Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Canada eyes Pacific pipeline to move oil. If the oil is going to be sold anyway, shouldn’t US join the parade?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(76)

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 11:49 AM

Yep...however far too many have blinders on while the drink the koolaide.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Numnudz

Jun-19-14 11:49 AM

Kozy is right, these same studies prove the pipeline is much safer for transporting the oil than surface vehicles.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Numnudz

Jun-19-14 11:47 AM

That's money you'll never have to pay out, Q.

This pipeline has been studied and re-studied. Every study says it's a go. The only thing holding us back from getting this done is President Obama, personally.

His decision was for purely political reasons, and proves he values doing what is good for himself and his party above that of the Nation.

His personal decision to withhold approval of the pipeline for 'further study' is merely a bone to the far-left environmentalists who do not want ANY development of energy ANYWHERE. These people sue the oil companies, sue the wind farms, sue the solar farms, and use the Endangered Species Act to further THEIR agenda, above the good of the Nation.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-19-14 10:48 AM

That last posting says enough right there, Kozy.

I'll give a reward to anyone who can tell me how that is better than laying a pipeline.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 9:04 AM

Meanwhile, the oil train business is primed to get bigger. Even TransCanada might start using rail to ship oil to the U.S. while waiting for Keystone to get the green light, CEO Russ Girling said in an interview in May — despite agreeing that trains are a costlier and potentially more dangerous option.

“If anybody thinks that is a better idea, that’s delusional,” Girling said.

In fact, the State Department estimated this month that because of the risks of rail compared with pipelines, an additional 189 injuries and 28 deaths would occur every year if trains end up carrying the oil intended for Keystone.

Yep...but still there are those who say no!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 8:56 AM

By KATHRYN A. WOLFE and BOB KING | 6/18/14 5:01 AM EDT Updated: 6/18/14 4:33 PM EDT

Communities throughout the U.S. and Canada are waking up to the dark side of North America’s energy boom: Trains hauling crude oil are crashing, exploding and spilling in record numbers as a fast-growing industry outpaces the federal government’s oversight.

In the 11 months since a runaway oil train derailed in the middle of a small town in Quebec, incinerating 47 people, the rolling virtual pipelines have unleashed crude oil into an Alabama swamp, forced more than 1,000 North Dakota residents to evacuate, dangled from a bridge in Philadelphia and smashed into an industrial building near Pittsburgh. The latest serious accident was April’s fiery crash in Lynchburg, Virginia.

The Obama administration is rethinking...Keystone looks pretty good?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 8:15 AM

To the extent that Americans see problems as connected to Obama’s incompetence, it reduces an opening for another Democrat to implement the liberal agenda. And, Obama-era failures make Americans more skeptical about federal bureaucracy in general.

Obama, in his first Inaugural Address, said: “Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. ... What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.”

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” Obama set out to convince Americans that government could work, and he has failed.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 8:00 AM

...The survey would appear to be so bad, in fact, that NBC News' Chuck Todd said Tuesday that the poll basically means the public has declared the Obama presidency to be over.

"This poll is a disaster for the president," Todd said. "You look at the presidency here: Lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration, post-Katrina."

"On the issue of do you believe he can still lead? A majority believe no. Essentially the public is saying your presidency is over," Todd added.

And he doesn't want help from Congress or anyone else to help fix the mess he created?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 7:57 AM

And, all the while we the people think...

President Obama's approval rating has dropped to 41%, a majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of foreign policy issues, he has lost support from the Hispanic community and Americans actually think his administration is less competent than the Bush White House post-Hurricane Katrina, according to a new survey from the Wall Street Journal and NBC News. In short, the poll is nothing but bad news for the president...(continued)...

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 7:39 AM

...

Pelosi told reporters that she agreed that the president has all of the authorities that he needs in the authorizations to use military force passed by Congress previously.

“All of the authorities are there. That doesn’t mean I want all of them to be used, especially boots on the ground,” she said. “But I definitely think the president has all of the authority he needs by dint of legislation that was passed in 2001 and 2003.”

She appeared to be referring to the authorizations to use military force passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq. Neither of those authorizations have expired, although the official White House position is that the Iraq authorization should be repealed.

