General Discussion

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

270. True, Canada has no "right" ...

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 11:29 AM

Nov 2014

but there are two considerations: first, their "plan" is/was to transport the oil to the gulf coast for refining.

That was why (soon to be former) Senator Landrieu (and most other gulf coast politicians and a significant portion of gulf coast residents) favored(s) the project, i.e., refinery JOBS.

Secondly, there is no way to ban this particular oil, since we DO allow other filthy products, i.e., oil, to be transported by rail throughout this country ... unless you are suggesting starting a trade war with our neighbors to the North.

Again ... None of this response is me taking a position advocating for the pipeline, as I do not favor it ... (like MM) not for climate change reasons. Even "Bill Nye the Science Guy" (this morning on one of MSNBC talk shows) stated that killing this pipeline project will have little affect on climate change because, even without the pipeline, the oil will still be extracted, refined and will make it to market. My objection to the project is that we have yet to find an environmental safe method for transporting it ... pipelines leak, pipelines affect wildlife migratory patterns and train cars leak and crash.

Secondly, none of this response will convince anyone whose opinion on the pipeline starts and ends with the unlikely proposition that the oil should stay in the ground.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

299 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are you OK with the Democratic Congresspeople voting for the Keystone Pipeline? [View all] kentuck Nov 2014 OP

absolutely not. spanone Nov 2014 #1

nope. nashville_brook Nov 2014 #2

NO. truebluegreen Nov 2014 #3

Keystone is not a major factor for me, really. MineralMan Nov 2014 #4

I read that thread, and there were good comments in there... TreasonousBastard Nov 2014 #12

Yes. I'm not sure all of the opposition is fact-based. MineralMan Nov 2014 #16

Can you point out what part of the opposition you're not certain is fact-based? sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #66

:crickets: BeanMusical Nov 2014 #98

Bullshit! I was away from my computer. MineralMan Nov 2014 #112

You seem angry. BeanMusical Nov 2014 #142

I've been pretty clear on all of that. MineralMan Nov 2014 #110

Yes the people use the oil, just not in your country. arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #153

Yes, as clear as tar sands: BeanMusical Nov 2014 #171

I agree! To me the result is the same either way, using antiquated energy sources. That said, RKP5637 Nov 2014 #253

MM didn't say he wanted the oil transported ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #199

The US Government has no say in who takes over land in this country for the purpose of making sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #214

Maybe there has been a disconnect here ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #218

The point that is coming across to me is that oil will be transported across the US so rhett o rick Nov 2014 #226

I, mostly agree, ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #237

Good point. I agree. nm rhett o rick Nov 2014 #238

No one who understands this issue, this particular oil, can be agnostic about the pipeline. sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #245

Potential to lower fuel costs AnalystInParadise Nov 2014 #252

The flow of goods and services moved across the globe long before, what is going to be, the sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #257

LOL AnalystInParadise Nov 2014 #289

By "agnostic", I simply mean ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #267

So in essence what you are saying is that because we have already allowed some really bad sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #271

In a word ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #272

'Little' is better than nothing. But it will do more than a little to protect this environment. We sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #287

Canada has no right to transport shit over our nation. If they want to ship it China so bad then use TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #269

True, Canada has no "right" ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #270

I obviously don't give a fuck about their plan as I oppose it. TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #282

Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #283

In the real world water is required for life. You threaten the water you threaten life. TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #285

I agree ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #286

Hoping for magic future fixes does not address the actual threat no matter how well intentioned. TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #296

Then let Canada make a pipeline across their country. nt Mojorabbit Nov 2014 #259

They can ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #268

I was just reading about this on forbes Mojorabbit Nov 2014 #273

is your heat on? DeadEyeDyck Nov 2014 #216

Oil makes gasoline AnalystInParadise Nov 2014 #250

Get a horse, the world survived without cars that go 'vroom-vroom on the highway for sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #256

I don't want a horse AnalystInParadise Nov 2014 #288

Admittedly it takes a little skill to handle a horse. Anyone can handle a combustion engine. So I sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #291

LOL AnalystInParadise Nov 2014 #292

You can't hug a combustion engine! sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #293

Well you can AnalystInParadise Nov 2014 #294

Speak to my good mates in Quebec, the ones who arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #154

Without the pipeline, less of it will move. jeff47 Nov 2014 #19

The current low prices for crude won't last, and it will again MineralMan Nov 2014 #24

