Another What If?

[RangerM]

While Canada certainly feels familiar (except Quebec which feels sort of exotic) It is not domestic. Oil sells at the world market price no matter where it comes from.

IIRC, North Dakota (and maybe Montana?) also contributes to the Keystone volume.

 

It's not only the oil itself, but the value-added prospects of American (that being, domestic) refining.

 

Keystone (itself) already exists and transports Canadian oil to America. The XL project is simply an extension of an already-operational pipeline. In fact, there are other pipelines in existence. The XL project simply adds capacity.

 

Here is a map of the (proposed) XL project....

Edited January 20, 2012 by RangerM

[fmccap]

then Ron Paul is an isolationist.

 

Is Ron Paul an Isolationist as Newt Gingrich, Imawhosure and Rick Santorum Claim?

[Ron W.]

From the article

 

 

Apparently in today’s political world, being an isolationist means opposing the U.S. government’s policing the rest of the world through invasion, occupation, and war — that is, militarism. The word “isolationist” has always suggested a fear of foreigners, and no doubt those who apply the word to Paul want to cash in on that sense. So we are left with the daffy conclusion that Ron Paul is a xenophobic, head-in-the-sand isolationist precisely because he prefers peaceful trade with foreigners rather than invasion, occupation, and demolition of their countries.

 

If that’s what it means to be an isolationist, count me as one too

[fmccap]

IIRC, North Dakota (and maybe Montana?) also contributes to the Keystone volume.

 

It's not only the oil itself, but the value-added prospects of American (that being, domestic) refining.

 

Keystone (itself) already exists and transports Canadian oil to America. The XL project is simply an extension of an already-operational pipeline. In fact, there are other pipelines in existence. The XL project simply adds capacity.

 

Here is a map of the (proposed) XL project....

Obama’s Keystone Denial Prompts Canada to Look to China Sales

[goinbroke2]

obama blames the repub congress for "rushing a decision"....

 

Let me guess...it's Bush's fault?

 

 

HEY DUMBASS, YOU MADE THE DECISION!!!

 

 

YOU

 

 

 

NOT BUSH

 

 

MAN UP!

 

 

"they rushed me..and...and...I was confused...so...I said no....but it was for America's security....yeah...that's it...please like me..."

[rn4]

obama blames the repub congress for "rushing a decision"....

 

Let me guess...it's Bush's fault?

 

 

HEY DUMBASS, YOU MADE THE DECISION!!!

 

 

YOU

 

 

 

NOT BUSH

 

 

MAN UP!

 

 

"they rushed me..and...and...I was confused...so...I said no....but it was for America's security....yeah...that's it...please like me..."

 

 

Why don't you go educate yourself on why the decision was made.

[RangerM]

Why don't you go educate yourself on why the decision was made.

Whatever the spoken (and unspoken) reasons, it was the wrong decision.

[rn4]

Whatever the spoken (and unspoken) reasons, it was the wrong decision.

 

Not if a spill effects your drikling water. The republicans tried to force Obama to make a hastey decision and he was going todo it.

[xr7g428]

drikling water

 

This explains everything. Its all about the "drikling" water.

[Trimdingman]

There are over two million miles of pipeline in the U.S. Keystone is a tempest in a teapot.

 

The U.S. has enjoyed a position of advantage for a long time because it's dollar is the world's currency. They have leveraged this, as is human nature, and are now dependent on it's continuation. If they lose this status, which is the current threat, all hell will break loose. Oil rich countries in the Middle East have been making noises about not accepting U.S. dollars as payment for their oil. The world is like a powderkeg with the fuse lit.

[fmccap]

There are over two million miles of pipeline in the U.S. Keystone is a tempest in a teapot.

 

The U.S. has enjoyed a position of advantage for a long time because it's dollar is the world's currency. They have leveraged this, as is human nature, and are now dependent on it's continuation. If they lose this status, which is the current threat, all hell will break loose. Oil rich countries in the Middle East have been making noises about not accepting U.S. dollars as payment for their oil. The world is like a powderkeg with the fuse lit.

It's starting to happen and it's funny the Iran war drums are beating.

