If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Spectator)   Chuck Schumer to Canada: Just what do you think you're doing selling fuel to China? Canada: This pipeline of ours? Like your boss says, you didn't build that. We did. And Tim Horton's kicks Dunkin Donuts' ASS   (spectator.org) divider line 299
    More: Dumbass, Chuck Schumer, Tim Hortons, C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America, foreign corporation, Dunkin' Donuts, energy security, South China Sea, energy development  
•       •       •

6706 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2012 at 8:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



299 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-05 08:45:30 PM

Gyrfalcon: Mrtraveler01: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

That's what I've been trying to tell them!

But nooo, no one would believe Mrtraveler01.

I'm starting the Cassandra Club, you want to join?


What does the Cassandra Club do?
 
2012-08-05 08:46:01 PM

whatsupchuck: I got as far as the part where the author claims Obama blocked Keystone and realized this was going to be another load of AS horseshiat.


Blocked, didn't immediately rubber stamp without going through the regular process. You say tom-ay-to, they say hates America.
 
2012-08-05 08:47:37 PM
FTFA: "Here's the setup. Last week the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) offered $15 billion to buy Nexen, a Canadian drilling company with large holdings in the Athabasca Tar Sands of Alberta, which is rapidly becoming Canada's pot of gold in energy development. Now it so happens that only six months ago the Canadians were planning to ship nearly all of this newly developed oil to Texas via the Keystone Pipeline. Environmentalists, however, swore the pipeline would be built over their dead bodies and President Obama, not wanting to be left with no natural constituencies except single mothers and minorities, decided to appease environmentalists and block the pipeline."

Seriously you have to be a farking retard to read this kind of BS and take it seriously at all. Honestly how do these farktards expect anyone outside of a mouthbreathing conservative dumbass to take one thing they write seriously? P J O'Rourke and George Wil should be ashamed.to be associated with these douchebags.
 
2012-08-05 08:49:27 PM

LarryDan43: Canada is going about oil extraction in the derpiest way possible.

Norway, Saudi Arabia, and UAE collect between 70-80% of the revenue from oil extraction. Canada collects 10% of the revenue.

- Norways' oil fund (established in 1990) over 600 billion dollars;
- UAE's oil fund (established in the 70s) over 600 billion dollars;
- The Saudi's oil fund is at over 500 billion, but probably much more

Canada's oil fund = $0


None of those other countries have to squeeze it out of sand.
 
2012-08-05 08:49:32 PM
You know what else is the fault of liberals? The bad press Cthullu gets.
 
2012-08-05 08:50:00 PM

NEDM: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

But that makes no sense. You'd have to go halfway around the world to ship oil from Houston to China. I find it hard to believe that it was cheaper to build a pipeline across the country than it was to build a Canadian oil port on their west coast.


To go from the tar sands to BC, they'd need that pipeline to croass the northern section of the Rockies. Cheaper to pipe that oil across the relatively flat plains down to Houston, and tanker it through the Panama Canal from there.

Didn't Panama recently widen the canal to allow even more gigantic ships through?
 
2012-08-05 08:50:26 PM
Meche's > Dunkin and Tom Hortons. But it's a local brand. Tough titty for you guys.
 
2012-08-05 08:51:48 PM
If the global warming continues, Canada can tanker it over the top thru the new Northern route more directly to China.
 
2012-08-05 08:52:39 PM

Any Pie Left: Bears repeating, the pipeline was for export and the US wasn't going to see any oil out of it, and not that many jobs.

Another thing is, the tar sands may be generating plenty of money for the Canadians now, but it's also racking up a huge environmental cleanup cost after the party is over. The process to cook the oil out of the sand used metric shiattons of water, and the water coming out of the process is badly polluted. Only the scarcity of population up there allowed the process to even start; no civilized area would tolerate the environmental impacts.


why do you think it was for export? they had pipes that only lead off the continent? you realize they will sell to anyone willing to pay the most? they don;t give a f*ck if the oil goes into another pipeline or onto a boat. it isn't some special kind of an export crude.
and the chinese would have to pay a f*ck load more to get it home from houston than from canada's west coast.
so quit being a f*cking idiot.
 