I'm not basing that on the current price. jeff47 Nov 2014 #29

Finally someone with knowledge. The problem isn't arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #157

I wholeheartedly agree Art_from_Ark Nov 2014 #158

He was light years ahead and people mocked arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #160

Create jobs for Koch and Calgary, thanks. The arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #156

Don't you mean Voice for Peace Nov 2014 #189

You are correct. A few CEO's benefit and that's arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #232

This is true, they will find a way to move the oil. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #140

one big difference unless it's my imagination between rail and pipeline Voice for Peace Nov 2014 #194

Correct. AND...invisibility of it is preferred by the owners and transporters. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #196

That's where I'm at. aikoaiko Nov 2014 #190

Thank you very much for that other thread ctaylors6 Nov 2014 #275

Will they say they are voting for the Keystone Pipeline because the people want and need it? L0oniX Nov 2014 #5

People want it... brooklynite Nov 2014 #73

Because they are misinformed. alarimer Nov 2014 #83

Perhaps so, but it puts a crimp in politician's ability to say no... brooklynite Nov 2014 #86

And yet many, many things with majority support from the people are simply ignored for years on end Bluenorthwest Nov 2014 #118

Not if the politician has a spine. nt arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #159

LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #202

Every American I know who supports KXL mistakenly thinks it will move American oil. SunSeeker Nov 2014 #205

Who paid for that poll? American Petroleum Institute? Octafish Nov 2014 #210

Which people, the Chinese? If you think it's arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #162

As far as I'm concerned this pipeline is an illegal immigrant. B Calm Nov 2014 #6

Will obama grant it ammensty Travis_0004 Nov 2014 #36

No I am not, at this point in time I am not OK with the Democratic party on the whole Autumn Nov 2014 #7

No. NV Whino Nov 2014 #8

Kindly explain WTF is so bad about yet another pipeline TreasonousBastard Nov 2014 #9

+1. It is also described as the end of all life on planet earth. I don't get it. FSogol Nov 2014 #14

Besides the dirty crap going over aquifer in Nebraska and Oklahoma.. kentuck Nov 2014 #15

So, Kocks are bad- so we must oppose- ignore the 100's of other pipelines being built snooper2 Nov 2014 #22

Some would say??? rpannier Nov 2014 #94

Very well said. joshdawg Nov 2014 #184

but, "intellectually weak" bobduca Nov 2014 #222

Because there are no pipes over it now... bobclark86 Nov 2014 #225

Yes I did rpannier Nov 2014 #233

Trains kill people more often. bobclark86 Nov 2014 #258

Yes, but we need to upgrade our rail lines cally Nov 2014 #280

I fully agree, but it's unlikely. bobclark86 Nov 2014 #297

Good post. Thank you. woo me with science Nov 2014 #265

OK, so the thing is to beat up on the Koch brothers... TreasonousBastard Nov 2014 #30

unlike the other pipelines, WE do not get the oil, We do not get the jobs larkrake Nov 2014 #21

You're overlooking what we do get LondonReign2 Nov 2014 #26

So Jefferson County Texas is not Louisiana AnalystInParadise Nov 2014 #254

There is a huge fresh water aquifer that it crosses right over. We do not have the technology to jwirr Nov 2014 #33

+1! Excellent post. Enthusiast Nov 2014 #52

Well said! MatthewStLouis Nov 2014 #56

It crosses over a small part of the High Plains Aquifer... TreasonousBastard Nov 2014 #133

This is dirty oil this time and there are many of us who do not want the farmers etc to continue jwirr Nov 2014 #169

Thank you for this information.... LovingA2andMI Nov 2014 #70

Your map is irrelevant to the topic rpannier Nov 2014 #97

That there are almost 200,000 miles... TreasonousBastard Nov 2014 #134

A Fairly decent argument on your part that failed at the end rpannier Nov 2014 #136

I can't believe you are thinking this is ok and I arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #150

I object! I live 20 minutes from Port Arthur, Texas where the Koch refinery will refine this extra Dustlawyer Nov 2014 #178

Its an artificial issue with no economic justification IronLionZion Nov 2014 #276

Nope 2naSalit Nov 2014 #10

That is a rapidly growing sentiment Jackpine Radical Nov 2014 #80

Indeed. 2naSalit Nov 2014 #91

No, and Hell NO! whathehell Nov 2014 #11

Well beyond not okay. n.t 99Forever Nov 2014 #13

Some believe that continually excusing Party betrayals of core constituencies Maedhros Nov 2014 #17

