Do you have adblock enabled?
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 Hill)   Even Democrats believe that piping Canadian oil for export to the worldwide market will help American workers   (thehill.com) divider line 226
    More: Dumbass, Canadian oil, rents  
•       •       •

1298 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Mar 2014 at 11:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 11:53:11 PM  
If nothing else, it is safer than transporting it by rail or truck.
 
2014-03-19 11:53:12 PM  
So they're going to use the EPA to not let it happen?

/drtfa
 
2014-03-19 11:56:17 PM  

HeadLever: If nothing else, it is safer than transporting it by rail or truck.


Honest question: Are you getting paid? Because you really should be. You have to be the most reliable shill I've seen in 10 years.
 
2014-03-19 11:57:26 PM  
Well clearly we should listen to polls rather than environmental science and logistics.
 
2014-03-19 11:59:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Well clearly we should listen to polls rather than environmental science and logistics.


What's going to be fun is when some of the most profitable companies on the planet say 'Oh, no you don't. Take your oils someplace else and spill it. We honestly don't care where'.
 
2014-03-20 12:00:45 AM  
Don't we already have a patchwork of pipelines running this way and that throughout the country? Why is this one such a big deal?
 
2014-03-20 12:00:52 AM  
I vote we build the pipeline, but then claim eminent domain over it and take all the oil for ourselves.
 
2014-03-20 12:02:24 AM  

MFAWG: HeadLever: If nothing else, it is safer than transporting it by rail or truck.

Honest question: Are you getting paid? Because you really should be. You have to be the most reliable shill I've seen in 10 years.


Sometimes, people can disagree with you without being a shill.  Your opinion is not the infallible truth, after all.
 
2014-03-20 12:02:26 AM  
At least they're admitting that the intent for the pipeline is exporting it overseas. That beats the BS that this was supposed to make us "energy independent" which is a BS excuse if I ever saw one.
 
2014-03-20 12:03:44 AM  

Frank N Stein: Don't we already have a patchwork of pipelines running this way and that throughout the country? Why is this one such a big deal?


How about you do some research on the routing?
 
2014-03-20 12:04:06 AM  

llortcM_yllort: MFAWG: HeadLever: If nothing else, it is safer than transporting it by rail or truck.

Honest question: Are you getting paid? Because you really should be. You have to be the most reliable shill I've seen in 10 years.

Sometimes, people can disagree with you without being a shill.  Your opinion is not the infallible truth, after all.


What's with your username? Doesn't make any sense.
 
2014-03-20 12:05:50 AM  

llortcM_yllort: MFAWG: HeadLever: If nothing else, it is safer than transporting it by rail or truck.

Honest question: Are you getting paid? Because you really should be. You have to be the most reliable shill I've seen in 10 years.

Sometimes, people can disagree with you without being a shill.  Your opinion is not the infallible truth, after all.


It's not the disagreeing. It's the same talking points repeated ad infinitum in every XL thread ever, several pages worth per thread for the better part of 6 months at least,
 
2014-03-20 12:07:17 AM  
Is this another Keystone XL story? We've already seen proof that it's a Koch money pit of temporary jobs and environmental hazards.
 
2014-03-20 12:07:39 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Well clearly we should listen to polls rather than environmental science and logistics.


Exactly.
 
2014-03-20 12:08:54 AM  

MFAWG: llortcM_yllort: MFAWG: HeadLever: If nothing else, it is safer than transporting it by rail or truck.

Honest question: Are you getting paid? Because you really should be. You have to be the most reliable shill I've seen in 10 years.

Sometimes, people can disagree with you without being a shill.  Your opinion is not the infallible truth, after all.

It's not the disagreeing. It's the same talking points repeated ad infinitum in every XL thread ever, several pages worth per thread for the better part of 6 months at least,


I think Trolly_Mctroll is ironically defending a troll because it is a wild troll. Not bound by any attempts at secrecy. Therein lies an amazing dedication that we should all admire and despise.
 