2012-08-05 08:53:12 PM

Methadone Girls: NeedlesslyCanadian: Methadone Girls: ArkAngel: And Dunkin' Donuts is far superior to Tim Horton's

You take that back!! I've had coffee from Dunkin' Donuts and tossed it in the parking lot. How do you drink coffee from there? Bleh.

Timmies coffee is farking disgusting too. It's practically unthinkable, but McDonalds probably has the best fast-food coffee around.

I keep hearing that, but I can't get over the taste of the old McDonalds coffee. I had enough of that when my kids were little. bleh. Pro-tip: Playland on Sunday mornings is surprisingly empty



The worst coffee EVER was here.

i.imgur.com

I took my dad there for coffee after his surgery, as a treat. I was all excited because it had a cool Caribou on the coffee cups and I wanted to treat my Dad :( We are BIG coffee drinkers too and we took one drink and threw it in the trash. It was like drinking acid. Worst. Coffee. EVER.
 
2012-08-05 08:53:34 PM
Actually, who knows if that pipeline is even going to go ahead.

Given:
The environmental assessment still to go through (yeah I know the Cons will put their thumbs on the scales for that one)
The inevitable lawsuits brought by first nations for the pipeline going through their land
The BC govts attempts to find some balls and extort the Alberta govt for increased royalties. (pre-election posturing)
Public support for the pipeline leaking faster than the oil going the Enbridge's other pipelines

it will be awhile before this project gets to the laying pipe (hehe) phase. Probably after the next election, and who is to say what will happen there.

/Agree that we should be getting more royalties
//Tar sands oil is hella dirty
///"Ethical oil" is fictional concept invented by a right wing tard douchebag
 
2012-08-05 08:55:48 PM

Bonzo_1116: NEDM: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

But that makes no sense. You'd have to go halfway around the world to ship oil from Houston to China. I find it hard to believe that it was cheaper to build a pipeline across the country than it was to build a Canadian oil port on their west coast.

To go from the tar sands to BC, they'd need that pipeline to croass the northern section of the Rockies. Cheaper to pipe that oil across the relatively flat plains down to Houston, and tanker it through the Panama Canal from there.

Didn't Panama recently widen the canal to allow even more gigantic ships through?


Even the new Panamax can't handle VLCC oil traffic. That's why I was skeptical about it: To ship it through Houston, the tanker is going to have to go around Cape Horn or the Cape of Good Hope, and then cross the entire Pacific northbound or the Indian Ocean eastbound.
 
2012-08-05 08:56:53 PM

Mrtraveler01: Gyrfalcon: Mrtraveler01: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

That's what I've been trying to tell them!

But nooo, no one would believe Mrtraveler01.

I'm starting the Cassandra Club, you want to join?

What does the Cassandra Club do?


Tell the truth, and never be believed.

Also screw sun gods.
 
2012-08-05 08:57:06 PM
Not that the writers or readers of that rag actually care about unimportant things like "context" or "nuance" or, for that matter, "facts" BUT the main concern about the Keystone pipeline was that the planned route apparently took it over what is perhaps THE MOST important water supply for huge swaths of farmland that feeds a significant chunk of the world's population.

Most who had concerns (like me) weren't against the pipeline as a concept, we just wanted to see more research done to make sure that we wern't screwing ourselves out of a major food source if there was a major spill someday. Maybe reroute the line if need be. Oh, and also make sure the people forced to sell their land for the right-of-way weren't getting robbed.

The fact that so many Republicans suddenly started screaming "NOOOOOO!!! THE PIPELINE HAS TO BE BUILT STARING RIGHT THE FARK NOW OR THE TERRORISTS WIN!!!" also raised a lot of suspicion.

Yeah, there were and are people on the father left who think mining and "cracking" tar sands is too messy/wasteful/toxic so it (and the resulting pipeline) shouldn't be done at all, but those opinions were/are in a pretty small and non-influential minority.
 
2012-08-05 08:58:03 PM
Those tar sands amount to environmental suicide. What they're doing to that river and that whole area is gonna affect the entire continent in years to come. That kind of water usage is not sustainable. Not that it matters, our culture is diseased. As long as we get our flatscreens we don't care, we deserve the future we're creating.
 
2012-08-05 08:58:06 PM

Mrtraveler01: NEDM: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

But that makes no sense. You'd have to go halfway around the world to ship oil from Houston to China. I find it hard to believe that it was cheaper to build a pipeline across the country than it was to build a Canadian oil port on their west coast.