No way. It'll be bad for the environment. Louisiana1976 Nov 2014 #18

I'm very lucky to have JustAnotherGen Nov 2014 #20

No... FarPoint Nov 2014 #23

No. I am in MN and I doubt any of my reps are going to vote for it. jwirr Nov 2014 #25

Three did ISUGRADIA Nov 2014 #119

Nolan is my rep. The other two I do not have anything to do with. I am surprised at Nolan - he is jwirr Nov 2014 #121

I read that Senator Amy Klobuchar is going to vote for it. She needs to hear from you. Maineman Nov 2014 #172

Okay. I will do that right now. jwirr Nov 2014 #173

Done. jwirr Nov 2014 #176

That's not why I voted for them. So, no. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2014 #27

+1,000 malaise Nov 2014 #28

GOTV! whatchamacallit Nov 2014 #31

No, I am not. I will NOT forget. They vote for it, it's on their record, closeupready Nov 2014 #32

I see the Third Way pivot from denying it will happen to defending the pipeline is in progress. woo me with science Nov 2014 #34

Yep. It has begun in earnest. Union Scribe Nov 2014 #44

Exactly. That is their MO. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #89

Yep-- same play we've seen about 100 times now./nt Marr Nov 2014 #105

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. BrotherIvan Nov 2014 #144

Naw, man RufusTFirefly Nov 2014 #35

+1 wavesofeuphoria Nov 2014 #108

No. No. No. madashelltoo Nov 2014 #37

To those who say it will reduce gas prices, Mr.Bill Nov 2014 #38

I don't think there is anything congress can vote on. They have to have permits approved to refine t Sunlei Nov 2014 #39

They stink! vlyons Nov 2014 #40

No. The pipeline is a terrible infrastructure investment and money better spent on renewables on point Nov 2014 #41

What money? The pipeline isn't supposed to be built with taxpayer money. n/t hughee99 Nov 2014 #113

The money society has, public and private. The incentives are all wrong if this seems good on point Nov 2014 #116

NO !!! WillyT Nov 2014 #42

no La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2014 #43

kentuck, I'm bookmarking this thread so that DU will remember when it passes Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2014 #45

Agreed Iliyah Nov 2014 #81

Shit, I was writing & calling fucking McTurtle and the far worse Dumbing at least weekly for months TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #88

No, No, and No. Oh and did I say NO! nt Fla Dem Nov 2014 #46

Hell fucking no! ybbor Nov 2014 #47

No,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no. TNNurse Nov 2014 #48

Hell no CanonRay Nov 2014 #49

The pipeline does nothing for us, as a nation. And it could result in an environmental disaster. Enthusiast Nov 2014 #50

No.... irisblue Nov 2014 #51

No. And this very discussion is indicative of what is wrong with the party. hamsterjill Nov 2014 #53

No. I don't want my reps voting for the Koch brothers' dark money payday. MatthewStLouis Nov 2014 #54

No, but the betrayal is heaped on many such betrayals Tsiyu Nov 2014 #55

Yes and No. You have two questions. ffr Nov 2014 #57

No Jack Rabbit Nov 2014 #58

Just a rhetorical question: who remembers the 2013 Mayflower, Arkansas oil spill? MatthewStLouis Nov 2014 #59

No. Definitely not. H2O Man Nov 2014 #60

NO, NO, NO, NO!!! trueblue2007 Nov 2014 #61

We may want to ask ourselves is it better to continue to transport the oil by rail and road Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #62

Let the Canadians figure it out. Maybe they could ship it by rail to their coastline. B Calm Nov 2014 #96

Oh, yea that would fix the problem. In the meantime is it better to ship by rail or Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #107

Rail the toxic goo through Canada would be my choice. B Calm Nov 2014 #130

They can send it to Vancouver, and from there to China. grahamhgreen Nov 2014 #146

Perhaps it would be better to just shut down oil production worldwide,guess we could revert to horse Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #165

Renewables are already cheaper than oil. It's a fact. grahamhgreen Nov 2014 #230

I'm all for renewables for those who wants to do without the luxuries Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #231

Driving is cheaper with electric cars and renewable energy by a factor of 10! grahamhgreen Nov 2014 #239

I forgot, how do you charge electric cars? Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #241

If safety is your concern, then you should want to leave the tar sand in the ground grahamhgreen Nov 2014 #242