2014-03-20 12:09:08 AM  

MFAWG: Honest question: Are you getting paid? Because you really should be. You have to be the most reliable shill I've seen in 10 years.


So ad hominems and name calling?
 
2014-03-20 12:10:04 AM  

MFAWG: t's the same talking points repeated ad infinitum


If they are simple talking points, then refute them or quit whining about them.
 
2014-03-20 12:12:29 AM  

Mrtraveler01: At least they're admitting that the intent for the pipeline is exporting it overseas. That beats the BS that this was supposed to make us "energy independent" which is a BS excuse if I ever saw one.


Or that it would create a brazillion jobs.
 
2014-03-20 12:14:06 AM  

HeadLever: MFAWG: t's the same talking points repeated ad infinitum

If they are simple talking points, then refute them or quit whining about them.


That's the beauty of it. They could build the thing in your back yard, burn your house down and you'd still be in here saying the same shiat.

It really is amazing.
 
2014-03-20 12:14:36 AM  

HeadLever: MFAWG: t's the same talking points repeated ad infinitum

If they are simple talking points, then refute them or quit whining about them.


Rape: its less damaging than murder.
 
2014-03-20 12:15:24 AM  

Smackledorfer: HeadLever: MFAWG: t's the same talking points repeated ad infinitum

If they are simple talking points, then refute them or quit whining about them.

Rape: its less damaging than murder.


It's.

No need for that annoying plant pic.
 
2014-03-20 12:15:35 AM  

MFAWG: hey could build the thing in your back yard, burn your house down and you'd still be in here saying the same shiat.


So strawman?

Are we playing logical fallacy bingo today
 
2014-03-20 12:15:53 AM  

HeadLever: MFAWG: t's the same talking points repeated ad infinitum

If they are simple talking points, then refute them or quit whining about them.


I was pointing out a behavior. Can you name one thing you've rethought in the last year? Maybe it was too small at the beginning?

And has there ever been a thread you haven't been in? That's the other thing.
 
2014-03-20 12:16:00 AM  

inclemency: llortcM_yllort: MFAWG: HeadLever: If nothing else, it is safer than transporting it by rail or truck.

Honest question: Are you getting paid? Because you really should be. You have to be the most reliable shill I've seen in 10 years.

Sometimes, people can disagree with you without being a shill.  Your opinion is not the infallible truth, after all.

What's with your username? Doesn't make any sense.


Make him say it backwards. It will send him back to the fifth dimension.
 
2014-03-20 12:16:10 AM  
It's so farking stupid.

We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.

If you think otherwise, frankly--Fark you. You're part of the problem. Particularly if you waste your time trying to convince others that your shiat is safe.
 
2014-03-20 12:17:02 AM  

Smackledorfer: No need for that annoying plant pic.


I may be a stickler on a number of things, but grammar is not one of them.  You won't find me posting the plant pic.
 
2014-03-20 12:19:32 AM  

whidbey: We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.


We are, slowly.  However, you and I both know that we are not there yet.  Not many folks are going to suggest we turn out the lights in the meantime.
 
2014-03-20 12:21:47 AM  
Abide by environmental rules and don't use any tax dollars and I don't care if they build Keystone.

Other technologies are slowly starting to show how absurd building pipelines across the country really are. They will take time, but they gain momentum while Oil and gas jerks and stalls.
 
2014-03-20 12:21:50 AM  

HeadLever: whidbey: We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.


We are, slowly.  However, you and I both know that we are not there yet


We are there now. We could go totally green.

The problem is that burning coal is still way too cheap. Because of powerful lobbies.

But you knew that.
 
2014-03-20 12:22:21 AM  

LoneWolf343: inclemency: llortcM_yllort: MFAWG: HeadLever: If nothing else, it is safer than transporting it by rail or truck.