They're having a lot of local debate for a pipeline in that direction. But it's been clear for quite a while that Canada Harper wants its his tar sands oil on the international oil market and not just the United States.

While all this is going on, Enbridge is planning a third pipeline to Ontario, Quebec, and ultimately to Portland, ME to export oil across the Atlantic.

Link


Canadians for the most part are opposed to the pipelines. Most are in favour of a pipeline going down east. But that's because many of us would like to see the oil stay here so we can make money off of the value added product.
 
2012-08-05 08:58:38 PM

relcec: Any Pie Left: Bears repeating, the pipeline was for export and the US wasn't going to see any oil out of it, and not that many jobs.

Another thing is, the tar sands may be generating plenty of money for the Canadians now, but it's also racking up a huge environmental cleanup cost after the party is over. The process to cook the oil out of the sand used metric shiattons of water, and the water coming out of the process is badly polluted. Only the scarcity of population up there allowed the process to even start; no civilized area would tolerate the environmental impacts.

why do you think it was for export? they had pipes that only lead off the continent? you realize they will sell to anyone willing to pay the most? they don;t give a f*ck if the oil goes into another pipeline or onto a boat. it isn't some special kind of an export crude.
and the chinese would have to pay a f*ck load more to get it home from houston than from canada's west coast.
so quit being a f*cking idiot.


They would be able to get a lot more money selling it to China than they would selling it to North America for starters.

Harper even said as much:

Even if President Barack Obama approved the controversial Keystone XL pipeline tomorrow, at least some Canadian oil would still flow to Asia, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In a public one-on-one interview here with Jane Harman, head of the Wilson Centre think-tank, Harper said Obama's rejection of the controversial pipeline -- even temporarily -- stressed Canada's need to find other buyers for oilsands crude.

And that wouldn't change even if the president's mind did.

"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists.

...

Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.

So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude will be more competitive.

"We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy," Harper said. "We're still going to be a major supplier of the United States. It will be a long time, if ever, before the United States isn't our number one export market, but for us the United States cannot be our only export market.

"That is not in our interest, either commercially or in terms of pricing."


Besides, Americans are already getting tar sands oil from a pipeline to Illinois from Alberta. So honestly, I don't understand the biatching of how Obama is keeping Tar Sands oil from getting to the US.
 
2012-08-05 08:58:53 PM

mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.


For both, really. Bitumen requires an upgrade. The pipeline is good for the US as well- not sure what the problem is.
 
2012-08-05 09:00:12 PM

Any Pie Left: If the global warming continues, Canada can tanker it over the top thru the new Northern route more directly to China.


Yup, and nothing could go wrong there.
 
2012-08-05 09:02:06 PM
The trouble I see with the third pipeline is that it's routed through Quebec.

With the PQ getting popular again and flirting with another referendum on soverignity, is it smart to plot a pipeline through Quebec?
 
2012-08-05 09:02:36 PM

Mrtraveler01: relcec: Any Pie Left: Bears repeating, the pipeline was for export and the US wasn't going to see any oil out of it, and not that many jobs.

Another thing is, the tar sands may be generating plenty of money for the Canadians now, but it's also racking up a huge environmental cleanup cost after the party is over. The process to cook the oil out of the sand used metric shiattons of water, and the water coming out of the process is badly polluted. Only the scarcity of population up there allowed the process to even start; no civilized area would tolerate the environmental impacts.

why do you think it was for export? they had pipes that only lead off the continent? you realize they will sell to anyone willing to pay the most? they don;t give a f*ck if the oil goes into another pipeline or onto a boat. it isn't some special kind of an export crude.
and the chinese would have to pay a f*ck load more to get it home from houston than from canada's west coast.
so quit being a f*cking idiot.

They would be able to get a lot more money selling it to China than they would selling it to North America for starters.

Harper even said as much:

Even if President Barack Obama approved the controversial Keystone XL pipeline tomorrow, at least some Canadian oil would still flow to Asia, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In a public one-on-one interview here with Jane Harman, head of the Wilson Centre think-tank, Harper said Obama's rejection of the controversial pipeline -- even temporarily -- stressed Canada's need to find other buyers for oilsands crude.