No democrank Nov 2014 #63

Yes. If the people want it. It's our country Boom Sound 416 Nov 2014 #64

No. 1monster Nov 2014 #65

No roody Nov 2014 #67

Absolutely NO! sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #68

Hypothetically, yes. In reality, no. pampango Nov 2014 #69

Hell no rosesaylavee Nov 2014 #71

As long as it is NOT PASSED pnwmom Nov 2014 #72

No! mckara Nov 2014 #74

whats in it for us?...payback for alaska oil pipeline in canada. shallwechat Nov 2014 #75

Not only no, Hell NO! onecaliberal Nov 2014 #76

FUCK NO! williesgirl Nov 2014 #77

Absolutely not MissDeeds Nov 2014 #78

Nope and no to Tester also LiberalArkie Nov 2014 #79

NO! ISW Nov 2014 #82

Ditto on the nopes Omaha Steve Nov 2014 #84

The problem is that this isn't a winning issue for Dems. Drunken Irishman Nov 2014 #85

The problem is the Dems haven't figured out HOW to make it a winning issue. Martin Eden Nov 2014 #92

The problem is the potential environmental disaster, and the fact that the only upside to the Marr Nov 2014 #106

+1 RufusTFirefly Nov 2014 #111

a-freakin-men!!! U4ikLefty Nov 2014 #260

Link to people who vote dem being for it, please. grahamhgreen Nov 2014 #147

Considering only 30% or so oppose it, it's a good bet a lot of Dem voters support it. Drunken Irishman Nov 2014 #148

So, it loses us votes, especially among those that sat out the last election. grahamhgreen Nov 2014 #151

It's the definition of a lose-lose political issue. Drunken Irishman Nov 2014 #217

NO. LWolf Nov 2014 #87

They're fucking cowards gwheezie Nov 2014 #90

Nope. BeanMusical Nov 2014 #93

no, but when it breaks onethatcares Nov 2014 #95

First of all this isn't crude florida08 Nov 2014 #99

No, old guy Nov 2014 #100

NO MFM008 Nov 2014 #101

I do not support the Keystone XL Pipeline. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2014 #102

No. That's one of the dumbest ideas ever. PDJane Nov 2014 #103

No. /nt Marr Nov 2014 #104

Nope. Ny abelenkpe Nov 2014 #109

HELL NO DonCoquixote Nov 2014 #114

Do red states deserve what they voted for? IronLionZion Nov 2014 #115

So, it's already there they just want a shorter one LeftInTX Nov 2014 #249

Oh yeah its there, they claim its not big enough IronLionZion Nov 2014 #255

No. nt awoke_in_2003 Nov 2014 #117

No. n/t GoCubsGo Nov 2014 #120

Not at all! tenderfoot Nov 2014 #122

No, absolutely not! Who do they think will benefit? Certainly not any of us! scarletwoman Nov 2014 #123

Fuck no. truebrit71 Nov 2014 #124

Its definitely not a deal breaker bhikkhu Nov 2014 #125

NO. n/t Triana Nov 2014 #126

No. I am not OK with that. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #127

Hell No! Kath1 Nov 2014 #128

Not Okay with that. i have been assured, though, that policy and issues do not matter as djean111 Nov 2014 #129

In no way,shape,or form. 99Forever Nov 2014 #131

No. n/t ms liberty Nov 2014 #132

Yes customerserviceguy Nov 2014 #135

NO! n/t tokenlib Nov 2014 #137

I'm ok with this pipeline sweetapogee Nov 2014 #138

Does it run through your water source? RiverLover Nov 2014 #164

we have a private well sweetapogee Nov 2014 #243

Are you also ok with global warming and corporate control of politicians? Maineman Nov 2014 #175

thanks! sweetapogee Nov 2014 #244

You like higher gasoline prices, and only more jobs to stop terrorists... cascadiance Nov 2014 #198

Only one way that it matters Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2014 #139

No and I'm extremely disheartened that they're even considering it. Rhiannon12866 Nov 2014 #141

No N O! Against Fossil fuels continuing and the damage that that project is doing and will do. glinda Nov 2014 #143

No. It's not even oil. It's tar sand. Highly abrasive. grahamhgreen Nov 2014 #145

Here are the 31 davidpdx Nov 2014 #149

No, but it's not a major issue for me. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #152

Nope. Iggo Nov 2014 #155

A vote for Keystone should be reason enought for removal from the Democratic Party IdiocracyTheNewNorm Nov 2014 #161