 

India Joins Asian Dollar Exclusion Zone -- Will Transact With Iran In Rupees

[goinbroke2]

And yet delusional people still think obama has the US's best interest's at heart..NOT!!

 

The old analogy of "obama took controls of a plane that was slowly descending into a mountainside and shoved the stick forward and added full throttle" is unfortunately true and yet people will look back in 20 years and say "why the hell couldn't the American people see what he was doing"?

 

I wonder what will happen first, OWS backed by seiu cause so much trouble obama must declare marshal law, suspending elections and become de-facto dictator for life...or civil war breaks out and destroys the US internally?

Either way obama gets what he has apparently being going for all along.

 

Hate being a conspiracy theorist, but man, something just isn't right. There's more to obama and what he's doing behind closed doors than everyone knows.

[RangerM]

Not if a spill effects your drikling water. The republicans tried to force Obama to make a hastey decision and he was going todo it.

I agree, however there are several pipelines that span the U.S. You haven't heard about significant spills from any of them--including the one(s) that already crosses the aquifer in the plains.

 

The original proposal for Keystone XL was submitted in 2008; including environmental impact studies, economic impact studies, etc. It's now 2012. Even if you assume the least amount of time for review, we're talking over two years since the proposal (with all accompanying documentation) was submitted.

 

The republicans sent a bill to Obama saying that building the Keystone XL pipeline was of "national interest" and to fast-track the approval. Obama turned this down.

 

Obama was wrong.

[cal50]

I agree, however there are several pipelines that span the U.S. You haven't heard about significant spills from any of them--including the one(s) that already crosses the aquifer in the plains.

 

The original proposal for Keystone XL was submitted in 2008; including environmental impact studies, economic impact studies, etc. It's now 2012. Even if you assume the least amount of time for review, we're talking over two years since the proposal (with all accompanying documentation) was submitted.

 

The republicans sent a bill to Obama saying that building the Keystone XL pipeline was of "national interest" and to fast-track the approval. Obama turned this down.

 

Obama was wrong.

 

 

If Obama is good at anything its making the wrong decision or trying to place blame else ware.

 

The same environmental regulations are in effect even IF the project was approved. There was no issues with the states the pipeline was routed through but the block came from someone that resides several hundreds of miles away in Washington D.C. Obama did the chicken shit move trying to appeal to his green voter base and push a decision off after the elections. His main focus & goal is getting another term and some people are stupid enough to give him the chance.

Pure politics from a guy that blocks an oil line and jobs for his own agenda / benefit.

 

If it's a bigger food stamp line he is all in and has experience.

[xr7g428]

Dad, do you favor, or oppose the Keystone XL pipeline? Please provide the rationale for your position.

[RangerM]

He may well be wrong, but it's nothing more than cheap partisan rhetoric to not acknowledge that this was a election year decision done for political reasons. Hell, the decisions to delay the decision till 2013 was typical election year politics by Obama but you don't hear me acting like it wasn't.

It really doesn't concern me either way.

 

Republican or Democrat, political reasons or not. It doesn't matter.

 

What matters is the volatility of the price and (given Iran's recent actions/threats in the Strait of Hormuz) availability of oil. What matters is jobs (building the pipeline, maintaining the pipeline, refining the oil, etc.).

 

We can ill afford to intentionally undermine economic activity--especially for political reasons! That is not to say the environment doesn't matter, but even using your graph the worst spill (4.5 million gallons) is at most 130 (train) tanker cars. That is relatively small given the hazards involved. And in most cases, a significant portion (usually the majority) of the spill is contained and recovered.

 

I understand from the graph that accidents are going to happen. NO industry is without industrial accidents/spills/releases. But, for every accident/spill/release a lesson is learned and (hopefully) not repeated under the same circumstances.

 

I work in the environmental field as a consultant. You might be surprised how often failures happen. The vast majority of the time the malfunction is corrected and the S.O.P. is amended to prevent future occurrence.

Edited January 24, 2012 by RangerM

[fmccap]

If Obama is good at anything its making the wrong decision or trying to place blame else ware.

 

Maybe he did make the right decision, for "Buffett".

 

Buffett’s Burlington Northern Among Winners From Keystone Denial

[RangerM]

Maybe he did make the right decision, for "Buffett".