And that wouldn't change even if the president's mind did.

"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists.

...

Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.

So not only wil ...


you're just making shiat up. our domestic companies could bid whatever the f*ck they want for it, but it would be extremely less attractive to china if they had to pick it up in houston.
 
2012-08-05 09:05:12 PM

relcec: you're just making shiat up.


Quoting an interview from Stephen Harper from a right-wing Canadian news source about his plans to expand exporting oil outside of the United States is "making shiat up"?

o....k....
 
2012-08-05 09:06:15 PM
And wouldn't you know, it's our liberal friends in Congress, so enthusiastic about hamstringing American enterprise, who are the last to realize that they are undercutting our political hegemony as well.

And that's where I stopped reading. Can I assume the rest of the article just goes on in this vein?

t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-08-05 09:06:44 PM

relcec: you're just making shiat up. our domestic companies could bid whatever the f*ck they want for it, but it would be extremely less attractive to china if they had to pick it up in houston.


Even though they're already picking up oil in Houston, and have been doing so for years?
 
2012-08-05 09:12:29 PM

ReluctantPaladin: The BC govts attempts to find some balls and extort the Alberta govt for increased royalties. (pre-election posturing)


Christy Clark's government is not going to be re-elected although she'll probably keep her seat (election is next spring.) Adrian Dix will be the next Premier, and the NDP opposes the pipeline.

Between here and May 2013 is a long time in politics. But I cannot see any way for Clark to make a comeback with Cummins splitting the right-wing vote and her ineffectual leadership and communication.
 
2012-08-05 09:13:03 PM
It all balances out.

TransCanada kept the 1/2-billion dollars Sarah Palin gave them and produced nothing in return.
 
2012-08-05 09:13:22 PM

Mrtraveler01: The trouble I see with the third pipeline is that it's routed through Quebec.

With the PQ getting popular again and flirting with another referendum on soverignity, is it smart to plot a pipeline through Quebec?


There will never be another referendum on separation.
 
2012-08-05 09:13:53 PM
farking environmentalist/terrorists/....ists are treehugging the lifeblood out of our country.
 
2012-08-05 09:17:17 PM

BSABSVR: Obama is Chuck Schumer's boss?


Seriously.

Everybody knows Chuck Schumer's boss is the nearest microphone.
 
2012-08-05 09:19:40 PM
I stopped reading that article when I got to the part about liberals, but can someone Cliff Notes for me how liberals, who are against the XL Pipeline at least in part because we will not see substatial oil or profits or jobs, are responsible for the XL Pipeline not providing substantial oil or profit or jobs?
 
2012-08-05 09:20:43 PM

Gyrfalcon: I'm not even sure what the writer is outraged about.

Is it that Canadia decided who to sell their own oil to, that some people in Congress want to argue with China, or that it was Democrat congressmembers who wanted to argue with China?

It's like he's mad, but he's not sure why, so LIBS LIBS LIBS!!!

To be fair, this is one of the few times liberals can be blamed directly. They blocked the pipeline knowing full well the Chinese were going to buy the rights if a deal didn't get made with the US. The "Carbon Time Bomb" is still going to be used, just not by us.

 
2012-08-05 09:20:53 PM

IronTom: farking environmentalist/terrorists/....ists are treehugging the lifeblood out of our country.


What you might not have realized is that there's money in them thar trees - and incredible economic costs to cleaning up the inevitable spills from these pipelines and tankers. With no profit from the pipelines in the areas where the economy and environment is damaged they're a lose-lose proposition.
 
2012-08-05 09:21:33 PM

NYCNative: I stopped reading that article when I got to the part about liberals, but can someone Cliff Notes for me how liberals, who are against the XL Pipeline at least in part because we will not see substatial oil or profits or jobs, are responsible for the XL Pipeline not providing substantial oil or profit or jobs?


Because.
 
2012-08-05 09:22:48 PM

unyon: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

For both, really. Bitumen requires an upgrade. The pipeline is good for the US as well- not sure what the problem is.


Possibly good for Houston. Not so good for the Midwest and the billions of dollars in increased gas prices they would have to pay annually. The longer there isn't a pipeline for the purpose of sending oil/gas to China, the longer the Midwest will benefit from the "artificial" glut of refined products in the region.