Honest question: Are you getting paid? Because you really should be. You have to be the most reliable shill I've seen in 10 years.

Sometimes, people can disagree with you without being a shill.  Your opinion is not the infallible truth, after all.

What's with your username? Doesn't make any sense.

Make him say it backwards. It will send him back to the fifth dimension.


Still too close..... Anyway to make it further?
 
2014-03-20 12:23:20 AM  

MFAWG: Can you name one thing you've rethought in the last year?


Sure - regarding this pipeline, I have come to disapprove the way that the easement process has proceeded through private lands.  That is something that defiantly needs to be corrected.
 
2014-03-20 12:24:19 AM  
Normally, I'm for anything that hurts red states.  But, there are too many blue states in the Midwest that might be affected by finishing the non-job creating pipeline.  So, I'm against it.
 
2014-03-20 12:25:42 AM  

HeadLever: MFAWG: Can you name one thing you've rethought in the last year?

Sure - regarding this pipeline, I have come to disapprove the way that the easement process has proceeded through private lands.  That is something that defiantly needs to be corrected.


Weren't there a bunch of lawsuits flying around about that, by notable Libruls like the Tea Party?
 
2014-03-20 12:26:37 AM  

HeadLever: whidbey: We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.

We are, slowly.  However, you and I both know that we are not there yet.  Not many folks are going to suggest we turn out the lights in the meantime.


So in the meantime we should build a new pipeline?

First, said pipe does nothing for us in terms of energy anyways.

Second, an inability to immediately replace all fossil fuels has nothing to do with having to shut off any lights.

We can certainly keep the lights on while expanding alternative energy, increasing efficiency, and keeping fossil fuel use the same or reducing it.

Also we could probably stand to turn off a light or two.

If you wonder why you are called a troll, try reading your posts.
 
2014-03-20 12:27:38 AM  
This the tar sands stuff?  At least with oil, the oil companies can pretend they know how to clean up a spill.

Tar sands spills.. 'Let's get the skimmers out, and skim it off the water.. oh wait, this stuff doesn't float..  now what do we do?'
 
2014-03-20 12:27:43 AM  

whidbey: HeadLever: whidbey: We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.


We are, slowly.  However, you and I both know that we are not there yet

We are there now. We could go totally green.

The problem is that burning coal is still way too cheap. Because of powerful lobbies.

But you knew that.


I think you're actually wrong here.

'Going green' is something I endorse but is a MASSIVE and expensive undertaking that goes beyond blaming it on lobbyists (may they burn).

It surely is part of the problem, but despite massive corruption there are financial and infrastructual (sp?) and societal issues to resolve before a switch can truly be made. At least a couple decades worth I would imagine (as a layman).

Does that mean we should let shills try to say it's hopeless or give disengenuous faint praise to the notion? No.

But realistically it has to be a slowish transition for it not to be a disaster and have people screaming to go back.
 
2014-03-20 12:27:59 AM  

whidbey: We are there now. We could go totally green.


[citation needed]

We are not going to be supplanting 3 TW of energy production to green sources overnight.
 
2014-03-20 12:30:23 AM  

HeadLever: whidbey: We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.

We are, slowly.  However, you and I both know that we are not there yet.  Not many folks are going to suggest we turn out the lights in the meantime.


We seem to be doing okay without it. Why does the US need this pipeline, again? It's not going to create many permanent jobs, it's going to be a huge environmental hazard, and it'll ship Canadian oil to China.

How does any of that keep the lights on here?
 
2014-03-20 12:31:51 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: HeadLever: whidbey: We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.

We are, slowly.  However, you and I both know that we are not there yet.  Not many folks are going to suggest we turn out the lights in the meantime.

We seem to be doing okay without it. Why does the US need this pipeline, again? It's not going to create many permanent jobs, it's going to be a huge environmental hazard, and it'll ship Canadian oil to China.


And don't forget raise the price of oil in the Midwest.
 