 

Buffett’s Burlington Northern Among Winners From Keystone Denial

The bad thing is there is probably more danger transporting the oil by railcar than by pipeline.

[xr7g428]

A simple yes or no would have been more understandable.

 

Reading through all of that, it looks like you would favor the pipeline, but only if it were politically expedient. And that is an answer... probably exactly in line with the Obama administration.

 

Timing is everything. Oil is trading high right now because of the boycott of Iranian oil by the EU, and Iran's threats to close the strait of Hormuz. At the pump this translates into about $0.30 to $0.40 a gallon. With US consumption running in the 360 million gallon per day range, that means that an extra $3.5 billion per month is going to pay for the inflated price caused by mostly political decisions. A extra $40 billion a year not spent on gasoline would sure go a long way to help our economy.

 

How many bad decisions can you stack on top of each other before we collapse again? To begin with the EU is still struggling with a major debt crisis. Europe is very close to slipping into another recession. Growth in China is declining at the same time. This does not set the stage for recovery in the US. Can we really afford to continue to do things that add to the burden?

[rn4]

A simple yes or no would have been more understandable.

 

Reading through all of that, it looks like you would favor the pipeline, but only if it were politically expedient. And that is an answer... probably exactly in line with the Obama administration.

 

Timing is everything. Oil is trading high right now because of the boycott of Iranian oil by the EU, and Iran's threats to close the strait of Hormuz. At the pump this translates into about $0.30 to $0.40 a gallon. With US consumption running in the 360 million gallon per day range, that means that an extra $3.5 billion per month is going to pay for the inflated price caused by mostly political decisions. A extra $40 billion a year not spent on gasoline would sure go a long way to help our economy.

 

How many bad decisions can you stack on top of each other before we collapse again? To begin with the EU is still struggling with a major debt crisis. Europe is very close to slipping into another recession. Growth in China is declining at the same time. This does not set the stage for recovery in the US. Can we really afford to continue to do things that add to the burden?

 

That pipeline does not guarentee any of that oil would go to the U.S. it will go on the open market, so how do you know it would have any effect on oil prices.

[Imawhosure]

A group of union workers who want to squash union jobs?

 

The bane of the planet as far as the use of evil oil, the ones who create the machines......autoworkers......discussing an oil pipeline with a straight face for or against?

 

I got a what if for you------------>what if Obama gets re-elected and has his way and gas goes to 6 bucks a gallon putting all of you out of work and the sub fund goes broke, the union is thrown out because it is now broke, and to keep your job, you must take a cut in pay to 12 bucks an hr? Will that be GW and the republicans fault too?

 

 

I bet someone here will say it is, lolol.

[Imawhosure]

Also, as far as Mr Caps assertion that I am in error calling Ron Paul an isolationist, using a strict sense of the term, he may very well be correct. The problem is------->I can't seem to find a proper term that is politically correct to identify what he should be called.

 

It was also asked of me if I thought our policys were part of the problem; or rather if we had caused some of our own problems.

 

The answer to that question is simple--------->as long as THE policys implementation was to protect our shores, protect our economic interests, or project our freedom based society throughout closed societys of the world; I don't give a damn if some crackpots in the middle east liked them or not. It appears to me that everytime some tin horn dictator in any country is overthrown, the people of that country grasp on to what we are doing, rather than asking another dictator to come back in to tell them how to live.

 

While this policy has had its ups and downs, as we can see most of the world has embraced the idea of freedom once they get to try it for a few minutes. It makes no difference if this outcome was reached by military action, (ask Germany and Iraq) politics or spending money, (ask the USSR) by economic carrots, (ask China) by dropping a few bombs here or there, (ask Libya) or by economic sanctions to starve them out.

 

It has not worked perfectly, but the policy of all of the above have worked hand and glove to make the world a much more free place to live, and it will continue, UNLESS RON PAUL IS ELECTED with his idiotic foreign policy ideas.

 

So what I am saying is------>I don't care what anyone else thinks anywhere else in the world. We have saved Frances bacon twice, saved Britain at least once, in fact helped.....free all of Europe. So, if they don't like what we do, let them save themselves the next time.......including their banks this time, etc. In fact, maybe Ron Paul should run on recinding the forgivness of war reperations and add interest, and I promise if we were paid, all our debt would disappear.

