General Discussion

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)

70. this is the last you have to say on it?

Reply to RB TexLa (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 08:21 AM

Feb 2015

2 posts in this thread?

you wanted to create a discussion but not participate in one on this topic.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I think the Keystone Pipeline veto was wrong. [View all] RB TexLa Feb 2015 OP

OK. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2015 #1

I disagree but tell me/us why you think it was wrong BlueJazz Feb 2015 #2

Because I think it should be built RB TexLa Feb 2015 #3

This was... onyourleft Feb 2015 #4

Would you allow it on your property? ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2015 #7

Why? uppityperson Feb 2015 #9

Do you have inventments in Canadian oil companies? arcane1 Feb 2015 #12

Do you have investments in trucking companies and railroads former9thward Feb 2015 #34

That Canadian oil is going to China. Do you have Chinese trucks and trains? arcane1 Feb 2015 #39

The oil is going everywhere. former9thward Feb 2015 #43

They won't. alarimer Feb 2015 #63

That's fine......as long as nothing flows through it. TheCowsCameHome Feb 2015 #20

Were you up for one of the 35 jobs it was going to create? Warpy Feb 2015 #29

It's like any construction job. There's a lot of jobs while it's being built. Calista241 Feb 2015 #31

It would likely hire a few hundred in new refinery jobs. joshcryer Feb 2015 #35

You are mistaken. It will be refined overseas closer to the point of use Warpy Feb 2015 #44

Nah, the Valero refinery can do 150kbpd from XL. joshcryer Feb 2015 #47

It probably will be built, and the veto was the right thing to do bhikkhu Feb 2015 #33

Rushed though? former9thward Feb 2015 #36

There are good reasons its been under study for years bhikkhu Feb 2015 #48

The final impact report is out. joshcryer Feb 2015 #51

He's using Bush's "national interest" EO to "stall." joshcryer Feb 2015 #49

It has been having the environmental and other studies mandated by law. The bill he vetoed pnwmom Feb 2015 #52

That was obvious from your OP, but you haven't made a case for your position. merrily Feb 2015 #58

this is the last you have to say on it? CreekDog Feb 2015 #70

Are you willing to have it run through your back yard over your water supply? Vinca Feb 2015 #71

The consistency of your circular reasoning is a comfort in these turbulent times. LanternWaste Feb 2015 #73

You probably are in the minority here. SheilaT Feb 2015 #5

LMAO! nt stillwaiting Feb 2015 #6

OP really wants China to get their oil. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2015 #8

I, along with the AFL-CIO, agree with you. Nye Bevan Feb 2015 #10

This union member disagrees. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2015 #11

That's because the environment is more important n/t arcane1 Feb 2015 #13

Seems fairly short sighted Egnever Feb 2015 #14

There might be a lot of jobs in oil spill cleanup. MH1 Feb 2015 #18

They'd probably be H1B jobs Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #59

The AFL-CIO isn't a monolith Starry Messenger Feb 2015 #27

Please show me were safeguards ever worked upaloopa Feb 2015 #32

Strict environmental Safeguards. Ah, there's the rub DFW Feb 2015 #42

Stupid hippies with their stupid breathable air, clean water, and fertile land over project jobs! TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #54

The horror of wanting clean air, drinking water HappyMe Feb 2015 #69

Your certainty is well-founded hatrack Feb 2015 #15

What's in it for America? sendero Feb 2015 #16

Nice hit and run. trumad Feb 2015 #17

The legislative branch was trying to usurp an executive branch power Motown_Johnny Feb 2015 #19

Thanks for that Important reminder, MJ.. that was obviously overlooked.. freaking republicons. Cha Feb 2015 #53

There is a better Kalidurga Feb 2015 #21

I agree Takket Feb 2015 #22

Thanks for your detailed explanation of why! LOL! nt Logical Feb 2015 #23

The Koch brothers would like to thank you for your support and also for your Elwood P Dowd Feb 2015 #24

link Electric Monk Feb 2015 #40

A subsidiary of Koch Industries. DFW Feb 2015 #45

So do republicans. nt RiverLover Feb 2015 #25

Your certainty is well founded jberryhill Feb 2015 #26

but would you drink with him? Kali Feb 2015 #28

Would you want it over your aquifer? or through your property? For reals? Hekate Feb 2015 #30

It is the right move long term JonLP24 Feb 2015 #37

Even Ed Schutz was "for it before he was against it." Chipper Chat Feb 2015 #38

Why do you think it should be built? What tremendous gain is in it for Canada and the USA? Rex Feb 2015 #41

Are we supposed to be surprised by your post? CreekDog Feb 2015 #46

It wasn't a veto of the Pipeline. It was a veto of the Republicans attempt to usurp his sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #50

It's eventually going to get built. This veto is politics, today, but nothing TwilightGardener Feb 2015 #55

Obama said its only a veto for now. Kablooie Feb 2015 #56

Because shitting in reservoirs is always right? n/t eridani Feb 2015 #57

The veto was the right thing to do Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #60

So you think it's okay for a foreign corporation to Ilsa Feb 2015 #61

veto was right. delaying approval/rejection is wrong alc Feb 2015 #62

You will be happy to know that the PIPELINE was not vetoed. djean111 Feb 2015 #64

You think it's okay for foreign businesses to use eminate domain to take your land? I know B Calm Feb 2015 #65

It's far safer to transport the stuff through pipelines. Better for the environment too. Yo_Mama Feb 2015 #66

and it's far safer for Americans for Canada to transport their filthy oil across their own country. B Calm Feb 2015 #67

Yep your wrong luckykate54 Feb 2015 #68

You're right about that. 99Forever Feb 2015 #72

hmm, I guess you really are in the minority here CreekDog Feb 2015 #74