of miles already buried, this is a rather small increase relative to the existing piping.

Completely specious argument. If 100 "xyzs" are bad, adding yet another "xyz" doesn't magically make it good. (I realize that argument is too abstract for you, so try substituting "regulations" or "taxes" for "xyz.") Further, not all pipelines are the same. They come in different sizes, cross different areas, and carry different products. It doesn't matter how many pipelines there are or are not today. Keystone needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

"the environmental damage of making it less expensive to add more CO2 to the atmosphere" Are you infuckingsane? The oil is going to be exported one way or another and currently it's putting much more co2 into the atmosphere due to not having the pipeline.

How predictably convenient that you skipped over the heart of this concern, "making it less expensive." If one increases a product's expenses, there are two options: increase prices or cut profits. Increasing prices makes the product less desirable to customers. Decreasing profits makes the product less desirable to owners. In either case, competing products (e.g., cleaner energy) become more desirable and more competitive. That's cut and dry Economics.

And speaking of convenient skipping, you skipped this point entirely:

"the potential economic impact of moving oil from where it can marginally benefit the U.S. (specifically, the upper Midwest) to export ports where it will provide little benefit to us..."
​

No worries. I'll give you a couple of days to find a talking point for it.

eminent domain sucks - I don't like it any more than you do. I believe we need to change it. however, current law allows for it.

It's a question of what's right, not what's legal. But it is good to see you recognize another reason the Keystone issue in hardly cut and dry.

"outright dishonesty" oh really?

Sure, like "Keystone Jobs Bill" and all the dishonest innuendo about making America energy independent and lowering our energy costs. Those kinds of lies.

so these unnamed dishonest things people are saying hurt your feelings?

Wow, you're getting more and more stupid every year. It has zero to do with feelings. It's about being skeptical when liars are trying to sell you something. It's funny how you have no problem understanding this simple concept when listening to "leftists" (LOL), but become gullible as a child when it's your guys lying.

The debate shouldn't even be this big. It should have been built years ago but has been held up by BHO and you leftists. YOU people made this into more than it should have been.

Yawn. Still more of those talking points you gulp so eagerly.

Oh, and for the record, I'm also fairly agnostic about it. Jobs are good but environmental damage is bad. I don't have enough factual data to accurately weigh the two against each other. I was simply pointing out how Biff's comment about the will of the public was stupidly partisan. Then you bungled in.

Again this isn't gov't monies building it so there is no reason to debate whether we do or don't benefit from it IMO. This is a private/corp issue - not one for the President to be holding up.

At least you recognize that it's only your opinion and not fact. Good job. In contrast, I very much think it is the government's responsibility to weigh private benefit against public harm to determine whether such projects are net positives or net negatives for society.

I never needed to take remedial comprehension, but if you would have as suggested years ago you'd have known better than to reply to me using quotes I never stated. You should have addressed those concerns with him. Do better next time.

Get over yourself, child. First, I factually did not reply to you using "quotes" you never stated. That's a lie, cut and dry. My point, in the post to which you replied, was that ignoring the will of the public is not unique to either party. You habitually duhvert discussion away from such points which you cannot attack, but I have no obligation to accept your tangents. My point re. Biff's comment stands, and I'll repeat it and reinforce it whenever I damn well please. If you can't handle that, feel free to start your own forum where you can unleash your control freak.

Buh bye.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And if it doesn't hit the export market by way of paying the U.S. as it's transported through, the product will head out without any revenues to the U.S.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/canada-oks-oil-pipeline-pacific-coast

The options with the Keystone pipeline is either act now and gain something, or not act and lose. Canada is not a land-locked nation. The oil will be exported across the globe, the only question is will the U.S. be the recipient of any monies as the oil leaves Canada?

Should have read the whole article:

"The fear of oil spills is especially acute in the pristine corner of northwest British Columbia, with its snowcapped mountains and deep ocean inlets. Canadians living there still remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark set out five conditions for British Columbia's support, and on Tuesday she repeated her contention that those conditions have yet to be met. Harper will have win support in British Columbia where he'll want to preserve the 21 seats he has there. The British Columbia government can deny permits. Aboriginals could also get in the way of construction trucks."

And

"Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Grand Chief Stewart Phillip said aboriginal people will blockade any attempt by Enbridge to start work. A statement issued by a broad coalition of British Columbia aboriginal groups vowed that they would "defend our territories whatever the costs may be."


As someone who lives in British Columbia I can tell you that there is tremendous resistance in the province to both the Enbridge pipeline and the proposed twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline to the West Coast. And that resistance runs through the whole province and through pretty much all sectors of the population.