And billions of dollars annually is better than a couple hundred jobs.
 
2012-08-05 09:27:27 PM

improvius: relcec: you're just making shiat up. our domestic companies could bid whatever the f*ck they want for it, but it would be extremely less attractive to china if they had to pick it up in houston.

Even though they're already picking up oil in Houston, and have been doing so for years?



how is this so difficult for you to understand? having houston be the port of delivery is the optimum situation for us.
the west coast of canada isn't.
or domestic supply companies can still bid whatever they want for it in vancouver or wherever, but then we have to but we then have to pick it up on the west coast of canada and then ship down to LA to stick it on another pipeline, or ship it all the way around south america if we want to get it to new england.

also when the chinese have to pick it up in houston, they have to pay our port and pipeline fees, and then they have to pay the largest transport fees possible to ship it 2/3 of the way around the globe.

this isn't some bullshiat talking point. you can't argue against it by saying well the Chinese already buy it in houston. no shiat. no one is saying sending it to houston makes it impossible for the chinese to buy. just a f*ckload more expensive for them while making it cheaper for us.

it is retarded for us to do what we can to make it less expensive for the chinese to buy it and more expensive for ourselves. but that is exactly what you dumbasses are arguing for because not one of you can ever look at political questions even slightly objectively.

if obama had said this was a great idea you would be arguing the exact opposite of what you are now. there is no other argument other than the environmental one. it does not exist. making a dwindling and vital resource more expensive for us and less expensive for the Chinese is straight f*cking retarded. you can't make a f*cking economical arguemnt about why shooting ourselves in the foot is a great idea. so quit trying you stupid motherf*cking asshole.
 
2012-08-05 09:28:22 PM

mrshowrules: Mrtraveler01: The trouble I see with the third pipeline is that it's routed through Quebec.

With the PQ getting popular again and flirting with another referendum on soverignity, is it smart to plot a pipeline through Quebec?

There will never be another referendum on separation.


I hope you're right. I was reading the Toronto Star one day (I was bored) and they kept pushing the idea that the PQ is flirting with that idea.

That said, I don't know why anyone would support the PQ considering that were responsible for the shape that Quebec was in already. Even with a corrupt Quebec Liberal party.

Seems like lose/lose for Quebec either wway.
 
2012-08-05 09:28:24 PM

Moopy Mac: unyon: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

For both, really. Bitumen requires an upgrade. The pipeline is good for the US as well- not sure what the problem is.

Possibly good for Houston. Not so good for the Midwest and the billions of dollars in increased gas prices they would have to pay annually. The longer there isn't a pipeline for the purpose of sending oil/gas to China, the longer the Midwest will benefit from the "artificial" glut of refined products in the region.

And billions of dollars annually is better than a couple hundred jobs.


So without the new pipline, the US midwest gets the first sip at the milkshake?

Y'all better drink it up while you can, it won't last forever.
 
2012-08-05 09:29:29 PM

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

And America lost it's chance to make money off of it.

How much money did you really think America was going to make off of this thing?


Well, we were poised to make some, until the inevitable spill into the aquifer. Just not worth it. We were quite willing to build around it, but republicans would be damned to let a project get built safely if it meant even a penny more spent.
 
2012-08-05 09:31:17 PM
And as the evidence piles up that we're the most likely cause of recent climate warming trends that have practically obliterated previously observable cycles, we're talking about... throwing more carbon into the atmosphere, extracting more of a resource that took somewhere between 60 and 250 million years to form, and will be used up in less than 500 years, maybe even as little as 250 if our consumption continues to increase. You know we use fossil hydrocarbons in our fertilizers to prop up our food production capacity, right?

Nothing left to do but place bets on how long and brutal the resource crash will be.
 
2012-08-05 09:33:18 PM

marfar: Gyrfalcon: I'm not even sure what the writer is outraged about.

Is it that Canadia decided who to sell their own oil to, that some people in Congress want to argue with China, or that it was Democrat congressmembers who wanted to argue with China?

It's like he's mad, but he's not sure why, so LIBS LIBS LIBS!!!

To be fair, this is one of the few times liberals can be blamed directly. They blocked the pipeline knowing full well the Chinese were going to buy the rights if a deal didn't get made with the US. The "Carbon Time Bomb" is still going to be used, just not by us.