NO. & we will know they were purchased by Koch & Friends if they do. ~nt RiverLover Nov 2014 #163

It is none of our business, any more, how people vote once they get into office. djean111 Nov 2014 #166

Nope. fredamae Nov 2014 #167

No (nt) bigwillq Nov 2014 #168

Nordstrom's says they're better off without some customers. Similarly, the Democratic Party ... Scuba Nov 2014 #170

No. Maineman Nov 2014 #174

No! albino65 Nov 2014 #177

Hell No. n/t zentrum Nov 2014 #179

No Way LadyVV Nov 2014 #180

No...n/t obietiger Nov 2014 #181

Are you fucking kidding me? lonestarnot Nov 2014 #182

Not just no, but joshdawg Nov 2014 #183

No A Little Weird Nov 2014 #185

ABSOLUTELY NO. Voice for Peace Nov 2014 #186

No. Fearless Nov 2014 #187

Absolutely NOT... elzenmahn Nov 2014 #188

NO turbinetree Nov 2014 #191

And they wonder why Democratic turnout is so low... kentuck Nov 2014 #192

+1 Couldn't agree more! B Calm Nov 2014 #193

Yes, morons is appropriate. BeanMusical Nov 2014 #195

NO!!! When will politicians stand for the environment cally Nov 2014 #281

NO! Why should the rest of them want to lose for the same reason corporatists lost this election?! cascadiance Nov 2014 #197

Can we have their names? classykaren Nov 2014 #200

No. But I'm coming to the opinion that they don't care Cleita Nov 2014 #201

Keystone XL is why the Kochs spent many millions to buy the election Stainless Nov 2014 #203

Yes. I heard that show. It needs to be shouted far and wide. SunSeeker Nov 2014 #207

This pipeline will hurt middle class jobs, exactly why Democrats and Republicans want it whereisjustice Nov 2014 #204

No way in hell... nt G_j Nov 2014 #206

No. Greed is the opposite of Democratic. (NT) Octafish Nov 2014 #208

The world seems to have enough pipelines ecstatic Nov 2014 #209

No cantbeserious Nov 2014 #211

We need something like the NRA that scores votes.... Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2014 #212

Let me add to this chorus- NO! WestCoasterDude Nov 2014 #213

No way! Faux pas Nov 2014 #215

No if it endangers the aquifer in any way. Water is the most kiranon Nov 2014 #219

No, I am not happy Andy823 Nov 2014 #220

Hell No Piedras Nov 2014 #221

Are you okay with GOP congress voting to repeal the ACA, cheapdate Nov 2014 #223

right on still_one Nov 2014 #229

More Third Way talking points conveniently omitting Third Way corporate complicity. woo me with science Nov 2014 #234

Thanks woo... kentuck Nov 2014 #236

Yes, asserting that despite the Party's imperfections and disagreements cheapdate Nov 2014 #247

Thanks, kentuck. woo me with science Nov 2014 #251

Why exactly are you posting on Democratic Underground? cheapdate Nov 2014 #246

Insults. Is that all you've got? U4ikLefty Nov 2014 #261

In case you have any actual interest in this discussion, context is important. cheapdate Nov 2014 #263

Yup. woo me with science Nov 2014 #284

The pipeline is already built. joshcryer Nov 2014 #264

third way is different from blue dog IronLionZion Nov 2014 #266

+1, wish I could rec your post. /nt Marr Nov 2014 #298

Of course not. nt valerief Nov 2014 #224

No. mindem Nov 2014 #227

Only if it goes through their backyard. still_one Nov 2014 #228

It won't pass so it doesn't matter. craigmatic Nov 2014 #235

NO!! Segami Nov 2014 #240

I am completely opposed to it. femmocrat Nov 2014 #248

For the sake of my possible future grandchildren, no. herding cats Nov 2014 #262

The AFL-CIO and big labor in general is backing the Keystone Pipeline - so I suspect that many Douglas Carpenter Nov 2014 #274

No peacebird Nov 2014 #277

No. Absolutely NOT ok with it. eom BlueCaliDem Nov 2014 #278

NO, of course not. bowens43 Nov 2014 #279

No. I'm someone who bases my position mmonk Nov 2014 #290

Only if they move to within 2 miles of it Old Nick Nov 2014 #295

Disgust for sellouts and liars woo me with science Nov 2014 #299