Last polls that I've seen indicate that it's roughly 70% against the Enbridge line.

 

[trenchfoot]

Should have read the whole article:

"The fear of oil spills is especially acute in the pristine corner of northwest British Columbia, with its snowcapped mountains and deep ocean inlets. Canadians living there still remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark set out five conditions for British Columbia's support, and on Tuesday she repeated her contention that those conditions have yet to be met. Harper will have win support in British Columbia where he'll want to preserve the 21 seats he has there. The British Columbia government can deny permits. Aboriginals could also get in the way of construction trucks."

And

"Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Grand Chief Stewart Phillip said aboriginal people will blockade any attempt by Enbridge to start work. A statement issued by a broad coalition of British Columbia aboriginal groups vowed that they would "defend our territories whatever the costs may be."


As someone who lives in British Columbia I can tell you that there is tremendous resistance in the province to both the Enbridge pipeline and the proposed twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline to the West Coast. And that resistance runs through the whole province and through pretty much all sectors of the population.

Last polls that I've seen indicate that it's roughly 70% against the Enbridge line.

If that happened in the USA, I'd have little hope that the kind of regional resistance described in your post would persevere against our thoroughly corrupted federal political apparatus and the blatantly obvious bias our USSC has for their kindred spirits in big business/big oil. The Bush-Cheney NLC made sure of that before leaving office.

It would be very interesting to see how British Columbia fares with their efforts long term.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Shown? ROFLMAO! You showed us literally nothing. You just waved you hands and made two totally unsupported claims, that the Keystone issue is "cut and dry" and that the eight issues I mentioned are all "vague". That's it, your empty declaration without any evidence of any sort. (And you couldn't address even one of the eight issues I listed. instead creating a straw man about immigration. Fail.) I realize you are used to listening to some wing-nut blowhard spouting random talking points and accepting them as gospel, but we intelligent, reasoning people have a higher standard. We expect facts and sound reasoning. You offered neither.

Ah yes, same old tired BS from bowfinger. still can't admit your other issues are vague and that this is pretty damn cut and dry(as much as one can get these days anyway)

Good. So you recognize Keystone is not so "cut and dry."

Except it is. Just because there are some minor concerns doesn't mean the issue isn't cut and dry.

There's another one of those unsupported talking points you blindly accept as gospel.



Completely specious argument. If 100 "xyzs" are bad, adding yet another "xyz" doesn't magically make it good. (I realize that argument is too abstract for you, so try substituting "regulations" or "taxes" for "xyz.") Further, not all pipelines are the same. They come in different sizes, cross different areas, and carry different products. It doesn't matter how many pipelines there are or are not today. Keystone needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

Never said it shouldn't be evaluated on it's own merits. It has been and it's no worse than any of the other pipes in the ground, in fact due to newer tech may likely be safer than the other thousands of miles of pipe in the ground.

How predictably convenient that you skipped over the heart of this concern, "making it less expensive." If one increases a product's expenses, there are two options: increase prices or cut profits. Increasing prices makes the product less desirable to customers. Decreasing profits makes the product less desirable to owners. In either case, competing products (e.g., cleaner energy) become more desirable and more competitive. That's cut and dry Economics.

and it's fairly irrelevant in this case the oil will be put on the market one way or another as it currently is. It is polluting more(you GW believers should hate this, no?) by not having the pipeline completed.

And speaking of convenient skipping, you skipped this point entirely:

"the potential economic impact of moving oil from where it can marginally benefit the U.S. (specifically, the upper Midwest) to export ports where it will provide little benefit to us..."
​

No worries. I'll give you a couple of days to find a talking point for it.

??? if the pipeline isn't completed and the Canadians build their own - there is ZERO benefit to the US. Sheesh, it's not that hard of concept to understand.

It's a question of what's right, not what's legal. But it is good to see you recognize another reason the Keystone issue in hardly cut and dry.

"right"? this is about the law. If you don't believe the law is "right" then work to change it. Holding up the pipeline due to your feelings doesn't come close to becoming a point against it.

Sure, like "Keystone Jobs Bill" and all the dishonest innuendo about making America energy independent and lowering our energy costs. Those kinds of lies.

Will it create jobs? I've not heard the "America energy independent" claim. More oil on the market can lower it's price(didn't you just argue this above?).