Maybe so; but you'd never get it from this article.
 
2012-08-05 09:33:48 PM

bobbette: IronTom: farking environmentalist/terrorists/....ists are treehugging the lifeblood out of our country.

What you might not have realized is that there's money in them thar trees - and incredible economic costs to cleaning up the inevitable spills from these pipelines and tankers. With no profit from the pipelines in the areas where the economy and environment is damaged they're a lose-lose proposition.


I love the environment too, but there are already probably hundreds of pipelines in that path area. This is all political, or politics driven by too-powerful rabid environmentalists or whoever they are calling themselves that, imho.
 
2012-08-05 09:35:04 PM

bobbette: ReluctantPaladin: The BC govts attempts to find some balls and extort the Alberta govt for increased royalties. (pre-election posturing)

Christy Clark's government is not going to be re-elected although she'll probably keep her seat (election is next spring.) Adrian Dix will be the next Premier, and the NDP opposes the pipeline.

Between here and May 2013 is a long time in politics. But I cannot see any way for Clark to make a comeback with Cummins splitting the right-wing vote and her ineffectual leadership and communication.


It'll be interesting to see how the federal government treats the BC NDP over this.
 
2012-08-05 09:36:19 PM

Weaver95: Today we are undergoing a similar dance in our economic relation with China. And wouldn't you know, it's our liberal friends in Congress, so enthusiastic about hamstringing American enterprise, who are the last to realize that they are undercutting our political hegemony as well.

Because all those liberal CEOs are the ones shipping jobs overseas to china every chance they get....


You mean like the CEO of GE? One of the largest companies. one of the largest outsourcers and the head of 0bama's job council (which hasn't met for over 6 months)?

Yes, you are right, that liberal is shipping jobs overseas big time. Oh, and he is CEO, not just an investor.
 
2012-08-05 09:36:29 PM
Liberal butt hurt tears over the unintended consequences of blocking the Keystone Pipeline.

So sweet, so delicious.
 
2012-08-05 09:39:14 PM
Wow. A jaw-droppingly stupid article amplified by the comments in this thread.

Here is a summary of basic facts.

1. Tar sands oil is being piped to the Great Lakes refineries right now. Ever wonder why gasoline is so cheap in places like Iowa and Missouri? Because it's tar-sands oil. The Great Lakes is the only area in the US where it can be cheaply refined.
2. The purpose of the pipeline was to divert that oil away from the Great Lakes and down to Houston.
3. China has established trade routes to Houston. No new research, no new planning, no months of legal contracting. The fuel costs on a trans-oceanic voyage are pocket change compared to the volume of oil they would have taken out of Houston.
4. That pipeline was blocked by the tree-hugging, enviro-terrorist supporting, ultra-left-wing Democratic bastion of Nebraska...
5. Because the steel proposed for the pipeline has the worst safety record of any oil pipe. Americans would be on the hook for numerous small leaks, spills, and explosions over the life of the Keystone XL.
6. All that pipe was going to come from China. In other words, this cunning plan to keep China from profiting involved the purchase of millions of dollars worth of shoddy pipe from China.
7. No matter what, diverting this oil away from the midwest will have a direct impact on food prices. It's not just consumer gasoline that's cheap here. That same fuel powers agricultural equipment which produce the food, and fuels the semis that distribute it throughout the country.

What will we lose no matter what? Cheap fuel in the midwest. No matter what, those days are numbered.
What did we lose by canceling the pipeline? 2000 short-term jobs and a few hundred long-term ones.
What did we gain by canceling the pipeline? Not having to spend millions of dollars in the long run buying land, repairing pipe, inspecting it, cleaning spills, and restoring damaged land.

Yep. Stupid, stupid liberals. Can't see the big picture.

/especially those far-left extremists in Nebraska who shut it down in the first place...
 
2012-08-05 09:40:31 PM

beta_plus: Liberal butt hurt tears over the unintended consequences of blocking the Keystone Pipeline.


Awwww, you thought that Canada wasn't going to sell oil to China even if we did approve of the Pipeline huh?

That's sooooo adorable!

*pinches your cheeks*
 
2012-08-05 09:42:41 PM

fusillade762: And wouldn't you know, it's our liberal friends in Congress, so enthusiastic about hamstringing American enterprise, who are the last to realize that they are undercutting our political hegemony as well.