 

This is a mute debate anyway, since Ron Paul will be out of the race within 6 weeks; and if he sticks around, will be powerless except to run as an independent..........which the libs will love. Your guy can't get elected, so if you will be happy to make Obama President for 4 more years with him running as an independent, go ahead.

 

Let my final point be--------->Is an Americans life worth more than an Israelies? How about a Frenchmen? What about someone living in the UK? While we don't always agree...in fact, we usually disagree, lol.........we have one thing in common------------->when bad stuff happens because bad people start it, we band together for our own safety, and fix the problem.....then go back to disagreeing, lol. (if I missed your country, like Canada etc, forgive me, it was not an intended slight) Under Ron Paul, you guys, and the rest of the free world, can go pound sand when someones army comes knocking on your door. This means, under a Ron Paul Presidency, everything that has been accomplished through this century will be left to fate if it wants to be rolled back to a previous state. All wars that were fought, outcomes mean nothing now! No, we Americans are going to sit here in Indiana, California, Illinois, with our armies and point at the two oceans to stop them from coming here.

 

That is the very BRILLIANT DOCTOR PAULS PHILOSOPHY. I am here to tell ya, Obama is bad on economics, but the economy would quickly become a sidebar under Paul as world events, because of his own ridiculous policys, would surely consume a Paul Presidency, and leave this country clamoring for answers to new questions, that Ron Paul himself had created.

[fmccap]

The answer to that question is simple--------->as long as THE policys implementation was to protect our shores, protect our economic interests, or project our freedom based society throughout closed societys of the world;

How much of this applies to what you find acceptable reasons?

2000–2009

 

2000 – Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.[RL30172]

 

2000 – Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.[RL30172]

 

2000 – East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). [RL30172]

 

2001 – On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident.

 

2001 – War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."[RL30172]

 

2002 – Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.[RL30172]

 

2002 – Philippines. OEF-Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[RL30172]

 

2002 – Côte d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.[7]

 

[RL30172]

 

2003–2011 – War in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal being "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States."[RL30172]

 

2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War. On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 US Marines into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.[RL30172]

 

2003 – Georgia and Djibouti. "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[8]

 

2004 – Haiti. 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US sent first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.[RL30172]

 

2004 – War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[9]

 

2004–present: Drone attacks in Pakistan

 

2005–06 – Pakistan. President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to provide Humanitarian relief to far remote villages in the Kashmir mountain ranges of Pakistan stricken by a massive earthquake.

 

2006 – Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of US citizens willing to leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.[10][11]

 

2007 – Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[citation needed]

 

2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid,[12] helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.

 

[edit] 2010–Present

 

2010-11 War in Iraq. Operation New Dawn. On February 17, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that as of September 1, 2010, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" would be replaced by "Operation New Dawn". This coincides with the reduction of American troops to 50,000.

2011 - Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn. Coalition forces enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 with bombings of Libyan forces.

2011 - War on Terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is killed by U.S. military forces in Pakistan as part of Operation Neptune Spear.

2011 - Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia.[13] This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.

2011 - Nigeria. US Combat troops sent in as advisers to Nigeria.

2011 - Uganda. US Combat troops sent in as advisers to Uganda.

[fmccap]

It has not worked perfectly, but the policy of all of the above have worked hand and glove to make the world a much more free place to live, and it will continue, UNLESS RON PAUL IS ELECTED with his idiotic foreign policy ideas.

It will only continue until we go the way of the USSR. You need to face the fact that we are bankrupt and can't afford it anymore.

 

This is a mute debate anyway, since Ron Paul will be out of the race within 6 weeks; and if he sticks around, will be powerless except to run as an independent..........which the libs will love. Your guy can't get elected, so if you will be happy to make Obama President for 4 more years with him running as an independent, go ahead.

This is his last rodeo so I think he stays until the end. I don't think he runs 3rd party either. Out of the 2 front runners you will get another 4 years of BO anyway, I'll bet on it.

 

What One of the biggest Liberals has to say....Filmmaker Oliver Stone would vote for Ron Paul over Obama

[partsisparts]

For all you Ron Paul fans:

http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html