Wow, you're getting more and more stupid every year. It has zero to do with feelings. It's about being skeptical when liars are trying to sell you something. It's funny how you have no problem understanding this simple concept when listening to "leftists" (LOL), but become gullible as a child when it's your guys lying.

lol so your feelings(being skeptical) is a point against it? lol again you have nothing- just feelings against it.

Yawn. Still more of those talking points you gulp so eagerly.

Oh, and for the record, I'm also fairly agnostic about it. Jobs are good but environmental damage is bad. I don't have enough factual data to accurately weigh the two against each other. I was simply pointing out how Biff's comment about the will of the public was stupidly partisan. Then you bungled in.

Ah right, agnostic.. I jumped in when you tried to equate this issue with issues that have a much broader spectrum of opinions. Those issues aren't even close to the same as this one.

At least you recognize that it's only your opinion and not fact. Good job. In contrast, I very much think it is the government's responsibility to weigh private benefit against public harm to determine whether such projects are net positives or net negatives for society.

ofcourse you do. You leftists love to make sure the gov't gets to tell everyone what is good for them. Net positive or negative to society? This is a private thing - society has nothing to do with it.

Get over yourself, child. First, I factually did not reply to you using "quotes" you never stated. That's a lie, cut and dry. My point, in the post to which you replied, was that ignoring the will of the public is not unique to either party. You habitually duhvert discussion away from such points which you cannot attack, but I have no obligation to accept your tangents. My point re. Biff's comment stands, and I'll repeat it and reinforce it whenever I damn well please. If you can't handle that, feel free to start your own forum where you can unleash your control freak.

Buh bye.

Actually you did use quotes. See below:

Irony


The only thing that's simple is your blind partisanship. All of the issues I listed are just as "cut and dry" as Keystone (or more accurately, comparably nuanced). (And I did NOT include immigration reform precisely because it is not nearly so "cut and dry" as the issues I did list.) To suggest that "the left" is somehow unique in discounting public opinion when it contradicts their agenda is pure partisan hackery.

lol well it's nice to see you still can't handle being challenged on your claims. I'm not surprised as most leftists like you can't. Someday you might try to use something other than feelings to back your claims. Again - your reply to biff was inaccurate and was challenged by me. This issue is pretty cut and dry whereas the topics you brought up clearly aren't. Anyway we'll just leave it where it is since you clearly can't handle being challenged.

 

[xBiffx]

LOL. Now that I've read the back and forth (and CAD's replies), it appears that Bowfinger replied to a comment of mine and that's what started this. Hilarious considering he is on ignore, and he knows it.

Keep fighting the good fight there Toolfinger and keep on projecting, as usual. :thumbsup:

 

[xBiffx]

Oh and Toolfinger, now that I went back and read CAD's reply allowing me to see yours all I can say is CAD was right, that was a failed attempt at DUHversion.

For one, like CAD said, those other issues aren't so simple. For another, nowhere did I say that the right isn't guilty of ignoring the will of the people. But since this thread is about KXL and not all of those other issues, my comment is on topic, unlike your nonsense response.

 

[cabri]

Sounds like you can't decide.

Ebil public money creates ebil jobs and pork infrastructure right?

Private projects can only be good.


As said, I'm agnostic on the KXL issue, but at least I'm consistant. I'm not the ones decrying public spending on infrastructure projects, meanwhile falling over backwards to be an all-volunteer lobbyist army for some foriegn oil company, all on the basis it will spur a handful of American jobs too.

Seriously, what's the personal investment you all have in this?

Private engineering, materials and construction companies benefit and pay real wages when building private or public projects.

Good roads and transportation systems do far more for America than this silly pipeline. Private companies are negatively affected when they are losing time to market due to slow and inefficent American roads vs other developed and competing nations.

HSR takes $$ away from the Good Roads & transportation system upgrades that are drastically needed.

Get the existing system up to snuff and maintainable; then look at the fluff.

 

[K1052]

HSR takes $$ away from the Good Roads & transportation system upgrades that are drastically needed.

Get the existing system up to snuff and maintainable; then look at the fluff.

HSR was funded outside the existing transportation pot, which itself is wildly insufficient to meet even our current needs. There are hundreds of billions worth of needed infrastructure repairs/upgrades to the exising stuff that nobody wants to talk about until something catastophic happens.

 

[hal2kilo]

HSR was funded outside the existing transportation pot, which itself is wildly insufficient to meet even our current needs. There are hundreds of billions worth of needed infrastructure repairs/upgrades to the exising stuff that nobody wants to talk about until something catastophic happens.

Yep, the Minnesota bridge colapse is just the tip of the iceberg to come.