Oh so she now admits that ""congress gave authority to attack Iraq""...wow, then why does she blame Bush?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 7:36 AM

Updated 5:09 p.m. | President Obama is still considering what to do about Iraq, but he told the top congressional leaders Wednesday that he doesn’t think he needs Congress’ permission to act.

“We had a good discussion,” said Senate Minority Leader McConnell, R-Ky., arriving back at the Capitol after the meeting. “The president basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take and indicated he would keep us posted.”

Obama met for about an hour in the Oval Office with McConnell, Speaker Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Reid, D-Ne.

Pelosi told...

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-19-14 7:29 AM

And...Prince Saud renewed Saudi accusations that "sectarian policies of exclusion" of Iraq's Sunni Arab minority implemented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government were responsible for the violence.

This paved the way for countries with "bad intentions" towards Iraq "to go ahead with plots threatening its security, stability, national unity and sense of Arab identity," Prince Saud said.

His remarks came as Iranian President Rouhani said his country would do whatever it takes to protect Shiite holy sites in Iraq against the Sunni militants.

The Iraqi government, has issued a statement accusing Sunni Saudi Arabia of financing the militants.

"We hold (Saudi Arabia) responsible for what these groups are receiving in terms of financial and moral support," the Iraqi government said in a statement, accusing Riyadh of "siding with terrorism".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rpmwwe

Jun-19-14 2:45 AM

Israel, of course, will not take kindly to this newer, bigger, badder Iranian state. Iran may even be more confident than ever before and may go ahead and do a nuke test, in front of Allah and everybody, to announce to the world they have joined "the club". Israel will be calling. What shall our answer be then? Passing the mess off as just an out-of-hand protest to a Youtube video isn't going to work.

Essentially, our leadership has worked us into a catch 22 position.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rpmwwe

Jun-19-14 2:45 AM

Whether or not the U.S. should have gone into Iraq in the first place, or whether or not the premature withdrawal was the right thing to do were questions for the last decade. Getting wrapped up in the blame game solves nothing now, nor does it change the past. Currently, Iran senses weakness in our leadership and they see an easy opportunity in the chaos in Iraq to conquer their long-time foe. Iran will go in and the U.S. will only threaten sanctions, etc. (Yes, we've already seen this movie, and so have they).

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rpmwwe

Jun-19-14 2:44 AM

The main question for Iraq is, do we re-engage and fight at great cost to gain back what had already been accomplished, or do we take a pass now and start preparing a strategy to back Israel in the conflict that is guaranteed to happen after Iran conquers Iraq?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-18-14 9:05 PM

True, Bob.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Beaumont

Jun-18-14 6:58 PM

We should become independent in most things. Stop trying to change the world,*****they have family fights older the our country.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-18-14 6:43 PM

Probably nothing we can or should do now, Bob except become independent in so far as energy...

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-18-14 6:35 PM

Grant, I asked you some questions rather than take a position...sorry if that is wasting your time. Not at all what I had in mind when I asked you.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Beaumont

Jun-18-14 6:32 PM

What should be done now?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Jun-18-14 5:42 PM

I haven't defended anything Obama has done. Arguing this with you further is pointless. Just know that all you're asking for is more of the same, the same policy that has created so many problems at home and not only not solved any abroad, but worsened them.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-18-14 5:13 PM

I wonder how people can be against killing the bad guys in the middle East and yet let them control our energy...especially when we have enough oil and gas within our country to make certain that doesn't happen.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-18-14 5:09 PM

Not at all...we are part of NATO and have agreements with various countries to fight to protect them.

I think we do far too much and need to stop policing the world...but is it ok for China or Iran to fill that void? Guess its messy but there are lots of people who want to destroy us.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-18-14 5:03 PM

And Grant...which of Obama's efforts on diplomacy have been successful?

How do you feel about becoming oil independent?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Jun-18-14 5:01 PM

If there is a Congressional declaration of war, and responding to an attack would warrant one, then fine. But you can't simply brush Iraq out of the foreign policy discussion. They didn't attack us. And I think you need to get a better understanding of why people hate us. It has nothing to do with our freedom. We've been agitators in the Middle East for decades. So when people over there are attacked, by your own standard, it would warrant a counter attack, right? We must stop meddling in the affairs of other nations.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 76 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web