- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Keystone Pipeline fails Senate by 1 vote
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:00 pm to Aubie Spr96
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:00 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
What was the D argument against it?
Warren Buffet's trains carry the oil now and the pipeline will cost him billions.
Oh, sorry. THE ENVIRONMENT!
0
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:00 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
What was the D argument against it?
Global warming.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:11 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Because rail is so much better.
How is rail so much better?
And the Chinese refining the oil instead of clean US refineries is so much better.
How?
Do you even environmental?
DO I environment? what is that???
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:29 pm to WPBTiger
LOL at Harry Reid and the Dems screwing Mary over after she was the final vote for Obamacare.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:32 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
What was the D argument against it?
Boxer: Don't let them transport the dirtiest of dirty oil through our majestic country!
The rest: RABBLE RABBLE dirty oil, RABBLE RABBLE carbon foot print - flooding - think of the children
Its a F*CKING pipe! It doesn't produce carbon... the shite we use to transport this same oil already does! That is besides the fact of the matter carbon is not what is causing climate change.
This post was edited on 11/18/14 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:36 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
What was the D argument against it?
A horse! Anne Romney has one!
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:43 pm to tigerpawl
ML needs to go back and take a course on Remedial Math!
If you only count 59, you don't bring it to a vote!
She looked like a whipped puppy dog on the Senate floor during the vote and her Dem colleagues were evading her like she was toxic!
What Barbara Boxer called it? The Keystone Xtremely Lethal Pipeline!
If you only count 59, you don't bring it to a vote!
She looked like a whipped puppy dog on the Senate floor during the vote and her Dem colleagues were evading her like she was toxic!
What Barbara Boxer called it? The Keystone Xtremely Lethal Pipeline!
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:44 pm to TigerMyth36
Does it even pass through any of the States that voted no? The pipeline is already built to Oklahoma.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 7:50 pm to WindboyCajun
Sweet, the process is happening again
"The People" in those districts and states now know where their representative stand (Vote) now. That's how it should be, and no representative whether Dem or Rep should be able to hide their true-attentions. Like what was happening under Reid/Democrats.
"The People" in those districts and states now know where their representative stand (Vote) now. That's how it should be, and no representative whether Dem or Rep should be able to hide their true-attentions. Like what was happening under Reid/Democrats.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 8:03 pm to joeleblanc
quote:quote:
Because rail is so much better.
How is rail so much better?
Check your sarcasm meter.
quote:quote:
And the Chinese refining the oil instead of clean US refineries is so much better.
How?
Again, check your sarcasm meter.
quote:quote:
Do you even environmental?
DO I environment? what is that???
"Do you even..." is just a message board way of saying "do you understand the topic". It started out as "do you even lift?" on the OT.
The point I was trying to make is, the Canadian Oil Sands crude is coming to market regardless of President Obama's approval of Keystone or not.
Ask yourself this question, would you rather have US refineries refining this crude (that are under strict US EPA regulations) or would you rather have some other under-regulated refineries like in China refine this crude? Remember, the Canadian Oil Sands is a heavier crude and requires a more energy intensive process (more cracking) to get the the various hydrocarbons to market.
Meanwhile, much of the crude does get to the refineries on the gulf coast, but by rail. This pleases the main oil sands transportation benefactor, Warren Buffet who owns Burlington Railroad. And BTW, rail impacts the environment negatively muuuuuuuuuch more than a pipeline that leaves a grassy knoll in its path that wildlife thrive off of.
...can't believe I have to explain this at this point.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 8:06 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
dirtiest of dirty oil
I watched the entire 5-hour debate on C-Span. I heard the words "dirtiest" and "filthiest" at least 14 times, including once where Boxer used the two words one right after the other before the word "oil", and before that , Bernie Sanders said the word" filthiest " no less than 4 times in one 5-minute rant on the Senate floor. It's like those two words were set up as drinking game words by the Dems.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 8:07 pm to tiger94gop
quote:
The pipeline is already built to Oklahoma.
Well the environment is obviously fuuucked.
Seriously, this leg of the Keystone pipeline helped removed the spread between WTI and Brent. There was a glut of crude in OK prior to the southern leg of Keystone being built. The southern leg of Keystone removed the bottleneck.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 8:08 pm to GumboPot
quote:
quote:quote:Because rail is so much better. How is rail so much better? Check your sarcasm meter. quote:quote:And the Chinese refining the oil instead of clean US refineries is so much better. How? Again, check your sarcasm meter. quote:quote:Do you even environmental? DO I environment? what is that??? "Do you even..." is just a message board way of saying "do you understand the topic". It started out as "do you even lift?" on the OT. The point I was trying to make is, the Canadian Oil Sands crude is coming to market regardless of President Obama's approval of Keystone or not. Ask yourself this question, would you rather have US refineries refining this crude (that are under strict US EPA regulations) or would you rather have some other under-regulated refineries like in China refine this crude? Remember, the Canadian Oil Sands is a heavier crude and requires a more energy intensive process (more cracking) to get the the various hydrocarbons to market. Meanwhile, much of the crude does get to the refineries on the gulf coast, but by rail. This pleases the main oil sands transportation benefactor, Warren Buffet who owns Burlington Railroad. And BTW, rail impacts the environment negatively muuuuuuuuuch more than a pipeline that leaves a grassy knoll in its path that wildlife thrive off of. ...can't believe I have to explain this at this point.
Not being sarcastic at all. I'd rather have in in a pipeline than on rail. I'd rather have it refined in the USA, thus providing jobs than overseas.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 8:09 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
I watched the entire 5-hour debate on C-Span. I heard the words "dirtiest" and "filthiest" at least 14 times, including once where Boxer used the two words one right after the other before the word "oil", and before that , Bernie Sanders said the word" filthiest " no less than 4 times in one 5-minute rant on the Senate floor. It's like those two words were set up as drinking game words by the Dems.
People that claim science on every turn, don't rely on science.
Oh, that's right. They're politicians.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 8:18 pm to joeleblanc
quote:
Not being sarcastic at all. I'd rather have in in a pipeline than on rail. I'd rather have it refined in the USA, thus providing jobs than overseas.
That should be common sense.
The problem is this topic has become a political football and it shouldn't be. I mean look how many pipeline crossing we already have with Canada:
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:39 pm to GumboPot
Saw this graphic today.
I understand vetoing legislation. Frankly, I wish Congress and the POTUS would do less. With that said, I haven't heard a single coherent argument against building the pipeline.
I understand vetoing legislation. Frankly, I wish Congress and the POTUS would do less. With that said, I haven't heard a single coherent argument against building the pipeline.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:50 pm to Aubie Spr96
Wow, why do they need one moer with so many already.....lol
I'm all for this pipeline from what I know abotu it so far, but that map just blew my mind.
I'm all for this pipeline from what I know abotu it so far, but that map just blew my mind.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 12:09 am to tigerpawl
This is the old "Which dems really need to vote yes, so we'll let them but make sure they are one vote short" tactic to a T.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 4:13 am to tigerpawl
Liberals are the dumbest people on earth.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 5:40 am to kywildcatfanone
It'll come up again for another vote when the new Congress is installed. I believe I heard this morning that 14 dems crossed over and voted for it. Won't need but 3-4 of the dems votes the second time around. Also heard that every Dem that lost on Nov.4 voted for the pipeline, except for Udall I think.
Amazing how politicians vote their conscience when they have nothing riding on the line.
Amazing how politicians vote their conscience when they have nothing riding on the line.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News