2014-03-20 12:31:59 AM  

Smackledorfer: If you wonder why you are called a troll, try reading your posts.


I wouldn't call him a troll so much as a farking tool of the extraction industry.
 
2014-03-20 12:32:39 AM  

MFAWG: Weren't there a bunch of lawsuits flying around about that, by notable Libruls like the Tea Party?


Not sure about the political bent of the lawsuits, but I know that there was some landowner issues that I feel were handled very badly by TransCanada.
 
2014-03-20 12:33:16 AM  

HeadLever: whidbey: We are there now. We could go totally green.

[citation needed]

We are not going to be supplanting 3 TW of energy production to green sources overnight.


Um, no. Not my job to Google it for you.

Green energy is the biggest possible future out there. Maybe you'd realize that if you weren't too busy humping greasy black oil shiat or whatever it is you do. :)
 
2014-03-20 12:34:22 AM  

Doc Lee: cameroncrazy1984: HeadLever: whidbey: We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.

We are, slowly.  However, you and I both know that we are not there yet.  Not many folks are going to suggest we turn out the lights in the meantime.

We seem to be doing okay without it. Why does the US need this pipeline, again? It's not going to create many permanent jobs, it's going to be a huge environmental hazard, and it'll ship Canadian oil to China.

And don't forget raise the price of oil in the Midwest.


As someone who is a Midwesterner (and lives 1 hour from the current terminus of the Keystone Pipeline...getting a kick, etc.
 
2014-03-20 12:34:28 AM  

HeadLever: whidbey: We are there now. We could go totally green.

[citation needed]

We are not going to be supplanting 3 TW of energy production to green sources overnight.


Why do you have such contempt for the American people?
 
2014-03-20 12:35:24 AM  

Frank N Stein: Don't we already have a patchwork of pipelines running this way and that throughout the country? Why is this one such a big deal?


It runs right across the largest water aquifer in the country and the US will be responsible for all the spills and fixes, it won't be built by US labour, and the US will see zero % of the profits. So basically the US take all the risks but see none of the rewards so a few oil executives can make a quick buck.
 
2014-03-20 12:36:04 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: We seem to be doing okay without it. Why does the US need this pipeline, again? It's not going to create many permanent jobs, it's going to be a huge environmental hazard, and it'll ship Canadian oil to China.


Again, from the environmental, cost and safety standpoint, transporting oil by pipe is typically much  better than rail and truck.
 
2014-03-20 12:36:18 AM  

whidbey: HeadLever: whidbey: We should be moving beyond oil and coal. This is farking obvious.


We are, slowly.  However, you and I both know that we are not there yet

We are there now. We could go totally green.

The problem is that burning coal is still way too cheap. Because of powerful lobbies.

But you knew that.


Of course just yesterday I filled up my 1/2 ton with unicorn jizz.  thanks progress!

If green energy sources were price competitive and the infrastructure was in place to totally replace oil and gas it would be done by now.  energy companies will be smart enough to move their portfolios to those sources as they become profitable in comparison.
 
2014-03-20 12:36:25 AM  

limeyfellow: Frank N Stein: Don't we already have a patchwork of pipelines running this way and that throughout the country? Why is this one such a big deal?

It runs right across the largest water aquifer in the country and the US will be responsible for all the spills and fixes, it won't be built by US labour, and the US will see zero % of the profits. So basically the US take all the risks but see none of the rewards so a few oil executives can make a quick buck.


Yep.

And all HeadLever can do is whine that we want to turn the lights out, or something.
 
2014-03-20 12:36:43 AM  

whidbey: Um, no. Not my job to Google it for you.


Of course, because you have no way of backing up your assertion.
 
2014-03-20 12:37:15 AM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: If green energy sources were price competitive and the infrastructure was in place to totally replace oil and gas it would be done by now.


It is being done now. But you knew that.

God how many oil shills does it take to screw in a light bulb?
 
Displayed 50 of 226 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report