And that's where I stopped reading. Can I assume the rest of the article just goes on in this vein?

[t1.gstatic.com image 225x224]


Not just the article. The whole site.

That's some deranged reading over there.
 
2012-08-05 09:44:04 PM

beta_plus: Liberal butt hurt tears over the unintended consequences of blocking the Keystone Pipeline.

So sweet, so delicious.


We're not the ones writing this article, dumbass.
 
2012-08-05 09:45:02 PM

clkeagle: Yep. Stupid, stupid liberals. Can't see the big picture.


I agree.
Good that they lost the House in 2010.
It will get better when they lose more of the Senate in 2012.

Maybe then 0bama will release that these cute meaningless gestures are not as important as the US economy.
 
2012-08-05 09:46:34 PM

relcec: improvius: relcec: you're just making shiat up. our domestic companies could bid whatever the f*ck they want for it, but it would be extremely less attractive to china if they had to pick it up in houston.

Even though they're already picking up oil in Houston, and have been doing so for years?


how is this so difficult for you to understand? having houston be the port of delivery is the optimum situation for us.
the west coast of canada isn't.
or domestic supply companies can still bid whatever they want for it in vancouver or wherever, but then we have to but we then have to pick it up on the west coast of canada and then ship down to LA to stick it on another pipeline, or ship it all the way around south america if we want to get it to new england.

also when the chinese have to pick it up in houston, they have to pay our port and pipeline fees, and then they have to pay the largest transport fees possible to ship it 2/3 of the way around the globe.

this isn't some bullshiat talking point. you can't argue against it by saying well the Chinese already buy it in houston. no shiat. no one is saying sending it to houston makes it impossible for the chinese to buy. just a f*ckload more expensive for them while making it cheaper for us.

it is retarded for us to do what we can to make it less expensive for the chinese to buy it and more expensive for ourselves. but that is exactly what you dumbasses are arguing for because not one of you can ever look at political questions even slightly objectively.

if obama had said this was a great idea you would be arguing the exact opposite of what you are now. there is no other argument other than the environmental one. it does not exist. making a dwindling and vital resource more expensive for us and less expensive for the Chinese is straight f*cking retarded. you can't make a f*cking economical arguemnt about why shooting ourselves in the foot is a great idea. so quit trying you stupid motherf*cking asshole.


clkeagle: Wow. A jaw-droppingly stupid article amplified by the comments in this thread.

Here is a summary of basic facts.

1. Tar sands oil is being piped to the Great Lakes refineries right now. Ever wonder why gasoline is so cheap in places like Iowa and Missouri? Because it's tar-sands oil. The Great Lakes is the only area in the US where it can be cheaply refined.
2. The purpose of the pipeline was to divert that oil away from the Great Lakes and down to Houston.
3. China has established trade routes to Houston. No new research, no new planning, no months of legal contracting. The fuel costs on a trans-oceanic voyage are pocket change compared to the volume of oil they would have taken out of Houston.
4. That pipeline was blocked by the tree-hugging, enviro-terrorist supporting, ultra-left-wing Democratic bastion of Nebraska...
5. Because the steel proposed for the pipeline has the worst safety record of any oil pipe. Americans would be on the hook for numerous small leaks, spills, and explosions over the life of the Keystone XL.
6. All that pipe was going to come from China. In other words, this cunning plan to keep China from profiting involved the purchase of millions of dollars worth of shoddy pipe from China.
7. No matter what, diverting this oil away from the midwest will have a direct impact on food prices. It's not just consumer gasoline that's cheap here. That same fuel powers agricultural equipment which produce the food, and fuels the semis that distribute it throughout the country.

What will we lose no matter what? Cheap fuel in the midwest. No matter what, those days are numbered.
What did we lose by canceling the pipeline? 2000 short-term jobs and a few hundred long-term ones.
What did we gain by canceling the pipeline? Not having to spend millions of dollars in the long run buying land, repairing pipe, inspecting it, cleaning spills, and restoring damaged land.

Yep. Stupid, stupid liberals. Can't see the big picture.

/especially those far-left extrem ...


It's not your oil, you were just buying it for a very heavy discount and those days are numbered.
 
Displayed 50 of 299 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report